Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

What don't you understand about the fact that the failure of someone to respond to accusations against them says NOTHING about their guilt or innocence?

Then Guede shouldn't have told these people that Knox/Sollecito wasn't there and instead kept his mouth shut. If you want to debate whether he said it or not thats fine. Yet I find it funny that so many pro guilt people continue to bash Knox for her statements that the supreme court ruled couldn't be used against her because the police violated her rights. Yet when Guede admits to people that Knox/Sollecito wasn't there when Meredith gets murdered. All the pro guilt people stand up and start crying foul play. Yall act like Guede has never said knox/sollecito wasn't there. Yet he has said it in previous statements he has made also.

 

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by RandyN
[/b]



I have to agree with Fuji on this point.

Its exactly because there is zero evidence of AK or RS in the murder room that one can absolutely state that they were absent or never there. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

LJ says...

"i would disagree with you on both point, FWIW. I don't think that zero evidence of Knox in the murder room (don't forget, there's currently the DNA on the bra clasp allegedly tying Sollecito to the room) is evidence that she wasn't there at the time of the murder. But that's actually of lesser importance in this criminal case. The important point is that the defence doesn't have to prove that Knox (or Sollecito) wasn't in the room at the time of the murder: it's entirely incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that she (and he) was there. So the absence of evidence in this area is damaging to the prosecution's burden of proof, but not fatal.

And in general terms, both you and Fuji are correct to say that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" maxim is not always correct. But the circumstances when absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence are few and particular. I had actually alluded to such an example in an earlier post: if a concrete floor is poured at 10am, and it is examined at 10pm and found to have a pristine smooth surface, this is evidence that no human walked across that flooring between about 2pm (when the concrete would have started to set up) and 10pm. The maxim holds true in all but a small number of specific instances. The ground below Filomena's window is not one such instance.

In the case of the ground below Filomena's window, the prosecution has to show why the alleged (no photos apparently exist) "pristine" condition of the ground is somehow proof that nobody stood on that ground some 18 hours earlier. And it's worth noting that not only is this inference highly debatable, but also that the "crack" police don't even apparently have anything more than verbal testimony as to the condition of the ground on the afternoon of November 2nd in any case! In short, in the case of the ground underneath Filomena's window, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Well I have to agree 100% with LJ on this.

The ground under Filomena's window could absolutely be pristine and yet RG could have still easily broken out the window with the large rock. I can even "picture" it in my mind...well I guess I have to but anyway.

By the way...the father of the staged break-in is Marco Chiacchiera. He is the recently highly awarded officer who came to the wrong conclusion about the staged break-in instantly because the shutters were only open a gap of aprox 8 inches...I know I’m giving away my nationality...ok lets say X centimeters...and therefore it would be impossible to aim a rock of aprox 9 lbs or Y kilograms. thru said X because we all know that shutters never blow in the wind...well in really scary movies they do ...and burglars never partially close shutters to hide their activity....so therefore it must be staged... pissssttt lets not even mention that once the rock was launched and its mission completed it was not really necessary for anyone to use that wall as an entry...I know this always gets em goin...but maybe Meredith arrived shortly after the rock went thru but b4 the wall climb and so RG simply approached and expressed an immediate need to use a water closet...(now I got em guessin.)

Well, never mind that is preposterous...it actually sounds like something Mignini might dream up.

It does leave a pristine under story though

Dont forget there is actually some evidence that would suggest the shutters where pulled shut after the window was broken.

 

[spartacus]

That is not what I said at all. The police claim that there were no signs of the climb. They needed to document that and not force the reliance on the testimony of an officer on what they 'observed'.




Massei is making a lot of claims here that the defense has no real chance to defend against because the police failed to properly document the very things they are claiming. Where are the closeup photos of the outside wall that prove their claim that there were NO TRACES ANYWHERE? Where is the photo of the grass? It's the same situation with no photos of glass on top of items as claimed, where once again everyone is to rely on testimony because the police failed to document with photographs.

Where is this vegetation they keep talking about? It looks like directly under the window there is only leaves? And why should this leave a mark?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not incompetence

It could be that the defence have realized they were incompitent at the first trial and lost despite the evidence being in their favour. This is periodically claimed isn't it? If so, maybe they don't need new evidence, they just need to argue about it more effectively.

shuttlt,

I have seen pro-guilt commenters slant it this way, and possibly some anti-guilt commenters such as LondonJohn. But I don't. I think that the defense was not perfect, but it was not incompetent, either. Massei ruled in a pro-prosecutorial way at every turn. Allowing PM Mignini to move the TOD in his closing remarks was absurd. Yes, the defense can certainly argue more effectively, but that was not the sole reason for their defeat. MOO.

 

[Alt+F4]

Tell us what you think the "original evidence" is, and I think many people here will be able to say how the defence can argue against it.

