Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

There was no mixed blood unless the prosecution proves otherwise. It's the way law works.

Did the prosecution prove mixed blood?

No. Bill stated without qualification there was no mixed blood. Not that there was no mixed blood established by the prosecution.

Don't sweat it, Mike1711. Grinder is in "gotcha" mode this morning, winning is everything, even if something quite irrelevant to the case at hand needs to be brought up.

A dictionary war on the meaning of "gotcha" is next. You should have been around when I first used in situ here.... his reaction was the same. What I WILL give him is that he was right, there is no "period" after the "et", as in "et al." He got me on that one.

 

[sept79]

Bill how does one prove there was no mixed blood?

How does one prove that there was mixed blood?

 

[acbytesla]

What they are saying is that Massei and Nencini believed in guilt but they should have dismissed the case as para 2 not guilty because the evidence wasn't sufficient, was lacking and/or contradictory. Besides the choice of paras the wording of the MR makes clear as Cheli said it wasn't a clear statement of innocence.

M&B clearly stated two thing: The kids should not have been found guilty BARD and the ILE messed up the investigation.

Here's the thing Grinder. So what? Do you believe it is a signal saying that they think that Amanda and Raffaele are actually guilty despite their verdict? I don't think so. Would it have appeared more definitive if they had used paragraph 1? Yes. In actual effect? No.

I wonder the percentage of acquittals, paragraph 1 is used? My guess is not very often. That's a serious hitch slap to the other judges, not just to the investigators, whom this court didn't mind taking out to the wood shed.

Personally, I think you have to be stupid to suspect A&R in any way knowing the evidence. But you're far worse than stupid, you're morally bankrupt if you believe in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Mike1711]

We just had a case that went to court and the defendant was acquitted and found the equivalent of innocent. Basically he had struck a woman and stabbed a "hero". In the courtroom neutral witnesses came forward stating the woman had attacked the defendant, he walked away when attacked by the "hero" who slammed his head into a car until the guy stabbed him. It was a self defense (para 3) acquittal but was enough for him to be refunded his legal expenses.

I know this isn't a perfect example as it was a para3 in Italy but I can imagine a witness giving someone an alibi that the prosecution refused to believe but the court did and would declare a para 1 acquittal.

The fact that a para 1 would be difficult to get doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Go back and read the comments a year ago of the most adamant and expansive opponent to the para 2 meaning something.

I don't feel like arguing this one.

If you say so.

You can be boss today....even with your bad example.

 

[acbytesla]

It's called shorthand. When chatting I might refer to some types of bodily fluid as 'protein' and nobody at all has any problem in realising that this also encompasses the 101 other elements. In the same way you can refer to a foot when you are actually only referring to a metatarsel. But then you already knew that.

I didn't say I knew more, I was simply pointing out that their claim everybody is ignorant except them is presumptive.

You were the one who demanded to know my credentials for stating game theory is probability theory.

TOTAL NONSENSE and a TOTAL LIE. You said the "DNA was sticky being a protein"

You have no idea what your talking about and what's worse is you don't care.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't feel like arguing this one.

If you say so.

You can be boss today....even with your bad example.

I agree. Let's get along with Grinder for the rest of the day.

 

[Mike1711]

No. Bill stated without qualification there was no mixed blood. Not that there was no mixed blood established by the prosecution.

I am sure Bill was talking about..."in the context of the criminal case".

...and in the context of the criminal case there was no mixed blood.

 

[Mike1711]

TOTAL NONSENSE and a TOTAL LIE. You said the "DNA was sticky being a protein"

You have no idea what your talking about and what's worse is you don't care.

If I were unkind I'd call it pathological lying. Being of the kind type, I won't do that.

 

[Numbers]

....Some of my favorites were that it really wasn't a law but an oversight in the conversion to an adversarial system. Then there was para 1 can only be when the crime didn't occur.

....

