Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Onofarar]

His experience on what? What does he know of this terrain? A serious person won't start making conclusion about a case without having even read the process files. In addition he doesn't know the police, the prosecutor and judges in charge, the procedures, the law and legal context, he doesn't now the language and is not able to understand documents, he doesn't even know basic facts of the investigation and trial.

Steve Moore knows forensics and how it should be collected. He observed the ILE methods and from that knew the collection techniques were deeply flawed. The bra clasp was touched by dirty gloves and surprise surprise they found RS DNA right there! The double DNA knife - no control for contaimation, no following of international testing standards = no reliability as evidence. Without the forensics you have NO physical evidence connecting AK and RS to the murder - and the prosecution would be left with a bunch of contradicted witnesses, their own rampant speculation and inappropriate (to some) behavior.

Terrain? Was MK pushed off a cliff? What a spurious argument.

Moore knows forensic methods and crime scene analysis it does not matter whether he knows how the Italian court system works. His opinions and observations go to the heart of the case - justice is justice anywhere in the world or should be.

 

[Onofarar]

Earlier I posted a comment about Mooore having access to a 2.5 hour video of the forensic collection process at the cottage. Several people said mt recollection was faulty and at this point I have been unable to find the reference I recall. I did find a GMA interview with George Stephenoupoulous (I butchered the spelling of his name) of ABC where SM mentioned he watched 2.5 hours of video but no mention of how he obtained it and in the context he used the meaning could be construed as having viewed shorter segments multiple times. Therefore, unless or until I find support for it I will accept tthat Moore used Internet videos to analyze the crime scene and observe the forensic techniques.

 

[Justinian2]

Who owns the sites that are antagonistic to AK and RS?
Is there any vested interest?

 

[tsig]

Are you saying that you feel his opinions carry more weight than others?

I'm not sure that I would necessarily state that BUT I would definitely believe that the man has credibility.

After all, as he says.....''...25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism....''

That is not something to be dismissed lightly.

And I seriously doubt that it will be dismissed lightly.

By anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

So if if I don't accept what he says at face value I don't have "a modicum of intelligence"?

 

[tsig]

I remember reading, way, way back, an explanation by an Italian poster (it actually may have been Yummi a/k/a Machiavelli, on Candace Dempsey's blog) that Italian courts are more about who can tell a better story than they are about evidence. Here is a small excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject of forensics:




One wonders how far Italian courtrooms have come from their roots.

It is distasteful for educated Americans to dig the dirt for tabloid fodder to use against their opponents, but I suppose that, in an emergency, we can be persuaded to rise above what is distasteful. Maybe it's not too late to start thinking in terms of skeletons lying in the closets of the Perugian magistrates. Mignini's preoccupation with les ménages à quatre might give us a place to start.

Sounds like you're suggesting blackmailing Italian officials.

 

[Justinian2]

Sounds like you're suggesting blackmailing Italian officials.

In the States, we don't threaten to expose in exchange for something, we just go to the press.

 

[Supernaut]

Were DNA tests run on the bathmat print?

If they were, doesn't anyone find it odd that no genetic profile for either Raff or Guede was obtained from it?

Because it would surprise me if someone leaving a print from a wet, bare foot (or wearing socks worn for some time and presumably containing a nice combination of perspiration and epithelial cells **) wouldn't stand a very good chance of leaving enough biological material to facilitate it.

But no trace of Raff or Guede? Even using Stephony's ground-breaking LCN techniques? Hmmm.

It couldn't be that they did get a match, but not the one they wanted/needed?

(** Ever shaken out bone-dry, previously worn socks out in sunlight? They are positively loaded with matter from the skin of your feet)

 

[Supernaut]

If they were, doesn't anyone find it odd that no genetic profile for either Raff or Guede was obtained from it?

I guess it could be that neither of them made it, which would mean Guede's bushy-haired stranger did.

But then, wouldn't a distinct 'unknown' male profile have been present?

Personally, I'm 99.99'% sure it was Guede, and that there is a very good chance his profile would be found if the mat was tested (again?).

 

[Justinian2]

If they were, doesn't anyone find it odd that no genetic profile for either Raff or Guede was obtained from it?

Because it would surprise me if someone leaving a print from a wet, bare foot (or wearing socks worn for some time and presumably containing a nice combination of perspiration and epithelial cells **) wouldn't stand a very good chance of leaving enough biological material to facilitate it.

