Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

citations

But if you are posting links which nobody can access, you are effectively not posting anything.

Withnail1969,

Some of us have access to a subset of professional journals at our workplaces (that in some cases are only available through paid subscription). If all one has is a citation from such a journal, my suggestion is to post the citation and some relevant sentences from the text, possibly the abstract as well. This situation happened to me when I found citations on DNA and strangulation.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by katy_did
Yes, I think there were charges filed against a couple of 'Oggi' journalists? IIRC that magazine was one of the few to publish articles expressing doubt about Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in the murder.​

Ray Turner has a list here:

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-giuliano-mignini-defamation.html

How can justice ever work if the prosecution has the right to sue everyone that speaks against them? This is worse than the dark ages where the books were burnt. Now the authors are burnt.

Edit: In the past the authors have been burnt.
Edit #2: My heroes are those sued by Mignini.

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Fine View Post
___________________________

Errr, I'm confused. So, Mignini was investigating suspected corruption among police, judges, and politicians in another murder case. But isn't that exactly what the Innocentisti want done in the Meredith Kercher murder case? So why shouldn't we be applauding Mignini's courage, Mignini having done what no prosecutor is willing to do in this Kercher case? I don't get it.

It's about content, not form, Fine. The questions to be explored are about whether the police, judges, and politicians in the other case and/or this case actually are corrupt, and whether Amanda and Raffaele actually are guilty. From what we have seen, Mignini seems to be motivated by forces other than a genuine interest in the truth.

_____________________________

Well, Mary, a fair distinction. I know how you feel about Mignini's character. But I'm wondering ....were an extra-territorial prosecutor brought in to investigate alleged corruption in the Kercher case, a Mignini doppelganger,....would the dogmatical Innocentisti be opposed even if that prosecutor wire-tapped without proper judicial authorization and even if that prosecutor harbored some biased "agenda" of friends and foes? I think the dogmaticals would still approve of such an investigation, especially if they thought---as Charlie does---that this case is a total travesty. Givin' the Perugians some o' their own medicine, so to speak. And who's to say the Florentines couldn't use some medicine?

///

 

[platonov]

_____________________________

Well, Mary, a fair distinction. I know how you feel about Mignini's character. But I'm wondering ....were an extra-territorial prosecutor brought in to investigate alleged corruption in the Kercher case, a Mignini doppelganger,....would the dogmatical Innocentisti be opposed even if that prosecutor wire-tapped without proper judicial authorization and even if that prosecutor harbored some biased "agenda" of friends and foes? I think the dogmaticals would still approve of such an investigation, especially if they thought---as Charlie does---that this case is a total travesty. Givin' the Perugians some o' their own medicine, so to speak. And who's to say the Florentines couldn't use some medicine?
///

Was that a clever play on words

.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Fine View Post
___________________________

Errr, I'm confused. So, Mignini was investigating suspected corruption among police, judges, and politicians in another murder case. But isn't that exactly what the Innocentisti want done in the Meredith Kercher murder case? So why shouldn't we be applauding Mignini's courage, Mignini having done what no prosecutor is willing to do in this Kercher case? I don't get it.

_____________________________

Well, Mary, a fair distinction. I know how you feel about Mignini's character. But I'm wondering ....were an extra-territorial prosecutor brought in to investigate alleged corruption in the Kercher case, a Mignini doppelganger,....would the dogmatical Innocentisti be opposed even if that prosecutor wire-tapped without proper judicial authorization and even if that prosecutor harbored some biased "agenda" of friends and foes? I think the dogmaticals would still approve of such an investigation, especially if they thought---as Charlie does---that this case is a total travesty. Givin' the Perugians some o' their own medicine, so to speak. And who's to say the Florentines couldn't use some medicine?

///

Very good question, Fine, and I think there is a significant chance you could be right. I would hope we would be opposed to unauthorized wiretapping on principle, and I would hope there is enough evidence against Mignini that wiretapping would not be necessary.

Failing those conditions, though, it would indeed be tempting to accept an illegally obtained conversation between Mignini and Stefanoni in which he thanks her for faking the lab results.

 

[platonov]

Exactly. And, in addition, platonov seems to be advocating a position that "the end justifies the means" - which runs contrary to most modern jurisprudence practice. If this maxim were applied rigorously, then we might as well tap everybody's phone (a la Police State), and as a result we could undoubtedly stop more crimes from taking place. But in a civilised democratic state, we instead require there to be clear evidence of criminal activity taking place before someone's phones can be tapped.

<snip>

No, I'm not advocating any such position - Thats a strawman.
I thought it quite apparent from my post; that your argument seemed to be questioning the wiretaps based on a lack of knowledge of the details of that case* & the Italian system generally [UK laws & practices don't apply in Italy] and a seeming unhappiness with the outcome.

