Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by halides1 View Post
To all,

Judy Bachrach wrote, “The Italian legal system, ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi informs me, will not work in Amanda’s favor. ‘Our system stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law,’ he explains. What this means, in effect, he says, is that justice in Italy ‘is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact—written in our constitution by the way—that you’re innocent until proven guilty.’”

The key word being, "ecclesiastical."

He presided in an ecclesiastical court, i.e., a "court" that has jurisdiction in religious/ spiritual matters!

He was not/ is not a "public official"/ member of the state's independent Italian judiciary!

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

When you have to try THAT hard to misrepresent the facts, might it not be a clue that you're on the wrong track?

He is just presenting a quote, treehorn. I don't see where he is misrepresenting anything. Is that the part where he says "To all"? In any case, regardless of what kind of judge this person is, it is clear that they are talking about justice in regards to the case we are discussing which is not a case regarding religious matters.

 

[Amazer]

Talking of that fine website devoted to a balanced, rational discussion of the Kercher case, PMF: its "co-head-honcho", Michael, wrote a response yesterday to something that I'd posted on JREF, and I thought I'd like to offer a counter-reply since I was simultaneously amused and amazed at his "logic".

My original post is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6678788&postcount=22083

(It was posted back on 20th December, so I'm guessing that Michal might be a slow reader...)

And Michael's response is this:



Now, personal insults aside, Michael seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of blood and DNA. This is a very important point in relation to this case: if Michal's answer were correct, then the DNA result from the knife might make some sense. But fortunately he's wrong, and the DNA result makes no sense.

Here's why he's wrong: he seems to be under the impression that human blood is composed of "blood cells", all of which are essentially the same as each other. But human blood is in fact a "soup" containing may different constituent elements. The two most prevalent elements are red blood cells (or erythrocytes) and white blood cells.

Now for the important "science" part:

1) White blood cells contain DNA, but red blood cells do not
2) For every white blood cell in human blood, there are around 800-1000 red blood cells

Next, remember that red blood cells are the ones needed for presumptive tests for blood (such as TMB or Luminol). And white blood cells are needed for DNA testing.

So....if the knife had Meredith's DNA on it, let's suppose for a moment that it came from her blood. Therefore the DNA would have had to come from a white blood cell (or cells). But even if there were only ONE white blood cell on the knife (unlikely to give a positive DNA result, but let's run with it in a "reductio ad absurdum" argument), then statistically there ought to have been 800-1000 red blood cells also present (to preserve the proper relative proportions of human blood). And if there were 800-1000 red blood cells on the knife (and remember, this is based on there only being ONE DNA-containing white blood cell being present), then a presumptive test for blood - which requires only around 30-50 red blood cells to produce a positive result - would have been positive. But the blood test came back negative. Therefore the DNA on that knife did not come from a deposit of Meredith's blood on the blade.

And this is also why every medical/forensic text book says - with confidence - that (in the absence of a few very specific mitigating factors such as intense heat or fire) if a presumptive blood test on an unidentified spot or stain comes back negative, then it's not worth doing a DNA test. If there are not enough red blood cells for a positive blood test, then there are assuredly not enough white blood cells for a positive DNA test.

So, next time a person-who-believes-that-Knox_and-Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted you happen to be debating with declares the material on the knife might have been blood despite the fact that the blood test proved negative, you now have the answer for them, all courtesy of the Great JREF Windbag himself

To me it matters not whether the DNA (on the knife) come from white blood cells or if it came from something else. I suspect that it won't matter a great deal either to the courts.

Besides, it's much more interesting how Merediths DNA got to be on the blade, then which type of cells it came from.

 

[LondonJohn]

To me it matters not whether the DNA (on the knife) come from white blood cells or if it came from something else. I suspect that it won't matter a great deal either to the courts.

Besides, it's much more interesting how Merediths DNA got to be on the blade, then which type of cells it came from.

I suspect it might matter a great deal to the appeal court.

I also suspect the DNA came from contamination in the lab. But I'm still intrigued by the episode in the police station when the knife was removed from its sterile collection bag, then placed into a non-sterile box that happened to be at hand. I can't for the life of me figure out why such a transfer would be either necessary or desirable. And, at that point, ugly words such as "evidence planting" start to float into my mind. I sincerely hope that there's an innocent explanation for the transfer that I just haven't thought of yet....

 

[RoseMontague]

To me it matters not whether the DNA (on the knife) come from white blood cells or if it came from something else. I suspect that it won't matter a great deal either to the courts.

Besides, it's much more interesting how Merediths DNA got to be on the blade, then which type of cells it came from.

I think the more interesting question is whether or not the DNA result came from DNA on the knife or in the lab or testing machine. The other interesting question is why did Stefanoni misrepresent the facts regarding this particular test on the knife blade as presented in a pre-trial hearing in 2008 and documented in the technical report (SAL) provided to the defense also before trial.

