The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[LondonJohn]

(didn't commit the act)

Not to mention the ongoing mendacious attempts among certain pro-guilt commentators to suggest that a) the forms of acquittal somehow meant that Knox and Sollecito were not actually "fully" acquitted or "fully" considered innocent (which they were and they are); and/or b) the forms of acquittal somehow meant that the courts concluded that Knox/Sollecito were somehow "probably" guilty, but "not quite".

It bears repeating, very loudly, that in effect every single acquittal in Italy where a) the accused cannot factually PROVE his/her innocence to the court, or b) the court deems that no crime was ever committed in the first place, will result in the (arcane and obsolete-in-law) form of acquittal on the grounds of "insufficient evidence". And that in that context, "insufficient evidence" ranges from zero (credible, reliable) evidence of guilt, right up to evidence just falling short of that required to prove guilt BARD.

So it also bears repeating, loudly, once again, that:

ONCE KNOX AND SOLLECITO COULD NOT PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE*, AND ONCE IT WAS DEEMED THAT A CRIME (MURDER) ACTUALLY WAS COMMITTED, THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD/WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO BE ACQUITTED WAS VIA THE 530.2 (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE) ROUTE.


I still find it hard to figure out whether it's ignorance or knowing deception that is causing so many pro-guilt commentators to misunderstand/misinterpret/misrepresent this issue. I suspect it's probably something like 30% the former and 70% the latter.


* Obviously this was a troublesome and circular-referring issue in any case, since Knox and Sollecito effectively relied on each other for their alibi (a situation which could reasonably equally apply to every other couple across the world who decide to spend a quiet evening/night in alone without communicating with anyone else).

 

[Vixen]

(didn't commit the act)

That phrase does not appear in the Italian Penal Code Section 530 para 2.

 

[Vixen]

"Barry Scheck and Yusef Salaam Urge New York Lawmakers to Pass Recorded Interrogations Legislation

Innocence Project Co-Founder Barry Scheck and Yusef Salaam of the Central Park Five sat down with PIX11 News on Tuesday to discuss proposed reforms which intend to prevent wrongful convictions in New York.

The budget, which is currently before the state legislature, includes provisions which would require police to video record all custodial interrogations of suspects in major crimes and eyewitness identification best practices.

Salaam was wrongfully convicted of the notorious 1989 Central Park jogger rape case, along with Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise and Antron McCray after his codefendants falsely confessed to the crime after hours of interrogation by police. Their confessions were recorded, but the many hours of coercive interrogation that led up to the confession were not.

“When officers get in the room with suspects, we want to show juries everything that happens,” Salaam told PIX11 News. ...."

Source: https://www.innocenceproject.org/barry-scheck-yusef-salaam-tout-ny-reform-provisions/

The problem of coerced false confessions and statements is not confined to Italy. Vixen falsely claims the Innocence Project and its lawyers, such as Barry Scheck, engage in "innocence fraud" for financial gain. The truth is that the Innocent Project lawyers work pro bono to assist the wrongfully convicted and a major part of the Innocence Project effort is working to achieve reform of police and judicial procedures to prevent future wrongful convictions.

Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim.

 

[LondonJohn]

Steffanoni specifically testified that the source of the DNA cannot be known. Can you provide any testimony contrary from Garofano? Remember he retired before DNA techniques came into use so would have had no experience in using them and certainly could not be regarded as experienced as Steffanoni.

With very deep irony, for all the pro-guilt talk of defence-leaning scientists being somehow either nobbled or shills (notwithstanding the gigantic, global-reaching conspiracy this would necessarily entail......), Garofano (or should that be "Garofano (_sp?)".....?) appears to have proffered his opinion on something he clearly knows little or nothing about, presumably in return for money or other non-financial benefit.

Funny old world, huh.........?

 

[Vixen]

As in "acquit
VERB
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty:
"she was acquitted on all counts" · [More]
synonyms: absolve · clear · exonerate · exculpate "?

There are one hundred and one different reasons for acquittal. One size does not fit all.

You need to read the judgment.

It does not use the words, 'clear', 'absolve' or 'exonerate'. The word innocent does not appear anywhere.

The words that do appear are: 'Not guilty due to insufficent evidence.' (qualified). Not a bog standard Paragraph One, 'Not Guilty'.

 

[Vixen]

Steffanoni specifically testified that the source of the DNA cannot be known. Can you provide any testimony contrary from Garofano? Remember he retired before DNA techniques came into use so would have had no experience in using them and certainly could not be regarded as experienced as Steffanoni.

Darkness Descending. He was Head of Forensics.

 

[Planigale]

With very deep irony, for all the pro-guilt talk of defence-leaning scientists being somehow either nobbled or shills (notwithstanding the gigantic, global-reaching conspiracy this would necessarily entail......), Garofano (or should that be "Garofano (_sp?)".....?) appears to have proffered his opinion on something he clearly knows little or nothing about, presumably in return for money or other non-financial benefit.

