Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Do you know this for a fact? That there aren't for example higher concentrations of estrogen or other hormones in menstrual blood? I would like to read some expert citations one way or another.

Blood constantly flows around the body. Hormones are signals which are placed into the blood by certain organs, but which travel around the entire circulatory system in order to communicate with the endocrine system and the brain. If you draw blood from a woman's uterus area and her arm at the same point in time, it will contain the same levels of all hormones (and everything else bar glucose levels and oxygenation levels)

 

[acbytesla]

She wrote a book in which she addresses 530.2 and says it is akin to "not proven". She was educated in Italy. She teaches at U of Bath. I have more faith in her knowledge than any poster or group of posters here.

She teaches a final-year option ‘Political Terrorism and its Legacy in Italy' and contributes to the Italian Politics and Society courses. She also contributes to a postgraduate unit, Memory Cultures-memory Politics.

Isn't that akin to "not guilty"? I believe many people can't prove their whereabouts on November 1st 2007 from 9 to 12. So are they innocent or not guilty ?

Yes, it's true. The prosecution did not prove the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But that is true about you Grinder and Toto and Nara me as well. Are we innocent? Or are we "not guilty"? It's the same thing with the exception you or I could be still charged with Meredith's murder.

 

[acbytesla]

Blood constantly flows around the body. Hormones are signals which are placed into the blood by certain organs, but which travel around the entire circulatory system in order to communicate with the endocrine system and the brain. If you draw blood from a woman's uterus area and her arm at the same point in time, it will contain the same levels of all hormones (and everything else bar glucose levels and oxygenation levels)

It makes sense. But I'd still like to read a citation. I'm a skeptic...remember.

 

[LondonJohn]

It makes sense. But I'd still like to read a citation. I'm a skeptic...remember.

Well it's not subject to academic research because it's already a given at a research level.

But here, for example, is a school-level educational resource:

http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/hormon.html

... which states that hormones are transported in the blood, are transported to all parts of the body through blood circulation, and are gradually eliminated from the blood and then from the body in urine.

 

[Planigale]

Do you know this for a fact? That there aren't for example higher concentrations of estrogen or other hormones in menstrual blood? I would like to read some expert citations one way or another.

Actually pretty easy depending on the circumstances. One way if fairly fresh is just to look under a microscope for endometrial cells. The squiggly bits are actually endometrium not clots (although some people with abnormally heavy periods can have real clots). The blood component - variable but usually about 1 to 2 thirds by volume is just blood and will test as blood. There are additional chemicals from the vaginal fluids that can be tested for. A washed stain like in the bidet would be hard to definitively exclude as being menstrual fluid as it seemed to contain no solid content. I am also not sure how good Steffanoni's microscopy skills were given her error over the starch grains.
There are a variety of chemical tests for vaginal secretions and a fibrinolytic product immunoassay (D dimer) that will identify menstrual blood.But to do these Steffanoni would have needed a separate swab which she did not take (at least when videoed). I also am uncertain how reliable in this circumstance they would be to exclude as menstrual source conversely if positive then the result would be pretty certain; although given the location one might argue for contamination by vagina secretions.

 

[LondonJohn]

Isn't that akin to "not guilty"? I believe many people can't prove their whereabouts on November 1st 2007 from 9 to 12. So are they innocent or not guilty ?

Yes, it's true. The prosecution did not prove the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But that is true about you Grinder and Toto and Nara me as well. Are we innocent? Or are we "not guilty"? It's the same thing with the exception you or I could be still charged with Meredith's murder.

Well, when one is using the term "not proven", I would say it's a given that one is looking specifically and exclusively at the tiny number of jurisdictions such as Scotland which use "not guilty" and "not proven" as two separate legal forms of acquittal. And notwithstanding the obvious fact that the distinction is in practice meaningless, opaque and indefinable, the perception at least is that a "not proven" verdict means that the court thinks the defendant committed the crime, but that there's just not enough evidence to prove guilt to the BARD standard.

So I suppose one workable definition of the difference would be that all acquittals where a "balance of probabilities" standard would result in a guilty verdict, but where the BARD standard is not met, qualify as "not proven". And all acquittals where the "balance of probabilities" standard is not met (as well as BARD of course not being met) qualify as "not guilty".

And if one accepts this as a working definition of "not proven" (and the way it differs from "not guilty"), then it's axiomatically clear that 530.2 DOES NOT equate to "not proven". One can be acquitted on 530.2 where there is not one single piece of evidence of guilt - in other words the "balance of probabilities" standard would be a million miles from being met. And in other words, it's entirely possible (and indeed probable) for a large number of 530.2 verdicts to equate to "not guilty" as opposed to "not proven" under the above definition/delineation. Of course, 530.2 also would encapsulate all "not proven" verdicts, but that's not the important point here.