Do you have a citation for a post on ISF maintaining that "it really wasn't a law"? Or, if this is from elsewhere, do you have a cite?

I would like to find out who might be stating that an article in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure is not an Italian procedural law.

Or is this "it really wasn't a law" an exaggeration or satirical statement you are making, which has no basis in reality?

 

[Vixen]

Thank you. I have long maintained this have been shouted down but of course without anything to back it but bluster.



It is humorous. Back a year ago the same characters were adamant it was a para 1 and then when it turned out to be a 2 they began a campaign to minimize the choice. Some of my favorites were that it really wasn't a law but an oversight in the conversion to an adversarial system. Then there was para 1 can only be when the crime didn't occur.

Does one of your books indicate if all acquittals, by custom, contain the words "did not commit the crime" even when only lacking of a BARD conviction?

You can read the entire thing here. (Or order a used copy for a couple of dollars.) Bull's looking at "judicial truth" versus "historical truth", against the context of political terrorism, so has a grip of how the Italian system works. Some of these trials last twelve years. What is it with Italy???

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ge&q=overturned on appeal Italy 530 1&f=false

 

[Numbers]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Italian-Neo...1458222988&sr=8-1&keywords=italian+neofascism

It's a 2012 reprint. Originally published 2007.

Interesting.
The title of the book is: Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation

If one looks at page 24, one can see that the author notes the Italian pattern of a first-instance court convicting, an appeal court acquitting, and then the CSC finalizing an acquittal, generally citing "insufficient evidence" (under CPP Art. 530.2[?]), for trials of some individuals (alleged or actual members or supporters of neofascist organizations) for alleged terrorist acts.

While I have only skimmed a few pages (from Vixen's kind cite of the google books cite), I note that the author, Anna Bull, calls the "insufficient evidence" verdicts equivalent to "not proven", states that such verdicts show that the judges doubted the lack of guilt* of the defendants, but indicates that the "insufficient evidence" verdicts have the same legal consequences as "real" not guilty verdicts.

Also noteworthy is that some (many?) of the trials too place before the reforms of 1988 and the "complete" conversion to the adversarial system by adoption of the current BARD standard in CPP Art. 533.1.

*Bull does not seem to subscribe to the "guilty only if guilt proven BARD" concept. This may be because prior to 2006, this standard was not the law in Italy, and the cases she reviews are pre-2006 (generally, from the 1970s, 1980s, with some going into the 1990s).

 

[Grinder]

There was no mixed blood unless the prosecution proves otherwise. It's the way law works.

Did the prosecution prove mixed blood?

No. Bill stated without qualification there was no mixed blood. Not that there was no mixed blood established by the prosecution.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Bill stated without qualification there was no mixed blood. Not that there was no mixed blood established by the prosecution.

Grinder - you win. Don't sweat it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am sure Bill was talking about..."in the context of the criminal case".

...and in the context of the criminal case there was no mixed blood.

On the contrary, Grinder wins this one. A reasonable person might believe that all comments on this thread are, "in the context of the criminal case", but I'm willing to give Grinder the benefit of the doubt here.

I recant. Of course Grinder is right. We "know" there was no mixed blood, in the same sense that we "know" there was no firearm involved in this crime.

Can anyone prove there was no firearm involved in this crime? No they can't.

Point Grinder.

 

[Diocletus]

So when you have a large sample of DNA, presumed as from blood, you can surmise whether the blood flow was light or profuse.

Sounds like you learned about DNA in some wanker Italian lab.

 

[Mike1711]

On the contrary, Grinder wins this one. A reasonable person might believe that all comments on this thread are, "in the context of the criminal case", but I'm willing to give Grinder the benefit of the doubt here.

I recant. Of course Grinder is right. We "know" there was no mixed blood, in the same sense that we "know" there was no firearm involved in this crime.

Can anyone prove there was no firearm involved in this crime? No they can't.

Point Grinder.

...but there were goblins.

