Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Not exactly, I think that system provides too much power and latitude to one person. How many charges/arrests have been made in this tragic break-in so far? Solely to 'protect' the nutty prosecutor from the 'shadowy forces' arrayed against him? Or to allow the system to be manipulated so he could bypass the decisions of higher courts to the detriment of his victims, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?


BTW, speaking of British tabloids, a while back Treehorn claimed that the 'Streets of Bagdad' Daily Mail piece about that noise violation actually made it into the court and was used against Amanda. Is that actually true?

Yes, it is.

 

[platonov]

You know, the same could be said about Mignini.

No, I don't know - but yet again you make my point for me.

It has nothing to do with Mignini - this is a sordid rape/murder case that he happened to handle.

This isn't Rocky or Rambo - & Mignini isn't Chavez or Morales.

You want to find 'devils' - look closer to home, less travel and it always works.

.

 

[Mary_H]

There is something that interests me about this issue [see my posts in the last 36 hours for a more than frank explication] but one doesn't discuss protocols etc with the subjects

.

Aw, shoot. I'm afraid that looking at your last 36 hours' worth of posts is something I'm going to have to live without. There's just no time -- I am still rereading the entire thread, per your previous instructions, to look for examples of racism and xenophobia.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The guilters always seem to overlook the fact that the proposed scenario sprang from Mignini's imagination on the 5th or 6th of November without ONE IOTA of evidence to suggest it. Why do you guys not find that weird?

And why do you not find it weird that you feel the need to defend Mignini, who would sue me for slander if he could find me? He's not exactly helpless, guys.

One reason why I don't "find it weird" is it is not true. On the 5th and 6th of November there was no ritualistic scenario. There was no ritualistic scenario by December 18. There was no ritualistic sex game in january. There was no ritualistic sex game proposed till the closing of the investigation.

My feeling is that it's perfectly okay to make fun of tyrants, or even just people in power. It's the ones who are on trial that we have to be 100% accurate about.

Your feeling about making fun is ok.
But I just add two things: in the trial - in Italy - there is also a victim to be accurate about, not just a defendant. To mock justice appears to me as dangerously close to mock a victim.
And, anothr thing, while making fun of something or somebody is one thing, in my Italian mind to accuse someone as a third part with no evidence is a serious crime. A person who is inaccurate in his opinion about this makes a very bad mistake in my eyes.

 

[pilot padron]

Citations being used lately

As I scan the past couple pages, I am somewhat surprised at the dramatic degradation of documentation cited to support most pro innocent arguments.

Examples:
1) Curt Knox said
2) Steve Moore said
3) Bruce Fisher said
4) Janet Huff said
5) Anne Bremner said
6) West Seattle Herald said
7) My granddaughters and boyfriends said

Needless to say, each and every one of the first 6 above sources are to say the least, *completely* biased and one sided.
The 7th needs no explanation for incongruous use
I am dismayed to see their dismal preponderance in an 'evidence based' lively discussion Forum for skeptics.

Since past arguments here have also boasted about how much more scientific and 'evidence based' members of this Forum must always be compared to PMF, this degradation of documentation used to support innocence arguments is definitely disappointing, but understandable.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No, I don't know - but yet again you make my point for me.

It has nothing to do with Mignini - this is a sordid rape/murder case that he happened to handle.

This isn't Rocky or Rambo - & Mignini isn't Chavez or Morales.

You want to find 'devils' - look closer to home, less travel and it always works.

.

I see. So you only subject certain people to scrutiny before accepting their claims.
.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't have so much psychological insight. I herard Mignini talking many times and my idea is of a person who loves literature. My perception is of man with somewhat a sweet temper, and cautious. I think his ideas to make sense of situation are related to his very literary background.

Ick. Yuk. Gross. It's sickening to read such a sympathetic portrayal. If what you say about Mignini being influenced by literature is true, and I believe you are correct, it simply points up how shallow he is. He uses people for his personal dramas, as if they don't have lives of their own, or any meaning beyond how they can serve his story.

His descriptive idea oa sex game was maybe derived in its features from eruopean novels and highbrow manga, but probably a little too sophisiticate for attributing it to 20yo students.
But Mignini's personal taste is of no interest to me.

