Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

I disagree. I think it is also relevant as to the role the media places in these high profile cases, just as the link that I posted in reference to the Elisa Claps case yesterday. Two very relevant connections, in my opinion, and not OT at all.

I agree (surprisingly, heh). I think there may just be space in this zillion page thread for a few posts on a case which, in terms of the early reporting and police behaviour, appears to share a lot of similarities with the Kercher case, and which thus might provide new ways of viewing the latter. Nor do I think it's necessary to reference the Kercher case in every post about the Scazzi case. The connections are clear enough, I think.

Perhaps Platonov could report posts if he feels they're inappropriate, rather than discussing moderation of the thread in-thread (now that I really do think is OT).

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree. I think it is also relevant as to the role the media plays in these high profile cases, just as the link that I posted in reference to the Elisa Claps case yesterday. Two very relevant connections, in my opinion, and not OT at all.

No - like you say, it's clearly on topic when discussing facets of it in relation to the Kercher case (media coverage, police investigation techniques, judicial process...). But discussion of the Scazzi case in and of itself (e.g. did the cousin have anything to do with it etc etc) is, in my view, too far removed from the Kercher case to be on topic. That's the only point I was trying to make.

 

[Dan O.]

London John, you seem to take great offence to the word "conspiracy" being used. Instead of groaning everytime someone uses the term perhaps you would do better by calling out your fellow innocentisti for perpetuating the myth.

DanO "However, there is no date or time stamp on this video and since it starts after everybody is inside it could have been produced anytime before Dec. 18 and played back from the tape for the benefit of those in the van."

And that's not the only example.

Where do I say "Conspiracy"? I just made an observation which apparently you are incapable of refuting without attaching derogatory labels.


The seal on the outside door is critical to the chain of evidence within. By skipping past the examination and breaking of the seal, they have degraded the validation of everything that is subsequently taped within.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

previous girlfriend

Bl
He was inexperienced perhaps, in the way a recent virgin might have been.

Raffaele had one girlfriend before Amanda, IIRC. Not sure what constitutes recent in your estimation.

 

[Malkmus]

Surprisingly, I agree with you.

The Scazzi case, while interesting, isn't really relevant other than as another illustration of the Italian judicial system at work (and in that sense, it's relevant in discussing whether there are any systemic problems with the Italian justice system, but nothing more than that).

It's as relevant as any of the other cases that are regularly brought up for comparison, and I think as long as this doesn't turn into the Scazzi thread there's no harm.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's as relevant as any of the other cases that are regularly brought up for comparison, and I think as long as this doesn't turn into the Scazzi thread there's no harm.

I agree. I just don't want the discussion to edge towards a read-across comparison of the two cases, since they are clearly mutually independent of each other. And even if things like police malpractice or media influence on judicial outcomes are subsequently demonstrated to have happened in the Scazzi case (and I'm not suggesting that they will be), this would be not really make it any more (or less) likely that the same happened in the Kercher case.

 

[RoseMontague]

RS' defense are using testimony from guys about how they remove their gf's bras - really ?
The appeal is doomed already in that case or have you misunderstood the point of the discussion.

Did you have trouble with the quote I posted?

 

[Dan O.]

Some of the differences between the Scazzi case and the Kercher case can be a point of discussion too. For instance, the interrogation of the father was apparently recorded (despite there being no language barrier). This may help us understand if recording interrogations is a customary practice in Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Did you have trouble with the quote I posted?

I was about to say the same thing! Once more, it looks like selective comprehension might be being employed. The appeal argues (very correctly in my opinion) that it's very unlikely that - if Sollecito handled the clasp area of the bra in an attempt to remove it - his DNA would not be found on the material which totally covers the clasp when the bra is being worn, yet would be found on the tiny metal hook itself. There's no way that Sollecito could have manhandled the bra without moving (and presumably tugging fairly hard upon) the material covering the clasp. And if his epithelial skin cell DNA was able to transfer itself to a smooth metal hook, it surely would have transferred even more easily to the rougher material surrounding and covering the clasp.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some of the differences between the Scazzi case and the Kercher case can be a point of discussion too. For instance, the interrogation of the father was apparently recorded (despite there being no language barrier). This may help us understand if recording interrogations is a customary practice in Italy.