To me, this suggests she was trying to hide the fact that the testing methods could be questioned on this evidence and the defense was fortunate to get this information at all even after the trial was well underway.

 

[Justinian2]

A kitchen knife was found in Guede's pocession after he took it from the kitchen in the nursery school. Lots of kitchen knives were found at Meredith's flat. These were not tested for DNA as far as I know.

A kitchen knife was found at Raffaele's place and was tested. It was collected in a flawed manner and stored in a flawed manner. Subsequent testing by a contaminated forensics lab found a molecule of Meredith's DNA on it (pico grams) and NO blood.

& all that stuff LJ said.

Reasonable doubt? I have ten reasonable doubts.

All I know is that one innocent young woman is missing the prime of her life locked in a bathroom/cell in Italy.

How is a prosecution to be trusted whose theories and forensics always leave a reasonable doubt (about Amanda and Raffaele)?

 

[loverofzion]

A kitchen knife was found in Guede's pocession after he took it from the kitchen in the nursery school. Lots of kitchen knives were found at Meredith's flat. These were not tested for DNA as far as I know.

A kitchen knife was found at Raffaele's place and was tested. It was collected in a flawed manner and stored in a flawed manner. Subsequent testing by a contaminated forensics lab found a molecule of Meredith's DNA on it (pico grams) and NO blood.

& all that stuff LJ said.

Reasonable doubt? I have ten reasonable doubts.

All I know is that one innocent young woman is missing the prime of her life locked in a bathroom/cell in Italy.

How is a prosecution to be trusted whose theories and forensics always leave a reasonable doubt (about Amanda and Raffaele)?

Interesting that the doubts about the "theories and forensics" apply only sofar as amanda and raf are concerned.
Never are any doubts expressed about the forensics when they pertain to Rudy Guede.

 

[loverofzion]

I think the more interesting question is whether or not the DNA result came from DNA on the knife or in the lab or testing machine. The other interesting question is why did Stefanoni misrepresent the facts regarding this particular test on the knife blade as presented in a pre-trial hearing in 2008 and documented in the technical report (SAL) provided to the defense also before trial.

To me, this suggests she was trying to hide the fact that the testing methods could be questioned on this evidence and the defense was fortunate to get this information at all even after the trial was well underway.

Let us wait and see what the re testing shows.
And IF it results in the same evidence as in the first round, whom will you blame then?

 

[loverofzion]

He is just presenting a quote, treehorn. I don't see where he is misrepresenting anything. Is that the part where he says "To all"? In any case, regardless of what kind of judge this person is, it is clear that they are talking about justice in regards to the case we are discussing which is not a case regarding religious matters.

Andon the subject of which he has no qualifications or expertise which would render him quotable.

 

[shuttlt]

My question is could the officers involved in the interrogation be asked to take lie detector tests?

Aren't lie detector tests more than a little pseudo-scientific? If Amanda had failed one, would we be hearing how she was tired, she was stressed, she didn't understand the question etc. etc. etc.....? What would one prove?

 

[loverofzion]

It is not necessarily true that Count Neri Capponi is not a member of the Italian judiciary. Some canon lawyers have secular law degrees as well. In the Vatican, ecclesiastical law is the law of the land. The process of becoming an ecclesiastical lawyer is a rigorous one, and I can't imagine an ecclesiastical lawyer in Italy not finding it in his best interest to familiarize himself with Italian law as a whole.

Judge Capponi seems to have been speaking as an observer, anyway, not as a magistrate. No doubt there are many journalists and other commentators in Italy who have not studied the law at all who would make exactly the same observation. As Malkmus said, Capponi's prediction was correct.

Why don't you try checking what "you can't imagine"?

 

[loverofzion]

Why don't you try checking what "you can't imagine" before posting?

 

[shuttlt]

The same expert notes three vulnerability factors with regard to personality: 1) suggestibility; 2) a high trust in authority; 3) lack of confidence. Amanda certainly meets the criteria for 2) (her handwritten note is proof enough of that)

This is only true if you taken it as a given that in her handwritten note she is being honest and straightforward about how she actually feels. Again, you are all but including her being innocent within your reasoning. If she doesn't trust authority then she may well not say so in a note that she gives to that very authority that she does not trust and currently has her in it's power. Similarly, if she was involved in the murder she may be trying to give the impression of being a doe-eyed trusting innocent.

 

[Dan O.]

Interesting that the doubts about the "theories and forensics" apply only sofar as amanda and raf are concerned.
Never are any doubts expressed about the forensics when they pertain to Rudy Guede.

Check the title of this thread. The threads expressing doubts about Rudy are probably on Italian or German sites. But it's a moot point since Rudy chose the fast track his appeals are already closed. You should have spoken up sooner.

 

[shuttlt]

Most viewers of extreme porn are simply curious. Sounds to me that the college authorities took the correct step of "monitoring" rather than expulsion or prosecution regarding the bestiality porn incident with RF. If there were no further incidents, I'd call it case closed.