What is important to be said, is that the murder scene is not a posted photo, and it is something not consistent with a lone perpetrator.
Let alone the "scared kids" and be correct on the wounds: the wounds are three, and the knife fits two. The only problem with this knife is there is Meredith's DNA on it, and it's not normal for it to be there.

Don't you think it's kind of an important point that his "descriptive idea" was a "little too sophisticated for attributing to 20-year-old students," given it was that same "descriptive idea" that got them convicted? You are giving him an awfully big break, to shrug and say, well, yeah, the way he imagined it was pretty far out and probably wrong, but they DID find Meredith's DNA on the knife, after all.

The only reason they have the knife is because of Mignini's "descriptive idea."

 

[platonov]

I see. So you only subject certain people to scrutiny before accepting their claims.
.

Apparently, I didn't get my point across with sufficient clarity.

I'll break it down.

I shovel

.

 

[christianahannah]

BTW, speaking of British tabloids, a while back Treehorn claimed that the 'Streets of Bagdad' Daily Mail piece about that noise violation actually made it into the court and was used against Amanda. Is that actually true?

Yes, it is.

While the noise violation was brought up during Amanda's June 2009 questioning it isn't mentioned by the court. From this paragraph I don't think it played any part in the court's verdict.

The motivations page 391:

That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Apparently, I didn't get my point across with sufficient clarity.

I'll break it down.

I shovel

.

Yes, I know

 

[platonov]

Aw, shoot. I'm afraid that looking at your last 36 hours' worth of posts is something I'm going to have to live without. There's just no time -- I am still rereading the entire thread, per your previous instructions, to look for examples of racism and xenophobia.

See my aphoristic advice to PDiGirolamo if you want to shorten the search.

.

 

[platonov]

Who knows? It has nothing to do with the murder, tracking it down is like trying to figure out where the elephant DNA came from in a lecture a professor once gave me about an experiment done on a person's body and clothes. They never did quite figure it out, though a decent argument was made it was transferred from a zoo employee on the bus. Low odds, but since the subject wasn't an elephant and hadn't been near one in years it had to come from somewhere.

Same thing with that bra clasp DNA. It got there somehow, the only thing that can be eliminated is that it happened during the murder.

Why, is this an 'article of faith' or do you know something the rest of us don't.
If so you should get in touch with RS's people.

.

 

[Mary_H]

One reason why I don't "find it weird" is it is not true. On the 5th and 6th of November there was no ritualistic scenario. There was no ritualistic scenario by December 18. There was no ritualistic sex game in january. There was no ritualistic sex game proposed till the closing of the investigation.

My post didn't promote a ritualistic scenario. On November 6th, the chief of police and the Minister of the Interior called a press conference in which they announced that Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had tried to force Meredith Kercher into sex she didn't want, and killed her for refusing.

Meanwhile, Luca Lalli had said there was no evidence of sexual assault; there was no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had participated in anything like what was being described; and we all know how things turned out for Patrick. From whom did the chief of police and the Minister of the Interior receive their information about what happened during the crime?

Your feeling about making fun is ok.
But I just add two things: in the trial - in Italy - there is also a victim to be accurate about, not just a defendant. To mock justice appears to me as dangerously close to mock a victim.

That doesn't come anywhere close to how I feel.

And, anothr thing, while making fun of something or somebody is one thing, in my Italian mind to accuse someone as a third part with no evidence is a serious crime. A person who is inaccurate in his opinion about this makes a very bad mistake in my eyes.

Tell that to your friends at PMF, where the fun, the accusations without evidence, and the inaccurate opinions never stop.

ETA: Machiavelli, I want to apologize if you felt that my comment about PMF was directed at you personally. I'm sorry if it came across as a "gotcha;" that was not my intention. As far as I know, you don't make fun of people when you post on PMF.

I would like to ask you whether you think making fun of someone is the same as accusing them with no evidence, and what you think it is that constitutes a bad mistake.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testimony of Filomena and Giacomo

How does Curt's recollections help Amanda's case, in a court of law? Isn't Amanda's case what really matters here, not what is said on the Internet?

