Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

SomeAlibi · Dec 20, 2010

Chris C said:
If the knox/sollecito case drags into the summer, wont Mignini's conviction be confirmed or not confirmed by then. What kinda reflection will that have on Knox/Sollecito's case. How would that reflect on the calumnia charges against knox, which where supposed to have been investigated by Mignini.

It won't have any effect. The case against Knox and Sollecito is put by the state with a large cadre of people behind it. Any prosecution is so conducted in any criminal law suit under any criminal law system - the position of individual members of the team is not relevant to that.

SomeAlibi · Dec 20, 2010

Mary_H said:
It's an interesting topic. I looked into it a little yesterday after the discussion, and found a few different approaches, of which this is one:

"The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by mental health clinicians and physicians to subjectively rate the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of adults, e.g., how well or adaptively one is meeting various problems-in-living."

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

You're quoting a metric for assessing mental health which has nothing to do with the essential issue which remains that you asserted that homeless people are evidentially mentally ill if they are homeless for a number of years. You have so far failed to prove this to be the case.

Kevin_Lowe · Dec 20, 2010

bobc said:
You're starting to convince me, but I thought Curatolo and Capezzali were considered unreliable - Curatolo, "an alcoholic with mental health problems (probably)", and Capezzali, "old, a bit deaf (probably)". Or are they now considered reliable if they support the defence?

It's mostly a demonstration of how the dominoes fall once the initial domino of the time of death has been flicked over.

Once that domino falls then either Curatolo was lying/mistaken, or he gives Knox and Sollecito an alibi for the time of death. If he is lying/mistaken then the guilters who have been arguing strenuously that he should be regarded as a reliable witness, as well as Massei and Mignini, have a substantial amount of egg on their faces. If he gives Knox and Sollecito an alibi then the entire prosecution falls over on the spot.

Similarly once the TOD domino goes over then Nara with her magic ear is revealed as an old fantasist who also should never have been taken seriously, and once again Massei, Mignini and the on-line guilter community to adamantly defended her magic ear look rather silly.

With the Curatolo domino knocked down, the prosecution has zero time-sensitive evidence with which to try to break Knox and Sollecito's computer alibi as far as I am aware. Nobody else claims to have seen them out of the house, and none of the purported forensic evidence puts them at the house at the time of death.

The next domino that is trembling is the DNA evidence on the bra clasp and the knife. If it was indeed Meredith's DNA on the knife and Sollecito's on the bra clasp, but Sollecito and his knives were not present at the time Meredith was murdered, it follows that the DNA did not get there at the time of the attack. That leaves accidental contamination or deliberate falsification, and the guilters have argued forcefully that accidental contamination is impossible...

I am sure someone was telling me how bad it is to flip-flop over the same piece of data, in order to suit an argument...

You have misread other people's posts if you think this has ever happened.

If you read more closely, you will see that the arguments have been of the form "If A is true then Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Also, if A is not true then Knox and Sollecito are still innocent".

Anyway, I think you have cracked the case, it just needs the defence to call on you or Kevin Lowe, as expert witnesses, and the whole thing can be quickly cleared up. Did you get an invite yet?

Not this talking point again?

LondonJohn has explained the realities of court testimony from expert witnesses for you. I will assume that his explanation was satisfactory unless I hear further from you.

SomeAlibi · Dec 20, 2010

Kevin_Lowe said:
It's mostly a demonstration of how the dominoes fall once the initial domino of the time of death has been flicked over.

Once that domino falls then either Curatolo was lying/mistaken, or he gives Knox and Sollecito an alibi for the time of death. If he is lying/mistaken then the guilters who have been arguing strenuously that he should be regarded as a reliable witness, as well as Massei and Mignini, have a substantial amount of egg on their faces. If he gives Knox and Sollecito an alibi then the entire prosecution falls over on the spot.

Similarly once the TOD domino goes over then Nara with her magic ear is revealed as an old fantasist who also should never have been taken seriously, and once again Massei, Mignini and the on-line guilter community to adamantly defended her magic ear look rather silly.

With the Curatolo domino knocked down, the prosecution has zero time-sensitive evidence with which to try to break Knox and Sollecito's computer alibi as far as I am aware. Nobody else claims to have seen them out of the house, and none of the purported forensic evidence puts them at the house at the time of death.