The important point is that 530.2 clearly also encapsulates the majority of "not guilty"-equivalent verdicts under the above definition/distinction of "not guilty" vs "not proven" - in fact, 530.2 encompasses all "not guilty" verdicts except for those occasions where the defendant can prove factual innocence (very rare) or where the court deems no crime took place at all (e.g. rape charges where a court rules that the sex was consensual - also comparatively rare).

 

[Annella]

I keep Googling with different search terms for Forensic tests determining whether blood is the result of menstruation and cannot find almost anything. What does seem true is that it may be higher in DNA than regular blood as the uterine lining is shed as well.

Maybe someone knows more definitively and can share?

Looks like there are some new techniques available now>>>.

As DNA profiling evidence becomes more sensitive, it is even more important to be able to provide information to the investigator about the cellular origin of the DNA. Presumptive tests have limitations regarding the cell types that can be assessed and in their specificity and sensitivity. Recently, new RNA profiling multiplexes have been developed that are able to distinguish between blood, vaginal mucosa, semen, menstrual secretion, skin and saliva. Because RNA can be co-extracted with DNA no additional consumption of precious stain sample is required for the identification of the biological sample. The purpose of this package will be to evaluate the robustness of existing markers; to develop new tests to identify additional markers for other body tissues utilising both mRNA and micro RNA markers. Epigenetic (methylation) markers will be explored as an adjunct.

http://www.euroforgen.eu/the-project/wp03-exemplar-research-projects/

 

[Grinder]

Quote the relevant parts of the book then, as a starter.......


And I repeat: she is not an expert in Italian law. As for your appeals to authority on her qualifications, well.... for example, David Starkey is an expert in English history and English political history, he was brought up in England, and he teaches at many prestigious universities. But does that somehow automatically make Starkey and expert on, say, the E&W Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or the E&W Sentencing Council guidelines? No. It does not.

Whereas a real expert in Italian law )who has been referenced here often) states clearly what 530.1 and 530.2 are, and exactly how and why they are anachronisms that don't fit into the current Italian legislative and constitutional landscape. But you choose to ignore those proper experts for some reason....

You are not an expert in Italian law. The expert you refer to above AFAIK says the law should be changed, not that it is meaningless or isn't akin to "not proven". I doubt he says they don't fit into the current Italian legislative and constitutional landscape or they would just change the law. There is no doubt some if not many people involved in the law in Italy think 530.1,.2,.3,.4 should be eliminated. Of course, using their opinions isn't an appeal to authority.

Here is Vixen's post with the quote - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11182025#post11182025

I would put more faith in David Starkey on the meaning of "not proven" than some anonymous Italian poster who doesn't speak English on some discussion board. I have never claimed she was legal authority. Someone educated to the real doctorate level in Italy that has specialized in politics and cultural issues probably has a better understanding of what 530.2 means than anyone here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Looks like there are some new techniques available now>>>.



http://www.euroforgen.eu/the-project/wp03-exemplar-research-projects/

No, the question was one of whether blood itself could be determined to be menstrual blood (as opposed to, say, blood from a cut on the arm). And the answer to that question is, and remains, no. But when a woman menstruates, she passes a liquid out of her body that contains more than blood - it also contains cervical lining tissue, the ovum, vaginal mucus, and other non-blood components. And it's possible to test for these other components of menstrual fluid and determine that it is indeed menstrual fluid. So, to that extent, one can then also say that the blood component of this fluid is menstrual blood.

But one cannot look at a sample of blood (and only blood) and determine that it came from menstrual discharge.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are not an expert in Italian law. The expert you refer to above AFAIK says the law should be changed, not that it is meaningless or isn't akin to "not proven". I doubt he says they don't fit into the current Italian legislative and constitutional landscape or they would just change the law. There is no doubt some if not many people involved in the law in Italy think 530.1,.2,.3,.4 should be eliminated. Of course, using their opinions isn't an appeal to authority.

Here is Vixen's post with the quote - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11182025#post11182025

I would put more faith in David Starkey on the meaning of "not proven" than some anonymous Italian poster who doesn't speak English on some discussion board. I have never claimed she was legal authority. Someone educated to the real doctorate level in Italy that has specialized in politics and cultural issues probably has a better understanding of what 530.2 means than anyone here.

Christ. You're wrong. Still. Whatever.

 

[LondonJohn]

But just to make things simpler, here's a little workable example just to illustrate the point as clearly as possible:


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not proven".


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 to acquit man.


So far so good for the "530.2 = "not proven"" crowd


BUT


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not guilty"


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 to acquit man.


WOOPS! We appear to have a Scottish "not guilty" verdict which corresponds with a "530.2" Italian verdict!

What now.......?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am the bearer of great news! ( sorry to interrupt your flow Vixen)

The motivation report re the police slander charge has been released and the article link and translation below, explains enough that we can see it must be painful reading for all concerned in Perugia.

https://goo.gl/8Hbgmc

That is great news.

 

[Grinder]

Christ. You're wrong. Still. Whatever.

