Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. How many murder trial have there been where the prison informant wasn't a lying rat?

Nice generalisation!

And there is a reason why many prison informants are treated with acute suspicion: most prison informants are either remand prisoners awaiting trial, or post-trial prisoners awaiting sentencing. There is therefore a very real chance that the informants stand to benefit from their testimony - either in terms of criminal charges faced, or in terms of sentence reductions.

http://www.justicebehindthewalls.net/resources/jailhouse_informants/informants.pdf

By definition, a jailhouse informant is an inmate, usually awaiting trial or sentencing, who claims to have been the recipient of an admission made by another prisoner awaiting trial, and who agrees to testify against that prisoner in a court of law, usually in exchange for some benefit.

Additionally, of course, almost all prison informants testify for the prosecution, since they usually report something incriminating that the defendant has told them. This ties in with the suspicion (or reality) of reward: the only people capable of rewarding pre-trial or pre-sentencing prisoners for their testimony are police and prosecutors.

By contrast, neither Alessi nor Aviello appears to stand to gain anything from their testimony. And neither is testifying in favour of the prosecution. There is nothing that Knox's or Sollecito's defence teams can do for any of the inmates who appear to be willing to testify in their favour. That's one reason (among others) why this case of prison informants is very different from the norm, and (in my view) why they stand a far greater chance of being believed.

 

[Alt+F4]

The defense seems desperate. Not one, but five jailhouse snitches! I thought all they had to do was wait for Conti and Vecchiotti's DNA report and the lovebirds would be exonerated.

 

[LondonJohn]

The defense seems desperate. Not one, but five jailhouse snitches! I thought all they had to do was wait for Conti and Vecchiotti's DNA report and the lovebirds would be exonerated.

Whereas Mignini seems intensely calm and relaxed

 

[Alt+F4]

By contrast, neither Alessi nor Aviello appears to stand to gain anything from their testimony. And neither is testifying in favour of the prosecution. There is nothing that Knox's or Sollecito's defence teams can do for any of the inmates who appear to be willing to testify in their favour. That's one reason (among others) why this case of prison informants is very different from the norm, and (in my view) why they stand a far greater chance of being believed.

They get out of prison for at least one day. They get to wear non-prison issue for at least one day. They get to ride in a car and see a bit of the city for at least one day. They get paid attention to. They get their names mentioned in the media. They have something to tell their prison buddies when they go back into the black hole. And probably, in Alessi's sick mind, he get's to inflict more pain on the family of his victim.

As you mentioned, they are already convicted, they aren't going anywhere. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by testifying.

What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Hmmm... Based on this, I'd be surprised if the experts said they'd received full cooperation from the scientific police (unless they just meant they'd finally received it now?).

That seems the mostly likely interpretation to me. In other words, the independent experts are reiterating their expectation of full cooperation from the scientific police in light of the somewhat less than full cooperation they've received up to this point, but nonetheless politely thanking them for providing it in the end.

 

[christianahannah]

"Changes" don't happen to molecules of properly-stored DNA material. That's why cold case reviews are able to test DNA on fabrics/swabs that have been properly stored for years, and sometimes many decades. If Stefanoni did try to claim that (and I personally don't remember her saying it), then she's either too stupid to be doing her job, or she's a liar.

Changes was my word (I was going by not so accurate memory) not Stefanoni's. She uses the word damage and tells how this damage may occur on pages 199-200.

It starts at the paragraph beginning "With specific reference to the trace found on the bra hooks," on page 199 and ends at the top paragraph on page 200.

Stefanoni states the analysis could be repeated. Since she is talking of the clasp in the preceding and following paragraphs I assume the analysis which could be repeated is that of the clasp.

She also states that "DNA...like any other molecule, when it is frozen and unfrozen...can be subject to damage and one must verify If the molecule remained absolutely intact."

More can be read about this from the pages I referenced. I do not have the Italian version to compare against. I tried to do a copy and paste after locating the English version but have failed in my attempt to do so.

 

[billyryan]

They get out of prison for at least one day. They get to wear non-prison issue for at least one day. They get to ride in a car and see a bit of the city for at least one day. They get paid attention to. They get their names mentioned in the media. They have something to tell their prison buddies when they go back into the black hole. And probably, in Alessi's sick mind, he get's to inflict more pain on the family of his victim.

As you mentioned, they are already convicted, they aren't going anywhere. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by testifying.

What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever.

They risk problems when they go back to their prisons,they risk defamation charges from Mignini,as we have seen witnesses for the prosecution can lie with impunity,Curatolo Stefanoni Napoleoni,that facility has not been extended to people who give testimony in favour of the defence,when these people come up for release having run fowl of the judiciary and the prosecuters could be very problematic for them.Mario Alessi looks on the face of it to be as reprehensible a character as Mignini and all the rest of the Perugian judicial officials who have put innocent people in jail and are willing to stoop to any dept to destroy or plant any evidence to keep them there.