The next domino that is trembling is the DNA evidence on the bra clasp and the knife. If it was indeed Meredith's DNA on the knife and Sollecito's on the bra clasp, but Sollecito and his knives were not present at the time Meredith was murdered, it follows that the DNA did not get there at the time of the attack. That leaves accidental contamination or deliberate falsification, and the guilters have argued forcefully that accidental contamination is impossible...

You have misread other people's posts if you think this has ever happened.

If you read more closely, you will see that the arguments have been of the form "If A is true then Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Also, if A is not true then Knox and Sollecito are still innocent".

Not this talking point again?

LondonJohn has explained the realities of court testimony from expert witnesses for you. I will assume that his explanation was satisfactory unless I hear further from you.

Are you sure that Raffaele's team contend it's Raffaele's DNA on the bra-clasp. I thought they were contending it was contamination? I'm not certain of this but then I can't follow the defence argument since I've seen both propositions, both that it is not his DNA and that it is contamination, which are obviously mutually excluive. Which is the definitive position for the appeal?

quadraginta · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
You're quoting a metric for assessing mental health which has nothing to do with the essential issue which remains that you asserted that homeless people are evidentially mentally ill if they are homeless for a number of years. You have so far failed to prove this to be the case.

Even if they were to it would still not do anything to support the unspoken assertion that whatever condition may have contributed to their homelessness is some sort of evidence that their testimony in court is intrinsically unreliable.

This kind of stereotyping of mental issues is the most simplistic and objectionable of all.

HumanityBlues · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
Are you sure that Raffaele's team contend it's Raffaele's DNA on the bra-clasp. I thought they were contending it was contamination? I'm not certain of this but then I can't follow the defence argument since I've seen both propositions, both that it is not his DNA and that it is contamination, which are obviously mutually excluive. Which is the definitive position for the appeal?

You've never made an argument "in the alternative" or assumed a position arguendo? Pretty common practice for attorneys.

SomeAlibi · Dec 20, 2010

HumanityBlues said:
You've never made an argument "in the alternative" or assumed a position arguendo? Pretty common practice for attorneys.

The court of first instance found it was Raffaele's DNA. I don't understand what you point is?

HumanityBlues · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
The court of first instance found it was Raffaele's DNA. I don't understand what you point is?

The argument would be pretty simple. I don't know if this is what they argued in their appeal, but it would probably be an "in the alternative" argument like this: It is not Raffaele's DNA for such and such reason. However, even assuming arguendo it is Raffaele's DNA, for such and such reason, it was on the bra by way of contamination.

You cover your bases that way.

Kevin_Lowe · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
Are you sure that Raffaele's team contend it's Raffaele's DNA on the bra-clasp. I thought they were contending it was contamination?

I thought you claimed to be an attorney? I realise that even mildly subtle arguments tend to go over the head of certain subsections of the guilter community, but this isn't difficult stuff for someone who supposedly does this for a living. Oh well.

I'm not certain of this but then I can't follow the defence argument since I've seen both propositions, both that it is not his DNA and that it is contamination, which are obviously mutually excluive. Which is the definitive position for the appeal?

It's up to the prosecution to demonstrate firstly that it really is Sollecito's DNA, and secondly that they have good cause to rule out contamination from the collection process or from the lab as sources of that DNA. They can fall over at either or both hurdles.

As I understand it the conclusion that it is Sollecito's DNA is not considered to be supported by independent DNA experts based on the limited information that the lab deigned to release to the court. So there're reasons to think that the prosecution might do a face-plant on that hurdle.

There's also video evidence of the bra clasp being mishandled by officers with dirty gloves, and the lab doing the testing has provably substandard procedures (no error logs) so there're also reasons for thinking that the prosecution might come unstuck on that hurdle.

The idea that the defence has to pick one of the two hurdles to make the prosecution jump, and that the prosecution gets the other hurdle as a freebie, as far as I can tell is purely a product of wishful thinking from naive guilters. Does it work that way in the courts where you practise, SomeAlibi?

Chris C · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
Are you sure that Raffaele's team contend it's Raffaele's DNA on the bra-clasp. I thought they were contending it was contamination? I'm not certain of this but then I can't follow the defence argument since I've seen both propositions, both that it is not his DNA and that it is contamination, which are obviously mutually excluive. Which is the definitive position for the appeal?

