Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[lector]

Speaking of evidence submitted at the trial, does it bother anyone here on either side that Mignini used a handwriting analyst who he referenced in court? Maybe some are comfortable with fringe science being allowed in a courtroom. Personally I find the fact that this was even referenced pretty appalling. You can argue the forensics I suppose until the cows come home, it looks like no sides will agree on that. But handwriting analysis IS fringe science. It is not reliable or generally accepted. So the prosecution certainly admitted unreliable scientific evidence at least once.

Where & when did the handwriting analyst come in? Just curious, I've missed that point in nearly 3 months of reading stuff on this case.

 

[Kestrel]

Where & when did the handwriting analyst come in? Just curious, I've missed that point in nearly 3 months of reading stuff on this case.

According to Perugia Shock, Mignini brought it up toward the end of the trial.

Mignini yesterday also recalled the proof of Amanda's guilt: when the pictures of the crime scene were shown in court she couldn't watch.

Today he quoted an expert study made by a criminologist on the handwriting of Amanda and Raffaele, another document of scientific value. The study depicted Raffaele as a submissive personality. He makes himself available to others in order to gain their approval.

Amanda --according to the study, published by the usual local newspaper and done by a consultant for Rudi Guede-- is narcissist, manipulative, theatrical, has rage, impulsiveness, tendency to transgression and to dominate others, has no concern for others and lack of empathy.

This picture, for Mignini, is fully confirmed by the facts. In addiction to that, he personally was aware of Raffaele's coldness, who didn't show any emotion during the trial and could watch the pictures of the crime without any problem.

ETA: Since so many people believe in graphology, it's something we should expect in the tabloids and TV shows. (Here is an example from Italian TV).


That it showed up in the courtroom indicates the Italian justice system still believes in woo.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Where & when did the handwriting analyst come in? Just curious, I've missed that point in nearly 3 months of reading stuff on this case.

It mentions it here as well: http://abcnews.go.com/International...-suspect-italy-murder/story?id=9145147&page=2

Even more fitting that Mignini didn't even name the criminologist. That is one of the most prejudicial things I've ever heard.

Think about that.

Unnamed criminologist.

So in that court, not only could you make up evidence, you could also make up witnesses out of the blue. Interesting. Fiona made the point that Italy seems more fair to defendants, but you must mean procedurally before the actual trial, because this is just ludicrous on its face.

 

[HumanityBlues]

"If it doesn't fit ... you must acquit!"

(We don' need no steenkin' expert. )

To which Marcia Clark replied in her closing argument: "The glove doesn't fit, but you have to keep in mind that an unnamed criminologist who uses fringe science to analyze people's handwriting says he did it, so you must convict."

 

[quadraginta]

To which Marcia Clark replied in her closing argument: "The glove doesn't fit, but you have to keep in mind that an unnamed criminologist who uses fringe science to analyze people's handwriting says he did it, so you must convict."

I expect that many people wish she had (or something to that effect.)

 

[HumanityBlues]

I expect that many people wish she had (or something to that effect.)

Why? So the proceeding could end in an obvious mistrial and OJ would have gotten out anyway. In fact, he'd get out a few days sooner.

 

[quadraginta]

Why? So the proceeding could end in an obvious mistrial and OJ would have gotten out anyway. In fact, he'd get out a few days sooner.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your point here.

Perhaps a carefully selected smilie would have been helpful.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your point here.

Perhaps a carefully selected smilie would have been helpful.

Haha. Sorry. I'm actually just terrible with emoticons. Terrible at interpreting them and terrible at using them. The fault is on me.

 

[Kestrel]

It mentions it here as well: http://abcnews.go.com/International...-suspect-italy-murder/story?id=9145147&page=2

Even more fitting that Mignini didn't even name the criminologist. That is one of the most prejudicial things I've ever heard.

Think about that.

Unnamed criminologist.

So in that court, not only could you make up evidence, you could also make up witnesses out of the blue. Interesting. Fiona made the point that Italy seems more fair to defendants, but you must mean procedurally before the actual trial, because this is just ludicrous on its face.

The unnamed criminologist was almost certainly Vincenzo Mastronardi who worked as a consultant for Rudy Guede during his trial. Mastronardi and newspaper editor Giuseppe Castellini co-authored Meredith: Lights and Shadows in Perugia.

 

[stilicho]

But quite frankly, this is junk science and it does say something about the tribunal overseeing this case that garbage like this is even referenced in court. Do the police, Mignini and Comodi accept this garbage too? Stilcho, you better take back your thank you to them if that's the case

I thought the handwriting analysis was suspect, too. Truthfully, with the advent of personal computers and PDAs, I doubt a lot of people write or print any longer during their adult life. I know my own handwriting had degenerated considerably in the past decade.

Without any evidence to the contrary, I would suspect that handwriting analysis is simply a part of the checklist, like drug testing, some sort of psychological profile, and many other things that probably have little to do with detecting guilt or innocence. Frankly, I have read enough about polygraphs to make me wonder about their admissibility.

No, when I was handing out the thank yous, it was for the relentless pursuit of the actual evidence against the three and the professional conduct of the case management teams.

 

[quadraginta]

I thought the handwriting analysis was suspect, too. Truthfully, with the advent of personal computers and PDAs, I doubt a lot of people write or print any longer during their adult life. I know my own handwriting had degenerated considerably in the past decade.