Okay if you'd trust the Italian non-English speaker on the discussion board over Starkey; go for it.

 

[acbytesla]

That is great news.

Nice to see you back Rose. Yes it is.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is great news.

Good to see you Rose!

And yes, let's hope it's the start of the long-overdue correction process to get rid of Knox's totally unjust criminal slander conviction, and maybe (just maybe) lead to accountability and corrective action being applied to the most egregious miscreants in this sad process.......

 

[Grinder]

But just to make things simpler, here's a little workable example just to illustrate the point as clearly as possible:


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not proven".


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 to acquit man.


So far so good for the "530.2 = "not proven"" crowd


BUT


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not guilty"


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 530.1 to acquit man.


WOOPS! We appear to have a Scottish "not guilty" verdict which corresponds with a "530.2" Italian verdict!

What now.......?

FIFY -

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay if you'd trust the Italian non-English speaker on the discussion board over Starkey; go for it.

I certainly wouldn't automatically trust Starkey, no. And it would depend on how much understanding the "Italian non-English speaker on the discussion board" had about the minutiae of English laws and codes of criminal procedure.

I'd also read what actual suitably-qualified English legal experts were writing on the matter, and I'd certainly be more inclined to take their opinion over Starkey's. If it happened to correspond with the opinion of the "Italian non-English speaker on the discussion board", then so much the better.

You, on the other hand, are (in a very poor-thinking way) apparently automatically defaulting to a certain position based primarily on country of residence and native language, and expertise in other subjects. Interesting.....

 

[Planigale]

No, the question was one of whether blood itself could be determined to be menstrual blood (as opposed to, say, blood from a cut on the arm). And the answer to that question is, and remains, no. But when a woman menstruates, she passes a liquid out of her body that contains more than blood - it also contains cervical lining tissue, the ovum, vaginal mucus, and other non-blood components. And it's possible to test for these other components of menstrual fluid and determine that it is indeed menstrual fluid. So, to that extent, one can then also say that the blood component of this fluid is menstrual blood.

But one cannot look at a sample of blood (and only blood) and determine that it came from menstrual discharge.

There is no doubt that if there is a blood stain (say Luminol positive, TMB positive and immunoassay positive) on a sheet or knickers and it is reasonably fresh (hours to days) then one can with reasonable certainty attribute to menses by looking for endometrial cells, testing for amylases from vaginal fluids, and testing for fibrinolytic products that would not be present in a 'normal' blood stain. There are more modern methods not then available to Steffanoni.

Could she have tested? Yes.
Did she? I do not know.

If the test was positive then the attribution to menses would be reasonable. I am not sure how certain a negative attribution would be. This would very much depend on the particular test and the quality of the sample.

 

[LondonJohn]

FIFY -

Ah now we reach the nub of the matter!

If you are thinking that the second Italian example should be acquitted under 530.1, then there's our problem right there in a nutshell, and it would explain your confusion.

The defendant in that example CATEGORICALLY SHOULD NOT, INDEED CANNOT, be acquitted under 530.1. This is the whole point. 530.1 is only for those who can PROVE their innocence, or for those where the courts determine that no crime even took place.

And this is the entire point here. The second Italian example is a clear (and exclusively) 530.2 acquittal. And it's equivalent to a Scottish "not guilty". This is precisely how and why one cannot say that 530.2 equates to "not guilty".

 

[Grinder]

Ah now we reach the nub of the matter!

If you are thinking that the second Italian example should be acquitted under 530.1, then there's our problem right there in a nutshell, and it would explain your my confusion.

FIFY

The defendant in that example CATEGORICALLY SHOULD NOT, INDEED CANNOT, be acquitted under 530.1. This is the whole point. 530.1 is only for those who can PROVE their innocence, or for those where the courts determine that no crime even took place.

And this is the entire point here. The second Italian example is a clear (and exclusively) 530.2 acquittal. And it's equivalent to a Scottish "not guilty". This is precisely how and why one cannot say that 530.2 equates to "not guilty".

FIFY - you have no idea. You were wrong a year ago when you said it must be a paragraph one acquittal and you are wrong now. The law in no way states that the defendant must prove innocence. You keep saying it but no one else. The defense lawyers were saying it was a one at the very first. Maresca to your mocking IIRC said it was a two.

Hellmann didn't use 530 at all. he referred to it but the verdict was under another code.

Though I don't pretend to be an Italian legal expert my guess is that 530.1 would mostly be used at courts of the first instance when the prosecution case is without merit. Perhaps equivalent to summary judgment here when the defense moves for acquittal before presenting a defense. Those are given when if all the prosecution presented is accepted as true there still isn't enough to prove the crime existed or that the defendant had anything to do with it.

You have repeated the "must prove innocence" line since dropping your certainty that it was a para 1, but I have never seen even a lowly professor of Italian history and culture make that claim. Maybe I missed one of the Italian legal experts make that statement.