Funny old world, huh.........?

Yes I like the irony of pointing out that Steffanoni is the expert on this occasion. As some may remember, I have some admiration for her, a female scientist in a rather misogynistic society succeeding. I am more critical of her bosses than her who put her in a no win situation and failed to ensure standards such as good record keeping. The men who were running the lab evaded responsibility and left her to be denigrated.

 

[Vixen]

Yes I like the irony of pointing out that Steffanoni is the expert on this occasion. As some may remember, I have some admiration for her, a female scientist in a rather misogynistic society succeeding. I am more critical of her bosses than her who put her in a no win situation and failed to ensure standards such as good record keeping. The men who were running the lab evaded responsibility and left her to be denigrated.

That is rather presuming there was anything wrong with the labs or the standards.

Citation please of where Stefanoni was disciplined in respect of your serious allegations.

(How sweet of LoJo not to correct your spelling.)

 

[Planigale]

Darkness Descending. He was Head of Forensics.

Was is the operative word. He had resigned / been fired by the time this case came to court. He would have never dealt with DNA when in forensics. He was not a scientist like Steffanoni. His comments are nonsense, even Steffanoni disagrees with him. Let alone every other scientist. Find one scientist who says that the heights of the peaks on typing can identify the source of the DNA.

 

[Planigale]

That is rather presuming there was anything wrong with the labs or the standards.

Citation please of where Stefanoni was disciplined in respect of your serious allegations.

(How sweet of LoJo not to correct your spelling.)

As I said I think the principle fault was that of the head of the laboratory. Sadly failure to discipline someone is in no way proof that malpractice had not occurred.

 

[Vixen]

As I said I think the principle fault was that of the head of the laboratory. Sadly failure to discipline someone is in no way proof that malpractice had not occurred.

There was no malpractice by Stefanoni. It's rather unkind to make a claim you cannot substantiate.


There is however proven malpractice and gross negligence found against Vecchiotti, and she and her partner were roundly criticised by the Chieffi Supreme Court.


Any particular reason you keep very quiet about this?


Or could we be forgiven in concluding you are biased, but have failed to declare it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Was is the operative word. He had resigned / been fired by the time this case came to court. He would have never dealt with DNA when in forensics. He was not a scientist like Steffanoni. His comments are nonsense, even Steffanoni disagrees with him. Let alone very other scientist. Find one scientist who says that the heights of the peaks on typing can identify the source of the DNA.

The problem is though, P, that I don't think there's ONE SINGLE* pro-guilt internet commentator who comes anywhere even remotely close to understanding the forensic science (and wider scientific) issues that were so critical to this case, so they can allow themselves to think along the lines of "Oh, well, the pro-acquittal zealots are only criticising the forensic science work in this case so vociferously because they are blindly partisan to the pro-acquittal position". They are incapable of understanding or recognising the scientific truths in this case, so they tar everyone else with their own brush of illiteracy and ignorance, and thus preserve the belief in their own science fairy tales to support the pro-guilt mantra.


* Or if there is/was one or more pro-guilt commentators who truly did understand all the science with high literacy and assimilation levels, he/she/they are then guilty of intentionally having refrained from speaking up on the matter, in order not to damage the pro-guilt position......

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said I think the principle fault was that of the head of the laboratory. Sadly failure to discipline someone is in no way proof that malpractice had not occurred.

And that's "London John", not "LoJo".

 

[TruthCalls]

Steffanoni specifically testified that the source of the DNA cannot be known. Can you provide any testimony contrary from Garofano? Remember he retired before DNA techniques came into use so would have had no experience in using them and certainly could not be regarded as experienced as Steffanoni.

Vixen is emboldened by what she reads at TJMK, PMF and TMoMK, but they are all just propaganda sites not looking to make rational arguments, backed by real science and can never cite more than 1 or 2 experts for the Prosecution. Vixen makes no effort to research and confirm things on her own.

The blood samples swabbed from the sink were very much diluted. If Amanda had spit following rinsing her teeth and some of that spit lands on the sink in the general location of where Meredith's diluted blood will later be dripped, and when the SP swab large areas at one time rather than a precise spot where the blood sample was found then the results the SP got is entirely understandable and doesn't in the slightest suggest Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AMANDA WASHING MEREDITH'S BLOOD FROM HER HANDS.

Either Vixen knows this but refuses to admit it or she's more hoodwinked than I thought and doesn't know how to go figure this out on her own.

 

[toto]

That phrase does not appear in the Italian Penal Code Section 530 para 2.

It is in the initial document released on the day AK and RS were found not guilty and appears in the motivations report. (As you know).

 

[Bill Williams]

You cheated there; you used Amanda's translation.


The actual translation is:



The Italian for 'exonerated' is 'l'esonero'.


Show us where in Boninsegna it says 'l'esonero'.

