Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

That's a sweeping generalisation, and as such is a logical fallacy.

I wonder if you have any idea what a fallacy is?

Why is it that you always fail in addressing the substance of this argument? Seriously, why is OK for you, the police, the prosecutors the forensic techs etc. to be incorrect, to falsely remember, misrepresent and to be wrong but if Amanda remembers something incorrectly to you it must be a lie?

Why the hypocrisy?

 

[Vixen]

But it is their remit to examine whether the acceptance into court of the evidence is legal or not. Evidence collected outside of the bounds of scientifically acceptable practice and then used to sustain a guilty verdict is a legal issue. It is simply unlawful to do this.

Any court which accepts into evidence that which is not evidence acts outside of the bounds of law.

There is absolutely no evidence the evidence was collected outside of the bounds of scientifically acceptable practice.

This was something Bruno-Marasca made up off the tops of their heads.

 

[Mike1711]

A judge will usually have a fair idea why the jury reached its decision, because he or she will have firmly directed them in the first place.

Money you owe someone is a liability.

The Italians also invented double-entry, something else to blame them for.

Come on now. Keep it clean.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good heavens

...and now we have the jury as the Judges' pawns. So who needs the jury if they are firmly directed.

I will say it again

Not to mention the fact that a good handful of convictions have been successfully challenged on the grounds of misdirection by the trial judge.

Vixen doesn't know what she is talking about. It's becoming a worrisome regularity.

 

[Vixen]

It brings to mind a certain tongue-in-cheek idiom, which sums up this fallacy rather well:

"If my auntie had testicles, she'd be my uncle"

What Marasca was saying was that HAD the investigation been done properly and professionally, then there MIGHT (theoretically) have been the means to prove the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito - if they had indeed participated.

But likewise, had the investigation been done properly and professionally, they it might have been possible to prove that Guede acted alone. Or it might have been possible to prove that Guede acted in concert with a particular Italian drug-dealing associate of his. And so on. And so on.

The investigation was so horribly botched that it was only possible to come to one safe conclusion: that Guede definitely participated in the murder. And thanks predominantly to the gross incompetence and jaw-dropping errors/omissions/negligence by police and prosecutors, it will forever be impossible to know with either judicial or factual certainty (short of a full, reliable confession by Guede to being the sole killer) exactly who else might or might not have been involved.

But this much is true and will forever be true: there's no evidence whatsoever (i.e. reliable, credible evidence) that Knox or Sollecito ever participated in the Kercher murder. And since at the same time 1) there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Guede's involvement in the murder; 2) all the evidence (i.e. reliable, credible evidence) is entirely compatible with Guede acting alone; and 3) this sort of crime (sole male burglar is confronted unexpectedly by female home dweller, burglar - in mixture of panic, fear, heightened adrenaline, urges to control, and sexual & sexual violence impulses - attacks, sexually assaults and kills female) is comparatively far more common than pretty much any other group-attacker scenario; it's reasonable IMO to arrive at a working conclusion that this horrific crime was committed by Guede, acting alone.

There were some errors, but they were hardly fatal. DNA lying on an item will still be there years later, albeit, possibly deteriorated in quality. It's a red herring to imagine the DNA arrived out of nowhere during the time the room was sealed off by the police before they collected various items, including the sweater which Bruno-Marasca state is firm evidence.

Go figure.

 

[Mike1711]

There is absolutely no evidence the evidence was collected outside of the bounds of scientifically acceptable practice.

This was something Bruno-Marasca made up off the tops of their heads.

Yeah, right.

"Let's kick this little thing around the room for a bit. Leave it to collect DNA filled dust for 46 days, then hand it to each other with dirty gloves. ...and then we will take it to one of the most scrupulously clean laborarory environments known to man for testing. Dunno why they keep the lab so clean?"

Do you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Come on now. Keep it clean.

Italians also invented proto-military fascist dictatorships. So it's not all great news for Italy.

And relevantly to this trial, the sad and ugly vestiges of that nasty, brutal fascist regime had a direct effect on the judicial fiasco that constituted the Knox/Sollecito trials. I hope the Italian state has done lovely double-entry accounting for such things as Mignini's disgusting animation, and the large sums of money that they are going to be paying Sollecito, and, in time, Knox........

 

[LondonJohn]

There were some errors, but they were hardly fatal. DNA lying on an item will still be there years later, albeit, possibly deteriorated in quality. It's a red herring to imagine the DNA arrived out of nowhere during the time the room was sealed off by the police before they collected various items, including the sweater which Bruno-Marasca state is firm evidence.

Go figure.

Well, one can start with these interesting words. Please expand.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder if you have any idea what a fallacy is?

Why is it that you always fail in addressing the substance of this argument? Seriously, why is OK for you, the police, the prosecutors the forensic techs etc. to be incorrect, to falsely remember, misrepresent and to be wrong but if Amanda remembers something incorrectly to you it must be a lie?

Why the hypocrisy?

If I were to say to you, answer this question: "Why are all innoscenti raging liars?" and it's not a logical fallacy in your view, then perhaps you can provide a model answer for me to draft my reply to Welshman by.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, right.

"Let's kick this little thing around the room for a bit. Leave it to collect DNA filled dust for 46 days, then hand it to each other with dirty gloves. ...and then we will take it to one of the most scrupulously clean laborarory environments known to man for testing. Dunno why they keep the lab so clean?"