But no trace of Raff or Guede? Even using Stephony's ground-breaking LCN techniques? Hmmm.

It couldn't be that they did get a match, but not the one they wanted/needed?

(** Ever shaken out bone-dry, previously worn socks out in sunlight? They are positively loaded with matter from the skin of your feet)

1.) Amanda's 'confession' didn't mention Guede, but did mention RS. That seems to imply that there was not a collusion or knowledge of Guede otherwise Amanda would have fingered Guede.

2.) No LCN DNA on the bath mat.

3.) 3 Broken computer drives.

Maybe the American courts should try Italian officials in their absence as they tried our CIA people in their absence.

 

[Supernaut]

How might the killer's pant-leg, shoe and sock ....

.... have become saturated in Meredith's blood?

As dreadful as this is to contemplate, it needs to be explained.

Somehow I can envisage Meredith, when she was prone on the floor after she was stabbed, desperately grabbing onto and clinging to her assailant's leg as he stood over her.

Perhaps pleading with him, or simply from the instinctive need to hold on to another living soul, anyone, as she realised she might be about to die (this is not at all unusual, BTW), the arterial nick then spraying directly onto his lower leg for some seconds.

 

[LondonJohn]

Many bad cases make it into the U.S. courts and many innocent people make it into U.S. jails, but I am speaking about this case very specifically. The very things that put Amanda and Raffaele into jail in Italy are the things that would have kept them out in the U.S. -- being perceived as attractive and privileged. You yourself made the claim that money buys freedom in the U.S. It also delays suspicion.

There is no doubt that U.S. police jail people before evidence is found, and that U.S. forensics labs falsify evidence, but they can get away with it more easily in cases where the detainees are indigent. Do you think the Seattle police would have been able to get away with jailing a doctor's son on no evidence, without giving him a phone call or an attorney? How about a lovely young girl from a good family? They wouldn't, because in the Seattle system, there isn't one single guy, who everybody else is afraid to defy, in charge of the whole investigation.

However, when they do get an innocent, indigent person with no advocates in their custody, then yes, the same process that seems to have happened in Perugia will happen here -- staff just "going along" and doing their jobs.

Now before all the inevitable responses that I have just proven that the only reason the innocentisti are defending Amanda and Raffaele is because they are white, rich and spoiled, let me state my position.

Prejudice is prejudice. In some places, you are hated for being black; in some places you are hated for being rich; in some places you are hated for being a woman; in some places you are hated for being from another country. Given the opportunity, hate and resentment will find ways to express themselves in the people who suffer from them.

I don't defend Amanda and Raffaele because I see them as "good kids" who couldn't possibly commit the crime; I defend them because they are innocent. The prosecutor had no evidence that showed they were involved. Period.




They aren't anecdotes, they are analogies. Analogies are extremely important tools for reasoning -- that's why they have such a gigantic section of them in the SAT's for college-bound students. The person(s) who wrote the Wiki entry on analogy cited Douglas Hofstadter for saying that analogy "is the core of cognition."

The only reason anyone closes his mind to analogies on these pages or tries to diminish them by calling them anecdotes is that he does not want to be dissuaded from his beliefs in guilt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy




I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have written about American media. My comment, "It would mean nothing here. I find it hard to believe it would mean less in Italy, though, given the way the press is part and parcel of the legal system," was intended to be aimed specifically at Mignini.

Despite being far from perfect itself, I think the UK has helped to protect the integrity of the justice system through its sub-judice publication laws. Here, once a person is charged with an offence, the media are not allowed to publish/broadcast anything whatsoever about the crime, the victim, the accused, the crime scene, or anything related to any of those things (e.g. an interview with the victim's mother, or with a friend of the accused). This has a number of beneficial effect: it means that neither the prosecution nor the defence can hope to plant information which is advantageous to their side of the case; it means that no information about the accused and his/her background can taint the case; and it means that, in general, all parties to the case are spared from media harassment.

These sub-judice rules remain in place until a verdict is reached (during a trial, all that can be reported is the court proceedings of each day). And this is why, particularly in notorious cases, the verdict (if the verdict is "guilty") is swiftly followed by an avalanche of press and TV about the case and the convicted party(parties) & victim(s) - it's all the stuff that they've been unable to print or broadcast since charges were first brought.