I agree to this extent, as per my post #13102

 

[platonov]

Did you have trouble with the quote I posted?

None whatsoever - the post of mine you quoted, which dealt with the irrelevance of fond reminiscence in sexual assault/murder cases, had no connection to what you responded with.
I merely pointed that out.

.

 

[Antony]

Its neither ad hom nor nonsense.

Sorry - ad hom is exactly what it is. You are suggesting that in order to comment on this I should have experience of a rape/murder (needless to say, I haven't). That's ad hom: addressing not the argument, but the person making it.

I'm suggesting strongly that the various testimonies from posters about the how they remove their gf's (or own) bras is not relevant to a case where a sexual assault/murder victim (with few if any defensive wounds) is found in a pool of blood with her bra cut off and DNA from a suspect on the deformed clasp.

... while making no attempt whatsoever to explain how this DNA could have been deposited, as you and Machiavelli seem to assume, during the assault - nor why it makes the slightest difference that the bra was removed from an unwilling victim, rather than a cooperating partner. If it is Raffaele's DNA, then it wasn't deposited during the murder.

Let's remember that Machiavelli's original point was that it's impossible to explain how the DNA could be on the clasp by contamination. Here's how:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw

That's on top of the other images showing the clasp covered with dust after 6 weeks lying around in the room, and the ransacking of the room in the meantime.

"Perhaps" your arguments are remarkably ill informed as regards what will get one off a murder charge.
Precise details of why & how a defendant cut the bra off a dead or dying victim are not necessary to convict.

From this and other travesties it's clear that it's not necessary to have any genuine evidence at all in order to convict. "Presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof is on the prosecution" are, in practice, empty mantras.

 

[RoseMontague]

Some of the differences between the Scazzi case and the Kercher case can be a point of discussion too. For instance, the interrogation of the father was apparently recorded (despite there being no language barrier). This may help us understand if recording interrogations is a customary practice in Italy.

Excellent point. This very interrogation has led to both Frank and katy_did's questioning and concerns on this case. If Amanda's had been available, who knows how this would have played out?

 

[Justinian2]

Its neither ad hom nor nonsense.

I'm suggesting strongly that the various testimonies from posters about the how they remove their gf's (or own) bras is not relevant to a case where a sexual assault/murder victim (with few if any defensive wounds) is found in a pool of blood with her bra cut off and DNA from a suspect on the deformed clasp.

I believe I'm qualified to say unequivocally that such arguments are nonsense ; No more, No less.
.

How posters remove bras is eyewitness testimony. Their eyewitness testimony is perfectly valid for an internet debate. An 'expert' would be needed in a court testimony, but this is not a court.

I never touch a bra clasp when taking it off.

I believe I'm qualified to say unequivocally that such arguments are nonsense ; No more, No less.

Not so. Logic and fact rule in a debate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Excellent point. This very interrogation has led to both Frank and katy_did's questioning and concerns on this case. If Amanda's had been available, who knows how this would have played out?

Prepare yourself for the predictable response along the lines of "Ahhhh but Knox was not a suspect when she blurted out her confession, so no recording was necessary" - which of course is designed to imply that Knox was just facing routine and mundane questioning about what she knew, when she suddenly crumbled out of the blue and made her bizarre (and untrue) "confession/accusation". And it also conveniently overlooks the fact that Knox and Sollecito were already being bugged and their phones were tapped, and that previous "witness" interviews were recorded.

It's perfectly clear to objective observers that by the time Knox walked into the police HQ on the night of the 5th November, she was absolutely a suspect in the police's eyes. And this is borne out not only by police statements (a big hello to Perugia Police Chief Arturo de Felice at this point), but by Judge Matteini's extraordinary pronouncement that Knox was deliberately arrested before her Mother was due to arrive in Perugia (she was due on the 6th November).

 

[RoseMontague]

None whatsoever - the post of mine you quoted, which dealt with the irrelevance of fond reminiscence in sexual assault/murder cases, had no connection to what you responded with.
I merely pointed that out.

If I recall you said this in that same post (highlighting yours):

Precise details of why & how a defendant cut the bra off a dead or dying victim are not necessary to convict.