Do you?

Mike, there's literally no hope of having any kind of rational debate on these sorts of issues if one is going to come up against those sorts of "there was absolutely nothing wrong with the physical forensic evidence in this case - Marasca etc made that all up" mantras. It's an insidious and anhydrous refusal to understand the scientific (and legal-forensic) principles behind all this......

 

[Mike1711]

There were some errors, but they were hardly fatal. DNA lying on an item will still be there years later, albeit, possibly deteriorated in quality. It's a red herring to imagine the DNA arrived out of nowhere during the time the room was sealed off by the police before they collected various items, including the sweater which Bruno-Marasca state is firm evidence.

Go figure.

Do you know that a good portion of household dust in the air contains dead cells carrying DNA?

For 46 days dust was allowed to settle on the bra clasp. That's 46 days worth of DNA collection.

 

[Vixen]

This may qualify as the most illogical, back-to-front piece of sheer ignorance and poor thinking that Vixen has ever exhibited on this thread. It has a fair bit of competition, mind, but this takes the award I think.....

The fact that anyone else probably would need to explain to Vixen just how ridiculous and arrantly jaundiced that statement is..... merely adds to the quality of thinking on display here. Maybe it would be a good idea for Vixen to take several minutes just to think through the statement very carefully and diligently. The flaws might just begin to reveal themselves. It's anhydrously wrong.

Not my view. Bruno-Marasca's. Thank you for confirming it to be completely illogical and absurd.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not my view. Bruno-Marasca's. Thank you for confirming it to be completely illogical and absurd.

Oh dear. Wrong again.

 

[Mike1711]

Mike, there's literally no hope of having any kind of rational debate on these sorts of issues if one is going to come up against those sorts of "there was absolutely nothing wrong with the physical forensic evidence in this case - Marasca etc made that all up" mantras. It's an insidious and anhydrous refusal to understand the scientific (and legal-forensic) principles behind all this......

I know. I'm a masochist.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, right.

"Let's kick this little thing around the room for a bit. Leave it to collect DNA filled dust for 46 days, then hand it to each other with dirty gloves. ...and then we will take it to one of the most scrupulously clean laborarory environments known to man for testing. Dunno why they keep the lab so clean?"

Do you?

The DNA of Hanratty and Richard III were matched many years after their deaths.

There was a case in the US of a young lad whose DNA was matched 14 years later to a fingerprint or something similar at a murder scene.

The idea DNA has to be collected by a sell by date is a hoax designed by defence lawyers to get their client off.

 

[acbytesla]

There is absolutely no evidence the evidence was collected outside of the bounds of scientifically acceptable practice.

This was something Bruno-Marasca made up off the tops of their heads.

Really? Hellman said the same thing and both got it from the Conti Vechiotti Report.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you know that a good portion of household dust in the air contains dead cells carrying DNA?

For 46 days dust was allowed to settle on the bra clasp. That's 46 days worth of DNA collection.

Oh it's way more even than that. The clasp had been swept up into a pile of detritus at some point during that 46 days. By people who'd come in to clear up the mess once the police had "finished their examination of the crime scene". Those cleaners etc were totally undocumented by the way, and nobody knows who they were, how many there were, or when they were there. In addition, the police had utterly failed to secure the premises, meaning that literally anyone could have literally strolled in through the unsecured front door had they so wanted, at any time of day or night on most of those intervening weeks.

By the time the police revisited the cottage and "found" the clasp, almost the entirety of Kercher's room had been turned upside down. The mattress was up against the wall on its side, clothes had been strewn everywhere by the police then picked up and disgracefully crammed into Kercher's suitcases (it's captured on video, and it's a really rather distressing watch). And the bra clasp was well over a metre away from the position in which it was found after the crime, having been swept up with dust, dried blood and all sorts of other crap from the floor into a nasty little pile that was then swept under the small rug in Kercher's room.

Basically, one couldn't get much more of a compromised situation than this.....

 

[acbytesla]

There were some errors, but they were hardly fatal. DNA lying on an item will still be there years later, albeit, possibly deteriorated in quality. It's a red herring to imagine the DNA arrived out of nowhere during the time the room was sealed off by the police before they collected various items, including the sweater which Bruno-Marasca state is firm evidence.

Go figure.

Why keep pretending that you have a clue about DNA?

 

[Vixen]

Do you know that a good portion of household dust in the air contains dead cells carrying DNA?

For 46 days dust was allowed to settle on the bra clasp. That's 46 days worth of DNA collection.

This was an extremely strong DNA profile of Raff, and not a partial fragment, as might be found in house dust. Scientific indisputable fact, accepted even by the defence.

 

[LondonJohn]

The DNA of Hanratty and Richard III were matched many years after their deaths.

There was a case in the US of a young lad whose DNA was matched 14 years later to a fingerprint or something similar at a murder scene.

The idea DNA has to be collected by a sell by date is a hoax designed by defence lawyers to get their client off.

Ignorance once again.

In all those cases (and every other similar case), they are dealing either with encapsulated (and thus preserved and provably uncontaminated) DNA in things like bones or teeth, or they are dealing with forensic evidence which was collected and processed straight after the crime or relevant event in the proper way, and which was then stored in sterile and anti-contamination conditions.

Totally, fundamentally different. Fail.