Speaking of "Hoots"...... you're quoting the wrong court!!

Boninsegna said "absolved". Deal with it.

 

[Vixen]

It is in the initial document released on the day AK and RS were found not guilty and appears in the motivations report. (As you know).

That is just part of the template. (As you know.)

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said I think the principle fault was that of the head of the laboratory. Sadly failure to discipline someone is in no way proof that malpractice had not occurred.

I do, though, think that Stefanoni almost certainly shoulders a large dose of personal blame for her work in this case. Firstly, she was not only incompetent in her work at the crime scene (and her (laughable) "leading" of her team in that work....), she either could not or would not recognise how incompetent she'd been in that role (and how her and her team's gross incompetence so severely compromised the credibility and reliability of the evidence/"evidence" that was collected).

Secondly, in a similar way, she was not only incompetent in the way she analysed and interpreted the DNA in the lab (including gross misuse of the equipment, clear failure to observe critical protocols, shocking failure to maintain proper or adequate records, shocking failure to document control runs, shocking failure to preserve or make available the EDF source data), she also then failed to admit to these failures, nor to acknowledge how those failures might have significantly affected the outputs she presented to the court as a "scientist".

I recognise that she was very probably under pressure - both from her own internal managers, and from the PM and investigating police in this case - to generate "results". But her commitment to scientific objectivity, scientific precision, and scrupulous adherence to scientific principles, should have overridden any external pressures. I think she was a disgrace in this case.

 

[Stacyhs]

Where did Zellner get her $millions in revenues, then?

Ferguson was not 'exonerated', he had his conviction vacated, because one of the witnesses at the original trial was pressurised to withdrew their statement. Ferguson's co-defendant confessed to their committing the crime. A juror who was present for the full trial and saw and heard all of the evidence, remains 100% certain of his guilt.

When you say she does it all 'pro bono', I suspect a massive porky pie. All US attorneys are obliged to do 50 hour pa pro bono, but I doubt Zellner does it for any other reason than to line her own pockets.

Fair enough, but not if it robs the families of the victims of crime of justice.

Oh, for crying out loud, Vixen. Do you think she ONLY does pro bono work? Of course not.

Please point out to me where I said, or even implied, she "does it all 'pro bono'"

Obliged means required, aspired means wished, wanted, worked toward and is voluntary. Sheesh.


Exactly where did I say Ferguson was "exonerated"? I didn't. As for the juror, some people still think people lived at the same time as dinosaurs and that there is no global warming. You can't cure stupid.

Speaking of massive porky pies, US attorneys are not "obliged" to do 50 hours of pro bono work.

"The ABA describes the parameters of pro bono for practicing lawyers in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.* Model Rule 6.1 states that lawyers should aspire to render--without fee--at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year, with an emphasis that these services be provided to people of limited means or nonprofit organizations that serve the poor. The rule recognizes that only lawyers have the special skills and knowledge needed to secure access to justice for low-income people, whose enormous unmet legal needs are well documented. Nearly every state has an ethical rule that calls upon lawyers to render pro bono services." (American Bar Association)

The last line of the above paragraph means that most states follow ABA Model rule 6.1 which encourages pro bono work but does not REQUIRE it.

 

[Planigale]

I do, though, think that Stefanoni almost certainly shoulders a large dose of personal blame for her work in this case. Firstly, she was not only incompetent in her work at the crime scene (and her (laughable) "leading" of her team in that work....), she either could not or would not recognise how incompetent she'd been in that role (and how her and her team's gross incompetence so severely compromised the credibility and reliability of the evidence/"evidence" that was collected).

Secondly, in a similar way, she was not only incompetent in the way she analysed and interpreted the DNA in the lab (including gross misuse of the equipment, clear failure to observe critical protocols, shocking failure to maintain proper or adequate records, shocking failure to document control runs, shocking failure to preserve or make available the EDF source data), she also then failed to admit to these failures, nor to acknowledge how those failures might have significantly affected the outputs she presented to the court as a "scientist".

I recognise that she was very probably under pressure - both from her own internal managers, and from the PM and investigating police in this case - to generate "results". But her commitment to scientific objectivity, scientific precision, and scrupulous adherence to scientific principles, should have overridden any external pressures. I think she was a disgrace in this case.

Yes. I think she was clearly not trained to investigate a crime scene. She was a laboratory scientist, not a 'field agent'. But her boss should never have allowed her to be put in this position. My guess is he agreed to her doing the second visit, because he thought the scene had been assessed six weeks before so she could not get in to any trouble.

Yes she had responsibility for her own work, but she had relatively recently moved in from academia, and the director of the lab was responsible for ensuring protocols were in place and followed and good records kept. I also suspect that any decision about the release of the raw data was taken by him and not Steffanoni. I understand that she is the face of the the forensic service in this case, but I think the blame for the faults in the service lie at a higher level.