Without any evidence to the contrary, I would suspect that handwriting analysis is simply a part of the checklist, like drug testing, some sort of psychological profile, and many other things that probably have little to do with detecting guilt or innocence. Frankly, I have read enough about polygraphs to make me wonder about their admissibility.

No, when I was handing out the thank yous, it was for the relentless pursuit of the actual evidence against the three and the professional conduct of the case management teams.

I would hope not, I'm willing to concede some forensic relevance to handwriting analysis in pursuit of identification, i.e. handwriting comparison (maybe), but none as far as character traits are concerned.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I would hope not, I'm willing to concede some forensic relevance to handwriting analysis in pursuit of identification, i.e. handwriting comparison (maybe), but none as far as character traits are concerned.

I will second that.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I thought the handwriting analysis was suspect, too. Truthfully, with the advent of personal computers and PDAs, I doubt a lot of people write or print any longer during their adult life. I know my own handwriting had degenerated considerably in the past decade.

Without any evidence to the contrary, I would suspect that handwriting analysis is simply a part of the checklist, like drug testing, some sort of psychological profile, and many other things that probably have little to do with detecting guilt or innocence. Frankly, I have read enough about polygraphs to make me wonder about their admissibility.

No, when I was handing out the thank yous, it was for the relentless pursuit of the actual evidence against the three and the professional conduct of the case management teams.

The problem is, there is evidence to the contrary with respect to this trial as to its significance. Mignini purposely put emphasis on it in the closing statements and it was obviously meant to be persuasive. It went beyond some sort of check list or whatever. Supposedly his closing went on for something like 8 hours and yet more than one paper found this quote important as well. I certainly don't think he just threw it in there.

 

[stilicho]

Whose other's arguments are you speaking of?

....

What do you think happened?

Fiona responded well to most of your post but I thought I would add a couple things. We know, for example, that Filomena testified for four hours at the trial yet we only have snippets of her actual statements. This is true of a number of the witnesses. IIRC, the compendium of evidence numbered in the thousands of pages, of which we only have fragments.

Fulcanelli has introduced a number of prosecution points that went entirely unchallenged by the defence teams. Some of the so-called defence points introduced here on the JREF were never introduced at the trial.

At some point you have to wonder about that. What inside information do Dan O, halides1, Kestrel, and MatthewBest possess that a covey of Italy's best lawyers don't? Is it even marginally possible that AK and RS had the best available defence and they lost the case on its merits?

 

[stilicho]

The problem is, there is evidence to the contrary with respect to this trial as to its significance. Mignini purposely put emphasis on it in the closing statements and it was obviously meant to be persuasive. It went beyond some sort of check list or whatever. Supposedly his closing went on for something like 8 hours and yet more than one paper found this quote important as well. I certainly don't think he just threw it in there.

I wouldn't have either but I am not a PM. I don't even have the full information about how this evidence was treated during the trial itself. Was it presented and adequately challenged?

-----------
EDIT:

Mignini purposely put emphasis on it in the closing statements...

Do you have the full statement or is this the impression you got from someone's article?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Fiona responded well to most of your post but I thought I would add a couple things. We know, for example, that Filomena testified for four hours at the trial yet we only have snippets of her actual statements. This is true of a number of the witnesses. IIRC, the compendium of evidence numbered in the thousands of pages, of which we only have fragments.

Fulcanelli has introduced a number of prosecution points that went entirely unchallenged by the defence teams. Some of the so-called defence points introduced here on the JREF were never introduced at the trial.

At some point you have to wonder about that. What inside information do Dan O, halides1, Kestrel, and MatthewBest possess that a covey of Italy's best lawyers don't? Is it even marginally possible that AK and RS had the best available defence and they lost the case on its merits?

How would Fulcanelli know what the defense didn't dispute if he wasn't at any of the hearings?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I wouldn't have either but I am not a PM. I don't even have the full information about how this evidence was treated during the trial itself. Was it presented and adequately challenged?

-----------
EDIT:

Do you have the full statement or is this the impression you got from someone's article?

I suppose the paper could have left out the part where Mignini said "but this is not scientific or relevant".....

Some things are not that easily lost in translation.

 

[stilicho]

How would Fulcanelli know what the defense didn't dispute if he wasn't at any of the hearings?

Is it necessary that he attend the trial to have that information?

 

[stilicho]

I suppose the paper could have left out the part where Mignini said "but this is not scientific or relevant".....

Some things are not that easily lost in translation.

Hold on. Let's say that a prosecutor introduces something irrelevant during the trial. Doesn't the defence team dispute this either through objections or other means? If the prosecutor then affirms the irrelevant evidence in the closing argument, then isn't it essentially ignored by the judge and/or jury?

I can almost guarantee you, by using my mysterious gift of clairvoyance, that the cornerstone of the conviction will not be handwriting analysis. It probably won't even be mentioned. If it is then that should be a very good basis for appeal.

 

[odeed]

It mentions it here as well: http://abcnews.go.com/International...-suspect-italy-murder/story?id=9145147&page=2

Even more fitting that Mignini didn't even name the criminologist. That is one of the most prejudicial things I've ever heard.

Think about that.

Unnamed criminologist.

So in that court, not only could you make up evidence, you could also make up witnesses out of the blue. Interesting. Fiona made the point that Italy seems more fair to defendants, but you must mean procedurally before the actual trial, because this is just ludicrous on its face.

I have to ask, but where does it say on the page in your quote that Mignini used (or quoted) a handwriting analyst?

I even did on word search on the page for "handwriting", so I feel a bit stupid that everyone is talking about the fact, but I cannot see it.