Alt+F4,

It is only in a court of law that calling something hearsay is enough to have it discounted. That is why I wrote what I did. As for Curt's recollections, they don't help Amanda as much as Filomena's and Giacomo's testimonies do. Both roommates gave testimony that calls Mignini's implications about Amanda's relationship with Meredith into serious doubt (one of them called it normale, if memory serves). IIRC, Giacomo described Amanda's relationship with Meredith as warm.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

risible

They certainly seemed to 'paw' the item but as I'm not a forensics specialist I cant say if it's bad practice.
As for contamination of the actual clasp, that argument doesn't fly - its been covered at length in this thread.
Its either planted or genuine. Randi wont pay if I predict your choice

The Lab not the prosecution claimed no contamination - if it hasn't happened or hasn't been discovered then that's that.

.

platonov,

You speak only for yourself. Contamination is an entirely reasonable explanation for the DNA on the clasp, just not the only one. The lab's claim of no contamination in seven years is risible.

post script
Secondary transfer of DNA prior to the clasp being taken into custody, contamination, or evidence-tampering are the three possibilities that I can think of, as opposed to primary transfer.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't have so much psychological insight. I herard Mignini talking many times and my idea is of a person who loves literature. My perception is of man with somewhat a sweet temper, and cautious. I think his ideas to make sense of situation are related to his very literary background. His descriptive idea oa sex game was maybe derived in its features from eruopean novels and highbrow manga, but probably a little too sophisiticate for attributing it to 20yo students.
But Mignini's personal taste is of no interest to me.

Thanks for that insight, I've been trying to put together a more complete picture of the guy in my mind.

What is important to be said, is that the murder scene is not a posted photo, and it is something not consistent with a lone perpetrator.
Let alone the "scared kids" and be correct on the wounds: the wounds are three, and the knife fits two. The only problem with this knife is there is Meredith's DNA on it, and it's not normal for it to be there.

If there actually was Meredith's DNA on it, you'd think they would have released the files. Someone can't create a perpetual motion device and then wave their hands when people want to see the how the insides work: no one will believe them. Even if Meredith's DNA was on it, it would hardly be evidence of murder. Some sort of bizarre transfer is more likely, and of course with the forensic acumen of the scientific police displayed for all the world to see in the video of the bra-clasp, contamination is probable.

As for the knife fitting two of three wounds, is that what the prosecution forensics expert claimed was 'compatible?' He must have also found four people in that tiny room 'compatible' as well, which unfortunately discredits his testimony in my eyes. BTW, didn't the first coroner say something about more than one attacker being impossible before Mignini sacked him?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Filomena testified that the laundry was primarily Meredith's

I agree. It is also quite strange that Amanda didn't take out the washing which contained also her own cloths, and instead she was concerned to carry a mop with bucket to dry a (almost dry yet) floor in another house. In fact, on the same point, it is something that allows to think that maybe Meredith was not the one who put the washing in.

Machiavelli,

Filomena testified that most of what was in the wash was Meredith's but there were some things such as towels about which she was not sure. There is no evidence that Amanda's clothes were in there. Moreover, Amanda testified that she used the laundromat in preference to the machine, partly on account of its having a dryer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Should the drive be released?

Of course that is possible. But it's silly to say that the prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof when they clearly have (at least to the satisfaction of the first set of judges).

Your statement above is merely a reiteration of the fact that Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty, a fact which was known when the thread began. As a follow-up to my previous comment, I would add that the trial should have been held in another city (Bologna, for example) on the basis of pretrial publicity. If it had, I think that acquittal would have been more likely than convicdtion. MOO.

Do you think that there is justification for refusing to turn the hard drive over to Toshiba? If either you or Alt+F4 has answered this, I have missed it.

 

[Solange305]

I found it breathtaking that someone could think some clown with a website could think they were 'discrediting' twenty-five years of FBI experience with trivial crap like not knowing the intimate details of the Massei report fantasy of how the murder 'occurred.'

But you don't find it breathtaking how some clowns on a forum could think they were 'discrediting' many years of combined judicial experience by the judges and lawyers with trivial crap they found on youtube and the internet?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it takes my breath away

But you don't find it breathtaking how some clowns on a forum could think they were 'discrediting' many years of combined judicial experience by the judges and lawyers with trivial crap they found on youtube and the internet?

Solange305,

What I find breathtaking is that those judges with all of their years of experience upended a fundamental tenet of forensic genetics in the document that they used to explain their decision. By clowns you mean whom, exactly?