Sollecito's defense argues first that the Prosecution hasn't presented enough evidence to prove it is Sollecito's DNA. In fact they argue that to prove its his DNA you need to do LCN testing.

Their 2nd argument is even if does turn out to be his DNA after LCN testing is performed, you can't rule out contamination. Reasons you can't rule out contamination is there are other unidentified profiles on the clasp. The amount of time between the collecting of the bra and the collecting of the clasp. The fact that the clasp had changed locations from its original discovery until weeks later when it discovered again in a pile of things that could have contaminated it. The fact that rather than bag the clasp right away, the scientifica team decided to give everyone a chance to fondle the clasp and take their picture with the clasp like it was a celebrity. Then accidentally dropped it on the floor.

Charlie Wilkes · Dec 20, 2010

Fulcanelli said:
So where are you going to load it all up Charlie? What's the addy?

Dan O. · Dec 20, 2010

Jungle Jim said:
I am having a hard time following your reasoning. It seems you are lurching from one thought to another with little continuity.

Your first paragraph above has nothing to do with your proposed Rudy scenario. Amanda tried to call Meredith after she realized there was some strange things at the cottage.

Your next three paragraphs deal with why Rudy didn't dial 112. The answer is obvious and not disputed by anyone--he didn't call 112 because he did not want to help Meredith.

The last paragraph addresses the Abbey Bank. What am I factually incorrect about? Please reread my post.

If you can't follow the answers, why do you ask the questions?

You asked: "what do you think Amanda would have done after calling her back and getting no response?" My first paragraph was a response to that question using what I know amanda did do in as close to a similar situation as we have data for. Only Amanda can say what she would have done in precisely that situation so if you really want to know that specific answer you need to ask Amanda.

The next three paragraphs were examining Rudy's alternatives to try and raise awareness of Meredith's condition as LJ earlier had pointed out that Rudy could have just call 112. A human would have called 112. There was a phone on the wall right in front of the door. Rudy did not pick it up. There were people in the square less than a block away that Rudy would have had to walk past if he wasn't hiding in the shadows. Rudy did not ask anyone for help. There are restrants and bars in that area. Rudy did not enter any of them to seek help. There are public phones in the square. Rudy says he didn't know where a phone was. He hangs out in that square with his friends shooting hoops and he doesn't know what's around him? Did he even think to look?!

WOULD RUDY GUEDE PLEASE PICK UP A RED TELEPHONE!!

Rudy Guede is not human. Rudy Guede is an animal. Rudy Guede would not dial 112 to save a life if he thought there was any chance it might lead to him being caught.

And the final paragraph was in response to your claim: "the buttons on the phone that were touched are associated with the bank and voice mail--not one of the numbers in her address book." Do you think I am talking about a little book that Meredith wrote names and numbers in? If that's the case, you might be excused for your confusion except that I provided the quote from Massei that states explicitly that "Abbey" was the second entry in the list of names and numbers in the phones memory.

I think you are being deliberately dense in an attempt to discredit the information that I am providing. In the future, if you want clarification you will have make a commitment to the thread and provide your own assessment of what you think is being discussed before I'll put any more effort into explaining things for your benefit.

Charlie Wilkes · Dec 20, 2010

s_pepys said:
lj

but the caveats mentioned by the experts are the very factors that cant be measured or taken into account by definition. Thats why a reliable hypothesis cannot be used to determin tod with digestion.

With regard to, potentially, trauma making a difference that affects the time line. I find that a far more interesting and productive debate in itself. the problem is that it cant be known. Thats why it is unreliable.

I do find it interesting that you are willing to concede that other factors play a part when it strenghens the case for defence. which it does. unfortunately it is not measurable.

the conclusion is the same. No accurate/reliable tod can be found. As i stated last time this came up, this highlights the priority and importance of establishing a tod, early and with the correct methods in any murder case.

lxxx

If the digestive evidence is unreliable, then what about the luminol footprints that tested negative for blood and DNA, the mixed DNA found everywhere except the room where the murder took place, the knife that doesn't fit the wounds, the bra fastener that was handled by two people in exactly the way professional guidelines say not to handle DNA evidence? Let's throw it all out. Fair enough?

Mary_H · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
You're quoting a metric for assessing mental health which has nothing to do with the essential issue which remains that you asserted that homeless people are evidentially mentally ill if they are homeless for a number of years. You have so far failed to prove this to be the case.