*You are not the supervising magistrate in that case - because you haven't seen the evidence in the application it doesn't imply the request wasn't well founded.
I had a similar exchange with Kestrel some time ago. To suggest because something is not available on the internet, in English, for your perusal - that it then doesn't exist ; That's not skepticism.

As regards such a maxim I certainly would oppose it on the grounds both of civil liberties and practical use - On the latter the S/N ratio would be such as to make the system unworkable.

Much like this thread perhaps

.

 

[platonov]

Maybe LondonJohn suspects malfeasance based on the guilty verdict in Mignini's earlier trial for illegal wiretapping.

"All police/judicial actions directed against the perpetrators (or their associates) in the Kercher murder case" are not suspect by their very nature. They are suspect because of what we have observed about how the parts of the investigation that we do have information about were conducted.

The question is why your form of skepticism extends only as far as to David, and never to Goliath.

My form of skepticism is grounded in the fact that murder [and ancillary] investigations are not run for the benefit of English speaking internet sleuths.
The defence have access to all the salient details.

As to David & Goliath - I'm even more skeptical of the actions & existence of both of these characters,drawn as they are from the same source, than I am of the details of the ' Jesus Christ' case that was used as an analogy earlier.

But, even employed as a literary term alone, I find the comparison of Sollecito Snr. to 'David' in this case laughable.

.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Withnail1969

I notice that furniture polish is way up there in the paper linked to by Rose as a substance causing a major Luminol reaction. Furniture polish, floor polish - probably pretty similiar.

Why are we talking about all this anyway since i understood that the Luminol footprints in the cottage definitely didn't contain blood? Am i wrong on that?


A second (also presumptive) test for blood (TMB) was performed that was negative for blood. Why she used this test rather than a specific test for blood makes little sense to me. Or if she did, the results were not handed over as they should have been.

Are we back to arguments over luminol again.

I thought that 'turnip piglet had been juiced' already.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I'm not advocating any such position - Thats a strawman.
I thought it quite apparent from my post; that your argument seemed to be questioning the wiretaps based on a lack of knowledge of the details of that case* & the Italian system generally [UK laws & practices don't apply in Italy] and a seeming unhappiness with the outcome.

*You are not the supervising magistrate in that case - because you haven't seen the evidence in the application it doesn't imply the request wasn't well founded.
I had a similar exchange with Kestrel some time ago. To suggest because something is not available on the internet, in English, for your perusal - that it then doesn't exist ; That's not skepticism.

As regards such a maxim I certainly would oppose it on the grounds both of civil liberties and practical use - On the latter the S/N ratio would be such as to make the system unworkable.

Much like this thread perhaps

.

In case you forgot, here's my original post:

"And it would be extremely interesting to know under what powers the police tapped all the various telephones in order to obtain this information in the first place. What prima facie evidence did the police or prosecutors have that members of the Sollecito family were committing serious offences in order to get these phone taps authorised in the first place? Or is it just another example of Mignini and his Amazing Unauthorised Wiretaps?"

You might notice that I am explicitly questioning how the wiretaps became authorised. I'm asking if such evidence exists. I'm not asserting or even implying that they were definitely unlawful. If indeed the police or prosecutor had prima facie evidence of criminal activity by Sollecito Senior or Vanessa or other members of the Sollecito family, then all well and good. But equally, I find your position to be untenable from a sceptical point of view: you're assuming that the correct procedures were followed, despite neither you nor I having any evidence that this is the case. And the proven fact that Mignini used unauthorised wiretaps in the past lends even less credence to your baseline position. And yes, you do seem to be saying that the fact that charges have followed is in itself some sort of justification for the wiretaps, and some sort of evidence in favour of their lawful authorisation.

By the way, do you think that the wiretaps of Knox's and Sollecito's (Raffaele) phones on around 3rd November were correctly authorised, given that they were apparently no more than witnesses at that point?

ETA: where did I ever "suggest because something is not available on the internet, in English, for my perusal - that it then doesn't exist"?

 

[LondonJohn]

My form of skepticism is grounded in the fact that murder [and ancillary] investigations are not run for the benefit of English speaking internet sleuths.
The defence have access to all the salient details.

As to David & Goliath - I'm even more skeptical of the actions & existence of both of these characters,drawn as they are from the same source, than I am of the details of the ' Jesus Christ' case that was used as a analogy earlier.

But, even employed as a literary term alone, I find the comparison of Sollecito Snr. to 'David' in this case laughable.

.

I absolutely agree with your first sentence. But at the same time, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. And we will see what the defence does with all the salient details in the upcoming appeal.

I wonder also why you think that Sollecito Senior - even if he does have masonic allies and these mystical "networks" - is more powerful than the Italian law enforcement community (David vs Goliath). If indeed he is, then it's a sad day for Italian law enforcement...