If using acid and coke in one's twenties makes that person participate in murder, I'd be doing life in prison now instead of working in IT and looking forward to retirement. That goes for most of my college friends and 30% of my current co-workers.

And knife collecting? Really? There are currently over 200,000 knife collectors selling their wares on eBay. Some of them may even do coke and view extreme porn! With those kind of numbers, I'll agree that some may be likely to participate in a "depraved act," but I'd lower the probability for a shy Italian computer student and heighten it for a member of Hell's Angels Fresno.

And, despite the argument I've presented, I doubt that this post will "militate strongly" a change of mind on your part about the guilt of the convicted. Am I right?

Presumably most burglars don't end up being rapist/killers either.

 

[RoseMontague]

Andon the subject of which he has no qualifications or expertise which would render him quotable.

Gee, I justed quoted you and have rendered you quotable. Here is another quote:

This latter (“reasonable doubt”) must certainly not be misunderstood as mere possible doubt (because any thing related to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt, and one should not as a result fall into a kind of epistemological nihilism of which the maxim might be, “nothing is certain in this world and therefore nothing in this world can be proven”), so much as a final situation of concrete uncertainty which persists, once all the trial elements available have been examined, in the logical/evidential judgment of ascribability of the crime to the accused: the doubt is not abstract or merely imaginary, but becomes concrete and reasonable where it is specifically based (as in this case) on evidence which emerged during the trial.

Thus strictly understood, this last rule of evidence and judgment represents not only the implementation of fundamental constitutional principles and an essential pillar of a liberal/democratic state (in the highest and noblest sense), but also and even before this a natural ethical appeal to any just and reasonable man”.

 

[loverofzion]

Check the title of this thread. The threads expressing doubts about Rudy are probably on Italian or German sites. But it's a moot point since Rudy chose the fast track his appeals are already closed. You should have spoken up sooner.

The forensics as regarding RG were, nevertheless, never disputed on this site.

On the other hand, those pertaining to the lovebirds are still being disputed; in the minds of many posters on this site, they have already been discarded.

 

[Matthew Best]

The forensics as regarding RG were, nevertheless, never disputed on this site.

If you want to dispute the forensics regarding Guede, I don't think anyone here is stopping you. Knock yourself out.

 

[Kaosium]

Just as an aside: Intent is one of the the essential elements which must be proven by the prosecution and accepted by the court, if a person is to be found guilty of a criminal offence. Intent is very different from motive, and it's also entirely different from pre-meditation. Intent is narrowly defined as the immediate mental desire to perform a criminal act (or sometimes the failure to perform an act - the failure of which constitutes a criminal offence).

The concept of intent is closely related to "mens rea" ("guilty mind" in Latin), which means that the person knew that they were about to commit an act which any right-thinking person would know was illegal. In other words, in order to convict someone of (for example) murder by gunshot, the court must accept that the defendant deliberately aimed and fired the gun towards the victim, with the intent of causing serious injury or death, and with the knowledge that death might be the outcome. In other words, the defendant had the "mens rea" at the moment of firing the gun, and therefore the defendant had intent.

Thus, all people who are convicted of criminal offences - with the exception of those who are found guilty under diminished circumstances or adjudged insane - are by definition guilty of intent to commit the crime for which they are found guilty. All criminal defence attorneys would, of course, know this - since it's a central plank of criminal law.

Thank you John! So this is what Mignini was getting at in the end with the nonsense about the 'Saint' and the sex?

 

[shuttlt]

LondonJohn,

I am well aware of the properties of blood cells you quote. We presumably can't say with any certainty that the material isn't a mixture of blood and flesh?

 

[Kaosium]

That's just it - I'm trying to get a sense of what a psychologist means by "extreme introversion."

To the extent that it may be a 'relative' term, it's worth noting that all of the men interviewed struck me as quite shy/ mild-mannered relative to the 'rogue interrogator'.

The Court noted (at p. 61 of the translation) that Sollecito was considered "taciturn, shy, introverted..." by the college educators that felt compelled to "activate a monitoring" on Sollecito after being "shocked" by his taste for "hard-core" animal porn.

Perhaps, then, it could be argued that Sollecito may be a fit for the 'introvert' category...

Knox, on the other hand, is a problem - her courtroom performance on the stand (and off) was anything but 'meek'...

I just got myself a new book! It was at the recommendation of our friends in the guilt community who railed against it but the only fault they could find with it was a geographical error. In attempting to 'disprove' another contention they managed to reveal just how well sourced that ride from the Questura to the Central Jail actually is, for which we thank them.

Here's a passage from Candace Dempsey's "Murder in Italy" relevant to your interest in Knox's personality:

"Neither girl enjoyed confrontations. According to Amanda's friends and family, she fell apart when people yelled at her, losing her self-confident facade. She turned red and burst into tears. When someone made her angry, she left the room and wrote them a letter, outlining her grievances, trying to understand them herself."