Alt+4f you are very strong on demanding evidence from anyone who posts on any wrong doing from the police and prosecuters,can you furnish documents that prove the crimes of the three other inmates that overheard Rudy saying Amanda and Raffaele were not present when Meredith were killed,something that would at least prove they are as unreliable and as untrustworthy as the convicted abuser of power Mignini

 

[LondonJohn]

Changes was my word (I was going by not so accurate memory) not Stefanoni's. She uses the word damage and tells how this damage may occur on pages 199-200.

It starts at the paragraph beginning "With specific reference to the trace found on the bra hooks," on page 199 and ends at the top paragraph on page 200.

Stefanoni states the analysis could be repeated. Since she is talking of the clasp in the preceding and following paragraphs I assume the analysis which could be repeated is that of the clasp.

She also states that "DNA...like any other molecule, when it is frozen and unfrozen...can be subject to damage and one must verify If the molecule remained absolutely intact."

More can be read about this from the pages I referenced. I do not have the Italian version to compare against. I tried to do a copy and paste after locating the English version but have failed in my attempt to do so.

Well, it certainly seems like she might be setting up a scenario whereby no further DNA tests are possible, by mentioning molecular degradation so prominently. And how can it be that dried semen on rape victims' underwear can be stored in a sterile paper bag at room temperature for decades, and still yield perfectly abundant and usable PCR DNA test results? It appears that she may be referring to DNA molecules that have already undergone the denaturing and annealing stages, since she refers to "a molecule already in and of itself which has undergone damage".

But this would appear to be a tacit admission that there was only a very small amount of DNA discovered on the bra clasp - since she seems to be saying that the only way of re-testing the bra-clasp evidence would be to examine the DNA that had already been denatured and annealed. In other words, this would imply that there was no further DNA-containing material left on the clasp or on any swabs.

Here is the full passage from Massei:

With specific reference to the trace found on the bra hooks, she stated that the procedures indicated by protocols had been followed. The Applied Biosystem’s Quantifiler Kit was used for a quantity of DNA suitable for it to be amplified. The trace amount was quantified with the software designed for quantification, which is included with the instrument, the [ABI Prism] 7700 that was used. She confirmed that the DNA which belonged to Raffaele Sollecito, had been found only on the hooks and that the obtained amplification result was an "absolutely good quality result" (page 109).
During the hearing on October 4, 2008, presided by the Preliminary Hearing Judge [GUP] (see page 47. and what follows of the related acquired record) she stressed that the analysis could also be repeated and she added that the "DNA that is extracted is kept in the best possible conditions, and therefore, in a refrigerated environment between minus 25 degrees and minus 28 degrees Centigrade... it is however subject to atmospheric, physical and chemical aggressions that could certainly compromise its usage; ...DNA, however has a process, that is to say, a molecule already in and of itself which has undergone damage and can continue to be subject to it, even in position, in refrigeration preservation" and she further specified that "DNA...like any other molecule, when it is frozen and unfrozen...can be subject to damage and one must verify if the molecule remained absolutely intact".

 

[LondonJohn]

They risk problems when they go back to their prisons,they risk defamation charges from Mignini,as we have seen witnesses for the prosecution can lie with impunity,Curatolo Stefanoni Napoleoni,that facility has not been extended to people who give testimony in favour of the defence,when these people come up for release having run fowl of the judiciary and the prosecuters could be very problematic for them.Mario Alessi looks on the face of it to be as reprehensible a character as Mignini and all the rest of the Perugian judicial officials who have put innocent people in jail and are willing to stoop to any dept to destroy or plant any evidence to keep them there.

Alt+4f you are very strong on demanding evidence from anyone who posts on any wrong doing from the police and prosecuters,can you furnish documents that prove the crimes of the three other inmates that overheard Rudy saying Amanda and Raffaele were not present when Meredith were killed,something that would at least prove they are as unreliable and as untrustworthy as the convicted abuser of power Mignini

What he said, innit.

I'd add that Alt+F4's last emotion-laden sentence of her post ("What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever") shows just how bad her judgement is. This is near-hysterical nonsense: his crime should be taken into account when evaluating his testimony, but more importantly his motivation and possible reward (if any) should carry a far higher prominence. Would Alt+F4 say that a person who had lied about a speeding ticket has no credibility, ever? Or how about a person who lied to his wife about having an affair? No credibility, ever? Mario Battistelli? No credibility, ever?

 

[Alt+F4]

....they risk defamation charges from Mignini...

You do know the convicts won't be testifying in regard to anything about Mignini, right?

Alt+4f you are very strong on demanding evidence from anyone who posts on any wrong doing from the police and prosecuters,can you furnish documents that prove the crimes of the three other inmates that overheard Rudy saying Amanda and Raffaele were not present when Meredith were killed,something that would at least prove they are as unreliable and as untrustworthy as the convicted abuser of power Mignini

Mignini hasn't been convicted of anything. Why do you believe he has? As for the other three inmates, what are their names?

 

[Alt+F4]

I'd add that Alt+F4's last emotion-laden sentence of her post ("What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever") shows just how bad her judgement is. This is near-hysterical nonsense: his crime should be taken into account when evaluating his testimony, but more importantly his motivation and possible reward (if any) should carry a far higher prominence. Would Alt+F4 say that a person who had lied about a speeding ticket has no credibility, ever? Or how about a person who lied to his wife about having an affair? No credibility, ever? Mario Battistelli? No credibility, ever?