 

[Machiavelli]

Vanessa had no indictment but has been dropped by the Carabinieri. Her brother is convicted, not charged.

There is, however, something more to say about Raffaele's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem evil. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgments I read about Raffaele's involvement in the murder seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on actual reality.

I agree on the first part. It is not Raffaele's conviction who makes him look guilty. That is his words, and the evidence.
There were reasons to believe he was involved well before his conviction, and I would believe he is guilty even if he were acquitted.
On the rest, I don't know all what you read but I disagree. In particular I can't subscribe with your overlooking the analysis of his own declarations.

 

[LondonJohn]

On the latter the S/N ratio would be such as to make the system unworkable.

Much like this thread perhaps

.

Feel free to stop reading and posting on this thread at any point, if that's how you feel about it

 

[Machiavelli]

This all sounds great. How do you think the Matteini report fits with your rose-coloured spectacled view of the Italian legal system?

Claudia Matteini was a preliminary investigation judge in this case. Her decisions were perfect under a professional point of view. Her decison to arrest Lumumba immediately was right. Her decision to release him was right too. I didn't like some aspects of the way she wrote her reports.

 

[RoseMontague]

In an inquisitory trials the judges are investigators.
Their mind-set - including the one of lay-judges - is that of investigators, will be always oriented in a logic towards the "values" typical of of investigation. The kind of evidence that works for detectives to make up their minds, also works for judges. If judges are unable to think to alternative answers on partos of the scenario, if they fail to see any scenario by which falsify the investigation theory, once the falsification theory shows a failure, they will opt for conrifmatory indication (indizio, circumstantial evidence) towards the investigation. In the same logic, they can't help but interpret a failure by the defence to contribute to an alternative hypothesis. The lack of alternative argument stands out: the debate fails to produce it and the judges note it down.

Let's see what they should have noted down:
1. Prosecution has not proved luminol prints were made in blood. Lack of victim's DNA noted. TMB tests all negative on all samples. No way to date the samples or date when the DNA was deposited before, after, or at the same time as the substance that caused the reaction. Stefafoni testified as to the extreme sensitivity of the TMB test and the unlikelyhood of false negatives. We can't be positive these prints are even Amanda's, just that she might not be excluded from the vast number of female reference footprints we have (2).
2. Defense has no clue what caused the luminol reactions, just that other things can cause a reaction.

If I am on the jury I give no weight at all to this evidence, it is not up to Amanda and Raffaele to prove these things are not blood, when they were made, what made them, or even who made them. If you give them a presumption of innocence how could they possibly know these things? Therefore it is worthless and should be given no weight in being used against them.

 

[Machiavelli]

They don't seem very investigatory to me. We have asked a lot more pertinent and essential questions than they seem to have asked.

Where are their questions about what raised police's suspicions in the first place? Where are their questions about why Raffaele was arrested? Where are the questions about why Patrick was arrested without a preliminary investigation?

Why haven't they challenged the ridiculous circumstances under which the knife and bra clasp were collected? Why haven't they challenged Mignini for not ensuring the defendants' rights to attorneys? Why haven't they challenged the police for claiming to have arrived at the cottage before the phone call was made, for lying about going into Meredith's bedroom, for declaring the case solved before evidence was collected?

Everything the judges seem curious about has to do with the validity of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, but nothing to do with the credibility of the people claiming to have the evidence. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the prosecutor and the police are trustworthy no matter how much misbehavior and how many bizarre events prove otherwise.

Yes you are right. In principle the court cares only about evidence on Raffaele and Amanda. They don't care at all if a policeman is a drunk who beats his wife and neither if he beats up prisoners.
You are not right on assuming the police are more trustworthy than any witness. But witnesses are trustorthy unless there is specific evidence of the opposite. And there are no such elements in this case, albeit there are people writing on this board who apparently believe otherwise.
I think likely we will never agree. I will never "see" the "evidence" od clues of conspiracy you address, nor grounds for your expectations. Just look, like "challenged the ridiculous circumstances under which the knife and bra clasp were collected" : what does that mean? What is the theory on which to challenge them? Is it about a conspiracy for the fabication of evidence? What is this conspiracy like? What are the elements of evidence?

The court by the way investigated a lot on those topics, and the result is hundreds of pages from testimonies and confrontations between experts.

The focus of the court's investigation and their tast however, will remain: to find out what happaned to Meredith Kercher.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree on the first part. It is not Raffaele's conviction who makes him look guilty. That is his words, and the evidence.
There were reasons to believe he was involved well before his conviction, and I would believe he is guilty even if he were acquitted.
On the rest, I don't know all what you read but I disagree. In particular I can't subscribe with your overlooking the analysis of his own declarations.