Find me one legitimate, well-respected, working mental health professional (by name) who will categorically state that a person who lives on a park bench for ten years has normal mental health.

Jungle Jim · Dec 20, 2010

Dan O. said:
If you can't follow the answers, why do you ask the questions?

You asked: "what do you think Amanda would have done after calling her back and getting no response?" My first paragraph was a response to that question using what I know amanda did do in as close to a similar situation as we have data for. Only Amanda can say what she would have done in precisely that situation so if you really want to know that specific answer you need to ask Amanda.

The next three paragraphs were examining Rudy's alternatives to try and raise awareness of Meredith's condition as LJ earlier had pointed out that Rudy could have just call 112. A human would have called 112. There was a phone on the wall right in front of the door. Rudy did not pick it up. There were people in the square less than a block away that Rudy would have had to walk past if he wasn't hiding in the shadows. Rudy did not ask anyone for help. There are restrants and bars in that area. Rudy did not enter any of them to seek help. There are public phones in the square. Rudy says he didn't know where a phone was. He hangs out in that square with his friends shooting hoops and he doesn't know what's around him? Did he even think to look?!

WOULD RUDY GUEDE PLEASE PICK UP A RED TELEPHONE!!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4130[/qimg]

Rudy Guede is not human. Rudy Guede is an animal. Rudy Guede would not dial 112 to save a life if he thought there was any chance it might lead to him being caught.

And the final paragraph was in response to your claim: "the buttons on the phone that were touched are associated with the bank and voice mail--not one of the numbers in her address book." Do you think I am talking about a little book that Meredith wrote names and numbers in? If that's the case, you might be excused for your confusion except that I provided the quote from Massei that states explicitly that "Abbey" was the second entry in the list of names and numbers in the phones memory.

I think you are being deliberately dense in an attempt to discredit the information that I am providing. In the future, if you want clarification you will have make a commitment to the thread and provide your own assessment of what you think is being discussed before I'll put any more effort into explaining things for your benefit.

We agree that Rudy could have called 112, but did not. What's your point?

The address book I was referring to is the one stored in Meredith's phone. I should have used the term "phonebook."

Dan O. · Dec 20, 2010

SomeAlibi said:
Charlie (and Bruce Fisher)

Do you have access to an Italian language version of Massei? If so, could you be kind enough to provide a copy of pages 288 and 304 of the original so that we could complete the translation of Massei for all people wanting to read it in the English speaking world? This would be a service to all concerned with this case.

Thanks
SA

Massei pg 288

Certo, si potrebbe osservare che non ogni presente fu sottoposto a repertazione e ad potrebbe pensare che in altri punti e in altr trovare il DNA di Sollecito Raffaele. A qut DNA posizionatosi su una data superfìcie superfici; è necessario infatti che entri in c< che lo faccia con modalità tali da deti necessario che qualcuno, manipolando l'c si trovava, trasporti tale DNA su un ogget Ora, il semplice contatto tra oggetti non di DNA: nel posacenere sono stati rinvenuti insieme, all'interno dello stesso conteràt< genetica ha dato un risultato specifico e alcun passaggio di DNA dall'imo agli altr Va inoltre sottolineato e tenuto presente c DNA di Raffaele Sollecito è stato rinver reggiseno, lo si è visto, era quello che Mer Il pezzettino di stoffa con attaccati tali g. della vittima, sotto il cuscino sul quale i Meredith. A voler sostenere che il DNA r sia derivato dal contatto con altro oggel individuarsi nel cuscino sul quale si conseguenza che Sollecito Raffaele avrebt modo tale da lasciarvi il proprio DNA. Ip appiglio nelle emergenze istruttorie le escludere una tale eventualità. A questo punto si potrebbe osservare eh pezzetto di reggiseno fu trovato sotto u tale tappetino potrebbe aver determinat< ipotesi -ricordato che il tappetino face Meredith e che nessun oggetto che non fa