The DNA on the bra clasp and the question of how it got there is certainly not nonsense. The defense made very similar arguments about the normal removal of a bra that many of the posters here have made (which was the point I made). As the DNA on this metal clasp is the only evidence that would indicate Raffaele's presence in Meredith's room, I think it is very important.

 

[platonov]

I was about to say the same thing! Once more, it looks like selective comprehension might be being employed. The appeal argues (very correctly in my opinion) that it's very unlikely that - if Sollecito handled the clasp area of the bra in an attempt to remove it - his DNA would not be found on the material which totally covers the clasp when the bra is being worn, yet would be found on the tiny metal hook itself. There's no way that Sollecito could have manhandled the bra without moving (and presumably tugging fairly hard upon) the material covering the clasp. And if his epithelial skin cell DNA was able to transfer itself to a smooth metal hook, it surely would have transferred even more easily to the rougher material surrounding and covering the clasp.

If I recall you said this in that same post (highlighting yours):



The DNA on the bra clasp and the question of how it got there is certainly not nonsense. The defense made very similar arguments about the normal removal of a bra that many of the posters here have made (which was the point I made). As the DNA on this metal clasp is the only evidence that would indicate Raffaele's presence in Meredith's room, I think it is very important.

As regards the quoted posts & other arguments on this issue.

The DNA of RS was found on the clasp - 'this' stuff wont fly in court as it doesn't here.
They are obliged and well paid to give their client the best possible defence - that they are reduced to 'this' says something you probably don't want to hear or are unable to accept.

Contamination or whatever - perhaps ?

.

 

[platonov]

Prepare yourself for the predictable response along the lines of "Ahhhh but Knox was not a suspect when she blurted out her confession, so no recording was necessary" - which of course is designed to imply that Knox was just facing routine and mundane questioning about what she knew, when she suddenly crumbled out of the blue and made her bizarre (and untrue) "confession/accusation". And it also conveniently overlooks the fact that Knox and Sollecito were already being bugged and their phones were tapped, and that previous "witness" interviews were recorded.

It's perfectly clear to objective observers that by the time Knox walked into the police HQ on the night of the 5th November, she was absolutely a suspect in the police's eyes. And this is borne out not only by police statements (a big hello to Perugia Police Chief Arturo de Felice at this point), but by Judge Matteini's extraordinary pronouncement that Knox was deliberately arrested before her Mother was due to arrive in Perugia (she was due on the 6th November).

You must know this is irrelevant nonsense -- 'Suspect' vs suspected.

.

 

[platonov]

Sorry - ad hom is exactly what it is. You are suggesting that in order to comment on this I should have experience of a rape/murder (needless to say, I haven't). That's ad hom: addressing not the argument, but the person making it.



... while making no attempt whatsoever to explain how this DNA could have been deposited, as you and Machiavelli seem to assume, during the assault - nor why it makes the slightest difference that the bra was removed from an unwilling victim, rather than a cooperating partner. If it is Raffaele's DNA, then it wasn't deposited during the murder.

Let's remember that Machiavelli's original point was that it's impossible to explain how the DNA could be on the clasp by contamination. Here's how:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw

That's on top of the other images showing the clasp covered with dust after 6 weeks lying around in the room, and the ransacking of the room in the meantime.



From this and other travesties it's clear that it's not necessary to have any genuine evidence at all in order to convict. "Presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof is on the prosecution" are, in practice, empty mantras.

Machiavelli can speak for himself - however the on-site contamination argument fails if you are familiar with the details.

As regards the rest of your post this is all the rebuttal I need.

.

 

[Justinian2]

As regards the quoted posts & other arguments on this issue.

The DNA of RS was found on the clasp - 'this' stuff wont fly in court as it doesn't here.
They are obliged and well paid to give their client the best possible defence - that they are reduced to 'this' says something you probably don't want to hear or are unable to accept.

Contamination or whatever - perhaps ?

.

It's true that arguments as presented in this forum will not work in court. Bugs Bunny told me that. The argument just has to be massaged into a form that the court worships; expert witnesses have to be called and the like. Appeal to authority does work in court, to a point, but the authority has to appeal to logic and fact.

The proper appeal to authority is an appeal to logic and fact by an 'expert'.