The analysis of Raffaele's declarations? By whom? I haven't overlooked my own analysis of his declarations. Who else's should I be paying attention to?

 

[Kaosium]

___________________________

Errr, I'm confused. So, Mignini was investigating suspected corruption among police, judges, and politicians in another murder case. But isn't that exactly what the Innocentisti want done in the Meredith Kercher murder case? So why shouldn't we be applauding Mignini's courage, Mignini having done what no prosecutor is willing to do in this Kercher case? I don't get it.

///

Not exactly. He was 'investigating' the people who spoke out when he bungled the death of Dr. Narducci. Three journalists, Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano, and Roberto Fiasconaro, the ex police chief of Florence Giuseppe De Donno, and three government officials. He came up with another crazy theory and went after the people who laughed. Illegal investigations and wiretapping is what got him busted for abuse of power before. He was supposed to be investigating the death of a doctor, not everyone who thought his theory of body swapping and satanic cults was nutty.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes you are right. In principle the court cares only about evidence on Raffaele and Amanda. They don't care at all if a policeman is a drunk who beats his wife and neither if he beats up prisoners.
You are not right on assuming the police are more trustworthy than any witness. But witnesses are trustorthy unless there is specific evidence of the opposite. And there are no such elements in this case, albeit there are people writing on this board who apparently believe otherwise.
I think likely we will never agree. I will never "see" the "evidence" od clues of conspiracy you address, nor grounds for your expectations. Just look, like "challenged the ridiculous circumstances under which the knife and bra clasp were collected" : what does that mean? What is the theory on which to challenge them? Is it about a conspiracy for the fabication of evidence? What is this conspiracy like? What are the elements of evidence?

We've talked about it many times on this thread, probably before you joined. For me, it boils down to a question of probability. How likely is it that a police officer walks into a kitchen, opens the silverware drawer and pulls out the murder weapon? Not only is it unlikely to begin with, but when you add in the extenuating circumstances -- that the police had no reason to be looking for a knife on November 6th, that they had no reason to be looking for a kitchen knife, and that the DNA test on the knife could not be repeated, etc. -- it is so blatantly absurd that no sober judge should NOT question it.

The same for the bra clasp -- of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world of all the millions of places in the house Raffaele's DNA could be found, it is found only on the bra clasp? Come on. The odds against it are astronomical.

So the question the judges should be curious about is how such high odds were defied -- TWICE. They don't even have to accuse anyone of tampering; they could just say, "Sorry, we're not buying it," the way they do to Amanda and Raffaele, with no truly valid theory on which to challenge them.

The court by the way investigated a lot on those topics, and the result is hundreds of pages from testimonies and confrontations between experts.

The focus of the court's investigation and their task however, will remain: to find out what happaned to Meredith Kercher.

So far, all they've done is try to find out how the defendants committed the murder. Even if they didn't.

 

[Mary_H]

My form of skepticism is grounded in the fact that murder [and ancillary] investigations are not run for the benefit of English speaking internet sleuths.
The defence have access to all the salient details.

As to David & Goliath - I'm even more skeptical of the actions & existence of both of these characters,drawn as they are from the same source, than I am of the details of the ' Jesus Christ' case that was used as an analogy earlier.

But, even employed as a literary term alone, I find the comparison of Sollecito Snr. to 'David' in this case laughable.

.

Can Sollecito, Sr. indict Mignini?

To quote Machiavelli: "But the members of the judiciary are also related to a separate power, the CSM, an independent entity. Nobody else - no hierarchy nor court - has power over the single magistrates or the CSM."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6553060&postcount=14948

 

[platonov]

I absolutely agree with your first sentence. But at the same time, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. And we will see what the defence does with all the salient details in the upcoming appeal.

I wonder also why you think that Sollecito Senior - even if he does have masonic allies and these mystical "networks" - is more powerful than the Italian law enforcement community (David vs Goliath). If indeed he is, then it's a sad day for Italian law enforcement...

No you appear to have misinterpreted my post - on this occasion I fail to see how the lack of clarity was down to my prose.

I was disputing Mary H's claim w.r.t the comparison of Sollecito Snr. to 'David' in this case, not turning the 'analogy' around.

But before we speculate further on 'wiretaps' - a pointless discussion IMO, given our lack of access to the relevant data & that the defence will deal with it if they think it will fly - can you deal with the earlier example of what I think is a lack of skepticism when dealing with certain aspects of this case .......

And, in any case, if Knox had tried to flee Switzerland to another EU country, she'd have had to find a mode of transportation which would have required identification as some part.

On a more serious note, leaving aside that this whole argument is redundant, can you imagine a cop within [or without] theSchengen Area using this excuse in a press conference following the escape of a suspect [a foreign national] in a high profile murder case.Imagine for example it was an Ivorian or a Pakistani suspect - drifters in other words.

.