I personally (and, it would appear, UK legislators) believe that this process is beneficial to a fair justice system. There are periodic calls (mainly, of course, from the tabloid press) for its repeal, and of course many countries (and US states) have abandoned these sorts of sub-judice rules. There is a fair case to be put that the judicial system should be fully transparent at all times, and that the freedom of the press (and TV) is paramount. But I think that if an individual's right to justice (whether accused or victim) is in any way threatened by pre-trial - or during-trial - publicity, this concern ought to overrule arguments about transparency or press freedom.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

They aren't anecdotes, they are analogies. Analogies are extremely important tools for reasoning -- that's why they have such a gigantic section of them in the SAT's for college-bound students. The person(s) who wrote the Wiki entry on analogy cited Douglas Hofstadter for saying that analogy "is the core of cognition."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but among the various reasons they have them in the SAT's is to see if people have learned to use them correctly.

Analogy is a useful tool to explain things which may contain unfamilar aspects by way of demonstrating more familiar situations which may have some conceptual similarity. Analogies are tricky things, fraught with pitfalls and weaknesses, and just a little bit of time spent in other threads on this forum than these will provide you with a wealth of opportunities to learn why.

Analogy is not the same thing as offering examples and representing such offerings as evidence. In such a case the goal is not to aid understanding by providing similar conditions but to attempt to defend a belief by referencing other allegedly comparable instances. The quip, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'." is an expression of this. This is an aspect of the pitfalls of analogy as a rhetorical tool which you would do well to embrace.

Your wiki citation (below) points out that analogy is often used as a rhetorical device to take advantage of a listener's weakness of understanding and sway them to an erroneous conclusion by suggesting a similarity which does not actually exist. Did you read that part, too?

The only reason anyone closes his mind to analogies on these pages or tries to diminish them by calling them anecdotes is that he does not want to be dissuaded from his beliefs in guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Is that the only reason, or are you attempting a gross and sweeping mischaracterization of anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you based on a prejudicial, fictional construct of your own devising?

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have written about American media. My comment, "It would mean nothing here. I find it hard to believe it would mean less in Italy, though, given the way the press is part and parcel of the legal system," was intended to be aimed specifically at Mignini.

It really doesn't matter whom it was aimed at. It is still wrong.

It is equally wrong whether your target is deserving or not. In this instance wrong is simply wrong, it isn't situational.

 

[Supernaut]

2.) No LCN DNA on the bath mat.

The reference to Stephony's 'LCN' testing' was perhaps a little gratuitous and didn't help make my point;

that I believe a conventional amplification procedure might well produce a complete profile. Of Guede.

 

[quadraginta]

In the States, we don't threaten to expose in exchange for something, we just go to the press.

This explains why no one is ever charged with blackmail in the U.S. I have often wondered about that.

Maybe we should share this insight with Dave Letterman.

 

[Supernaut]

What the ......!?

"You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum."

Has PMF stopped stopped 'guests' from viewing the forums?

Or has the IP I often go online from (not at home) been identified and blocked? Bear in mind I've never registered, let alone posted there, and rarely even visit.

 

[quadraginta]

Despite being far from perfect itself, I think the UK has helped to protect the integrity of the justice system through its sub-judice publication laws. Here, once a person is charged with an offence, the media are not allowed to publish/broadcast anything whatsoever about the crime, the victim, the accused, the crime scene, or anything related to any of those things (e.g. an interview with the victim's mother, or with a friend of the accused). This has a number of beneficial effect: it means that neither the prosecution nor the defence can hope to plant information which is advantageous to their side of the case; it means that no information about the accused and his/her background can taint the case; and it means that, in general, all parties to the case are spared from media harassment.

These sub-judice rules remain in place until a verdict is reached (during a trial, all that can be reported is the court proceedings of each day). And this is why, particularly in notorious cases, the verdict (if the verdict is "guilty") is swiftly followed by an avalanche of press and TV about the case and the convicted party(parties) & victim(s) - it's all the stuff that they've been unable to print or broadcast since charges were first brought.

I personally (and, it would appear, UK legislators) believe that this process is beneficial to a fair justice system. There are periodic calls (mainly, of course, from the tabloid press) for its repeal, and of course many countries (and US states) have abandoned these sorts of sub-judice rules. There is a fair case to be put that the judicial system should be fully transparent at all times, and that the freedom of the press (and TV) is paramount. But I think that if an individual's right to justice (whether accused or victim) is in any way threatened by pre-trial - or during-trial - publicity, this concern ought to overrule arguments about transparency or press freedom.

In general I'm inclined to agree with this.