Massei pg 304

Anche nei confronti di tali tracce si poneva un problem non genuinità della traccia, di conseguente irrilevanza d Ciò premesso va innanzitutto rilevato che l'esito negat per rilevare la presenza di sangue, non significa necess evidenziata dal luminol non sia di natura ematica. E' s nel corso dell'odierno dibattimento che nell'udienza l'analisi effettuata per stabilire la natura ematica di un negativo perché la quantità utilizzata per effettuare tale non consentire di rilevare la presenza del sangue. Ci stesso dato fornito dalla dr.ssa Gino la quale ha ri< propria esperienza l'analisi effettuata su tracce esa statisticamente una percentuale di parità tra i casi i positiva e quelli in cui risultava negativa. Appare anche scelta per la quale, come spiegato dalla dr.ssa Stefanon la maggior quantità di DNA per individuare il profilc minore, residua, per stabilire la natura della traccia. Inoltre, poiché le tracce esaltate dal luminol hanno d come si è visto, necessariamente deve affermarsi che luminol era presente DNA umano. La fluorescenza da ritenere che il materiale biologico (nel quale era ap umano) era finito su sostanze luminol positive. Come si è ricordato le sostanze luminol positive sono dr.ssa Gino ha ricordato che anche il cotto e lo sma pavimenti può dare positività al luminol. Nulla di spf riguardo detto, né -soprattutto- è stato affermato chi nella casa di Via della Pergola avesse una tale caratteri che, verosimilmente, ove il pavimento della casa di 1 avuto una tale peculiarità, le tracce esaltate dal luminol assai più numerose e verosimilmente gli stessi open rendendosi conto di tale peculiarità del pavimento, ne test del luminol. In relazione a tali considerazioni no

Chris C · Dec 20, 2010

Mary_H said:
Find me one legitimate, well-respected, working mental health professional (by name) who will categorically state that a person who lives on a park bench for ten years has normal mental health.

I read one of the Guilters argue that Rudy didn't take the money because he was on assisted housing. If thats the case, you would think after 10 years the poor homeless guy would have found somewhere to live. Heck I've been homeless and without a job. I lived out of my truck for a month after katrina. If a guy is homeless after 10 years, he has given up.

Mary_H · Dec 20, 2010

quadraginta said:
Even if they were to it would still not do anything to support the unspoken assertion that whatever condition may have contributed to their homelessness is some sort of evidence that their testimony in court is intrinsically unreliable.

Again, you're accusing me of saying mental illness is bad, when my position is that mental illness that can be treated by medication is not any more shameful than physical illness (in fact, it is physical illness).

I don't see Curatolo necessarily as being any more non-credible than the other witnesses who testified for the prosecution. Unlike Kokomani and possibly Capezalli, Curatolo described something that actually could have happened -- he just got the date wrong. What might be more questionable than Curatolo's mental health is the judgment of the prosecutor who thought it would be a good idea to put Curatolo on the witness stand.

This kind of stereotyping of mental issues is the most simplistic and objectionable of all.

What stereotyping? Curatolo appears to me to be in an extremely small minority group -- people who choose to sleep on park benches for ten years. He doesn't represent the homeless as a group and he doesn't represent all mentally ill people.

quadraginta · Dec 20, 2010

Mary_H said:
Find me one legitimate, well-respected, working mental health professional (by name) who will categorically state that a person who lives on a park bench for ten years has normal mental health.

Find me one legitimate, well-respected, working mental health professional (by name) who will categorically state that a person who lives on a park bench for ten years is incapable of offering reliable testimony in court ... on the basis of that information alone.

Rhea · Dec 20, 2010

Not all homeless people or alcoholics, drug addicts or mentally ill, but the statistical likelyhood is much higher then the likelyhood of a random person to be alcoholic or mentally ill.

About Homeless People & Drugs

Homeless people are often assumed to be drug addicts or alcoholics. It can be hard to get actual numbers of how many homeless use drugs or drink because it can be hard to determine just how many homeless there are and what services they need. Also, many homeless are mentally ill and may not realize they are addicts. Many homeless turn to drugs or alcohol as a means to comfort themselves in an incredibly harsh world.

Size
There isn't a worldwide consensus on just how many homeless are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Many studies in local areas or in just one country indicate that 50 percent are addicts. Studies done by America's Department of Veterans Affairs found that 70 percent of homeless veterans were addicts ("Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook", p 1153).

Source About Homeless People & Drugs

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Critical Thinker

Critical Thinker

Unregistered

Critical Thinker

Becoming Beth

Graduate Poster

Critical Thinker

Graduate Poster

Unregistered

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Banned

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Becoming Beth

Thinker