 

[Planigale]

First of all, whoever dealt the fatal wound, would have been covered in a spurt of blood when they pulled the knife out. As Mez was on her knees and about 15cms from the floor, it certainly went over the killer's trousers and upper shoes (if wearing any), as no blood pool was found in front of the wardrobe on the carpet or upholstery, where detectives expected one.

Rudy says his jogging bottoms were soaked, but the biggest splodge of all is the one on the bathmat, which is highly compatible with Raff, and not at all with Amanda or Rudy.

I do not think one can really say that the smudge is more compatible with Sollecito or Guede. I do think that the prosecution measurements are verging on the corrupt, and that a true interpretation of their measurements excludes Sollecito (although since I disagree with their measurements I would not exclude Sollecito).

Only white blood cells are rich in DNA. Red blood cells are not nucleated so there is virtually no DNA in it. So when you have a large sample of DNA, presumed as from blood, you can surmise whether the blood flow was light or profuse. Stefanoni, extremely experienced in DNA testing, was able to assess Amanda must have been bleeding quite a lot for there to be so much.

This is the issue, you can presume as much as you want, but this is not evidence. I can presume the moon is made of green cheese. There is no way one can attribute trace DNA to a source. One can certainly not say whether one drop or one litre was lost. This is simply illogical nonsense. What we can say is that there was no visible blood at the site of the Luminol positive marks, so if there was blood it must have been so little as to be invisible. It had to be so little as to be undetectable by TMB. (We know that TMB will detect blood at a level that DNA is undetectable). There is a simple logical inconsistency; either there is so little blood that it is invisible and undetectable by TMB, or there is so much blood that it would be visible. Stefanoni may be experienced in DNA testing but her conclusions are fantasy.

The towels in the murder room could not be tested for DNA as they had already begun to go mouldy, rendering them untestable.

This demonstrates Steffanoni's lack of forensic experience. The towels should have been packaged in paper; allowed to dry preventing mould growth. Certainly they had not turned mouldy in the few hours between the murder and the discovery of the crime. But this is not primarily Steffanoni's fault. She was not head of the department, there should have been proper SOP in place on packaging evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

If I were unkind I'd call it pathological lying. Being of the kind type, I won't do that.

It's annoying as hell having a discussion with someone who makes things up as they go. It's one thing to repeat something you might have read and honestly believed was true. But that's not true with this particular poster. It's never a "good faith" discussion.

 

[Vixen]

TOTAL NONSENSE and a TOTAL LIE. You said the "DNA was sticky being a protein"

You have no idea what your talking about and what's worse is you don't care.

Blood is sticky. The stickiness is caused by red blood cells and plasma which is mostly protein (thousands of different proteins, together with electrolytes). (Platelets also help blood to coagulate, which is why if you are going to mix blood with another you need to do it whilst it is still wet.)

White blood cells secrete protein, which you need to remove as far as possible, when testing DNA. Once the DNA is isolated, it is a sticky blob.

So, my shorthand 'DNA - sticky - protein', sums up what we are faced with re blood samples. I accept that is not well-expressed semantically, but it hardly calls for nastiness.

But hey, you've written "your" when it should be "you're", so kettle, pot and black springs to mind.

 

[Numbers]

.... But this is not primarily Steffanoni's fault. She was not head of the department, there should have been proper SOP in place on packaging evidence.

Not to be too picky, but we don't know whether there were no proper SOPs in place or whether there were proper SOPs in place but Stefanoni chose not to follow them (or was not aware of them, for example, because she had not been properly trained in scene-of-crime forensic collection procedure).

It seems really odd that the Italian police sent the crime lab technician, Stefanoni, to collect evidence from the crime scene. Usually such collection is done by specially trained police in the US or UK. The lab people stay in the lab awaiting the specimens. (Except in TV programs and crime novels, where the lab people even get to be detectives - "CSI", "Bones" and Kathy Reichs' books.)