Florida's example of their "Sunshine Laws, while well meant and useful in certain situations, such as politics, have instead swung the pendulum of privacy vs. public rights in criminal cases so far to one side that the plumb has flown out of the clock entirely and landed out in the surf somewhere.

There hasn't been much evidence I have seen that it has proven to be largely beneficial to anyone accused of a crime. More the contrary, I think.

 

[Mary_H]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but among the various reasons they have them in the SAT's is to see if people have learned to use them correctly.

Analogy is a useful tool to explain things which may contain unfamilar aspects by way of demonstrating more familiar situations which may have some conceptual similarity. Analogies are tricky things, fraught with pitfalls and weaknesses, and just a little bit of time spent in other threads on this forum than these will provide you with a wealth of opportunities to learn why.

Well, I have yet to find any rhetorical geniuses on JREF, but I'll keep looking.

Analogy is not the same thing as offering examples and representing such offerings as evidence. In such a case the goal is not to aid understanding by providing similar conditions but to attempt to defend a belief by referencing other allegedly comparable instances. The quip, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'." is an expression of this. This is an aspect of the pitfalls of analogy as a rhetorical tool which you would do well to embrace.

I have never heard that quip, but then, I am not in the habit of going around trying to provide evidence for this, that, and the other thing in my daily life. Showing that the prosecutor has no case against Raffaele and Amanda is pretty much "it" for me when it comes to argumentation. It's not a lifestyle.

Your wiki citation (below) points out that analogy is often used as a rhetorical device to take advantage of a listener's weakness of understanding and sway them to an erroneous conclusion by suggesting a similarity which does not actually exist. Did you read that part, too?

That would be relevant if anyone here had used analogies as rhetorical devices to take advantage of a listener's weakness of understanding and sway them to an erroneous conclusion by suggesting a similarity which does not actually exist. Have you seen anyone do that on this thread?

Is that the only reason, or are you attempting a gross and sweeping mischaracterization of anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you based on a prejudicial, fictional construct of your own devising?

No, you're right, it's probably not the only reason, although I can't think of any others at the moment. Maybe if those of you who believe the analogies that have been used are not valid would explain your reasoning, I would stand corrected.

It really doesn't matter whom it was aimed at. It is still wrong.

It is equally wrong whether your target is deserving or not. In this instance wrong is simply wrong, it isn't situational.

My contention is simply that bad publicity for Mignini in Italian papers might benefit Amanda's case. What kind of "wrong" are you referring to?

 

[Mary_H]

"You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum."

Has PMF stopped stopped 'guests' from viewing the forums?

Or has the IP I often go online from (not at home) been identified and blocked? Bear in mind I've never registered, let alone posted there, and rarely even visit.

It's not just you, Supernaut. Someone who signed in came back with this message:

PMF :

Administrator Note:

Hello everyone, good to see you all again

Okay, to explain things in an uncomplicated way, PMF had a script issue. The script was causing problems on our host's server and they therefore blocked it. Unfortunately, that script happened to be the script that allowed people to view topics. So, it meant nobody could access topics and instead got an error message. The script still needs to be addressed, but I've talked our hosts into allowing the script again. The price for that though is I have now had to make the forum (aside from the gallery and portal) readable by members only, to lower the server load. That means you will all have to sign in each time you want to read the forum and non-members will have to register. It's not my choice...it's the only way I could get the lights turned back on. Hopefully, that requirement will be only a temporary affair and I shall be working on it to get it fixed.

In the meantime, I would like to extend my thanks to Clander and Pete for their help in this matter.

Welcome back everyone!!!

However, someone who uses the same company for their forum said PMF's excuse for making the site private doesn't make sense, so who knows?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

It's not just you, Supernaut. Someone who signed in came back with this message:

However, someone who uses the same company for their forum said PMF's excuse for making the site private doesn't make sense, so who knows?

Maybe someone took them down

 

[Dan O.]

His experience on what? What does he know of this terrain? A serious person won't start making conclusion about a case without having even read the process files. In addition he doesn't know the police, the prosecutor and judges in charge, the procedures, the law and legal context, he doesn't now the language and is not able to understand documents, he doesn't even know basic facts of the investigation and trial.

Are you saying that the only people qualified to comment on this case are those that "know the police, the prosecutor and judges in charge". I presume that since you have been commenting on this case that you consider yourself qualified. Do you actually know those people? I'm sure there are many questions waiting for a direct response from those in charge.