Wow, now you're comparing the credibility of someone with a speeding ticket to the credibility of someone who beat a baby to death with a shovel.

I've already explained what his rewards are for testifying, scroll up if you missed it.

 

[pilot padron]

What he said, innit.

This is near-hysterical nonsense: his crime should be taken into account when evaluating his testimony, but more importantly his motivation and possible reward (if any) should carry a far higher prominence.

Uhhhh ????

His motivation for beating the child to death with a shovel should carry importance ????.

After that shocking statement from you, forgive me if per haps I prefer to place more credence in Alt-4's statements.

The ones which you characteristically again borderline impolitely insult by describing as as 'hysterical', or asking opponents "if they are OK?" as a preface to your replies.

 

[Justinian2]

So very true and so very sad.

The 'home team majority, a.k.a. Amanda and Edda forever fan club here' made a cottage industry out of repeatedly verbally dumping dung on Mr Curatolo, and high fiving each other with glee here while so doing.

Now we are asked to join these same posters in tossing scented rose petals and assorted fragrant flowery fronds at the feet of another horrendous *convicted* murderer whose only defect is he happened to beat a child to death with a shovel.
But this cretin could ??? help Amanda while manipulating himself into a rare free day out in the real world.

The obvious agenda driven lack of consistency sickening.

The gist of your synopsis is that the prosecution gets fake evidence and the defense proves it is fake. However one of their proofs that the evidence is flawed is weak and therefore the defense is as bad as the prosecution and therefore Amanda is guilty.

I'm exasperated.

 

[Matthew Best]

The ones which you characteristically again borderline impolitely insult by describing as as 'hysterical', or asking opponents "if they are OK?" as a preface to your replies.

Ah, you're back! Got any more FACTS for us?

 

[RoseMontague]

Didn't they do this already?

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...h_premiata_squadra_mobile_lavoro_svolto.shtml

Perugia, May 21, 2011 - Award-winning members of the Perugia flying squad who conducted the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.

A word of praise and commendation were conferred on them at the police party that has' held in Perugia.

At least we have the names of the award winners here.

The awards were given to the vice quaestor added Marco Talk to Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, Stefano Gubbiotti the superintendent, the assistant chief Stefano Buratti, Stefano Sisani, Lorena Zugarini, Andrea Cardaioli, Davide Dominici and Mirko Gregori , Chief Inspector Armando Finzi, the superintendents Raymond Marcacci, the Deputy Superintendent Louis Pochini, the assistant chief Joseph Migliaccio, Massimo Ricci Rico Rolli.

 

[Justinian2]

Didn't they do this already?

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...h_premiata_squadra_mobile_lavoro_svolto.shtml

At least we have the names of the award winners here.

The awards were given to the vice quaestor added Marco Talk to Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, Stefano Gubbiotti the superintendent, the assistant chief Stefano Buratti, Stefano Sisani, Lorena Zugarini, Andrea Cardaioli, Davide Dominici and Mirko Gregori , Chief Inspector Armando Finzi, the superintendents Raymond Marcacci, the Deputy Superintendent Louis Pochini, the assistant chief Joseph Migliaccio, Massimo Ricci Rico Rolli.

A long list of criminals...

 

[pilot padron]

Three strikes and you are out

Ah, you're back! Got any more FACTS for us?

Matthew, I was trying to be politely gracious and for your benefit, I deliberately ignored your previous two requests hoping you would see the light; but you persist.

The post you seem so helpless with was very obviously fully documented as a FACT by including a hyperlinked URL that the factual statement I quoted came from.

I just did not wish to embarrass you by having to type more than a 'one liner' pointing out for you what apparently was ever so obvious to everyone else.

Since no one else here apparently is equally bewildered as to how to click on my URL for the derivation of the FACT, perhaps you could address your next signature 'one liner' as a request for tutorial instructions from someone 'on your team'

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You do know the convicts won't be testifying in regard to anything about Mignini, right?



Mignini hasn't been convicted of anything. Why do you believe he has? As for the other three inmates, what are their names?

Your statement about Mignini is false. Mignini currently stands convicted of abuse of office. There are several links to sources. I pulled the first one I saw on Google.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

 

[RoseMontague]

Your statement about Mignini is false. Mignini currently stands convicted of abuse of office. There are several links to sources. I pulled the first one I saw on Google.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

Is Frank going to post something on todays hearing?

 

[pilot padron]

You know better than that

Your statement about Mignini is false. Mignini currently stands convicted of abuse of office. There are several links to sources. I pulled the first one I saw on Google.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

OK Sure, Bruce

Amanda may never be referred to as 'convicted' according to incessant whines here because her Appeal process in not completed.
But Prosecutor Mignini whose Appeal process is also incomplete is 'convicted' now by your surely should know better standards or by some know nothing reporter's usual incompetence

Sure, Bruce.

Alt+F4 is correct as usual, and your rather curt correction is again incorrect.
*Your* statement is again the false one

"Ps" and "Qs" ?