The original evidence is everything presented at the first trial except for the DNA evidence, Curatolo's testimony, and those of the disco/disco bus people.

I'm sure many people here will be able to say how the defense can argue against the original evidence. The problem now for those who believe in innocence is that it seems that the defense isn't going to argue against any of this original evidence with new evidence and/or witnesses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

beyond ridiculous

Shuttlt,

Elsewhere you wrote, “That we (in the wider sense of the various posters on the various boards) can still argue about how long, and when, she was interrogated, and whether all the DNA evidence has been released is beyond ridiculous.”

I see that The Machine brought up Luciano Garofano in his/her list of experts in response to you. Colonel Garofano has no standing in this case, whatsoever. Moreover, by his own words, it is obvious that he either does not know what he is talking about with respect to DNA, or he does, but wants to make the DNA forensics look better than they are. You can search on my username and “Garofano” as a search term to find my reasons.

We will have to agree to disagree about the importance of what Carlo Dalla Vedova recently said with respect to asking for the data since 2009. I think it is an unquivocal statement of something for which we have had plenty of indirect evidence. It is “beyond ridiculous” that the data were not even turned over to the defense; it is not “beyond ridiculous” to remind people that this fact alone made the trial of the first instance unfair. If the defense’s expert witnesses had been given the information that the two independent experts are now getting, they might have been able to convince the jury of the weakness of the DNA forensics, leading to an acquittal in the trial of the first instance.

 

[LondonJohn]

The original evidence is everything presented at the first trial except for the DNA evidence, Curatolo's testimony, and those of the disco/disco bus people.

I'm sure many people here will be able to say how the defense can argue against the original evidence. The problem now for those who believe in innocence is that it seems that the defense isn't going to argue against any of this original evidence with new evidence and/or witnesses.

It's not a problem. As halides just noted, the first verdict can reasonably be construed to have been the result of a complex mixture of seemingly-strong evidence which has been refuted or may soon be refuted (Curatolo and DNA), poor and irregular rulings by Massei during the trial, and demonstrably poor reasoning in his sentencing report, and mistakes by the defence teams in their arguments.

And I'd reiterate that Hellmann might well call new witnesses after the DNA report is delivered to his court on June 30th - he's already explicitly stated that he reserves that right. So you and I don't even know whether further new evidence and testimony will be forthcoming before the argument phase starts. You are demonstrating a false and misleading sense of certainty on this matter.

Lastly, I'd say that the statements from Knox and her family regarding an end-July verdict may be borne mainly of frustration at the seemingly slow pace of Italian justice. I think that Knox and her defence team now strongly believe that she will ultimately be acquitted in the first appeal, so she's getting a little "demob happy", mixed in with increasingly-bitter frustration at being stuck in jail while the lawyers ask for further delays owing to holidays, weddings and other social commitments.

 

[RandyN]

There are many substances that cause a weak positive Luminol reaction. Then there is the total logic fail. The claims are that the Luminol reaction here is a strong one but the second claim is the TMB tests were negative due to the high dilution of the blood. As can be plainly seen from the following chart, the Luminol reaction decreases as the dilution of the blood increases. Somebody please explain this logic to me.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964ddb708be8893.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/De...Light_Emitting_Blood_Enhancement_Reagents.pdf

I think its because all the chemical thingys when sprayed on too abundantly "water down" the effect...I actually think its peroxide so it peroxides it down...which is like watering it down in that more water (peroxide) then the chemical thingy...(luminol??) is applied… or is it diluted?

This in fact is where General Luciano Garofano (big cheese of Carabinieri) called Stefanoni's work sloppy...well one of a couple places...but he claims that the luminol solution was over applied and resulted in the glowing blobs that tell everyone nothing about who may have left said blobs. Had it (Luminol) been properly vaporized and finely applied it would have resulted in prints that are good enough to actually get ridges and swirls and id's from.

Now as for the reactants that can give a false positive...I like the charts and all but I’m more curious as to how long the half life is for these energizers... Its not likely bleach because that goes away fairly fast. Its an oily, saddle soap type cleaner that would last and last...and show those Filomena bare foot prints for what they actually are..

Ok..never mind... I reread the question...the reaction is less with higher dilution because there are less blood cell thingys to react with at higher dilutions.

 

[LondonJohn]

shuttlt,

I have seen pro-guilt commenters slant it this way, and possibly some anti-guilt commenters such as LondonJohn. But I don't. I think that the defense was not perfect, but Massei ruled in a pro-prosecutorial way at every turn. Allowing PM Mignini to move the TOD in his closing remarks was absurd. Yes, they can certainly argue more effectively, but that was not the sole reason for their defeat. MOO.

I agree that Massei's court acted in a slanted and irregular way in many important instances. These include (but are not limited to) the instance you mention above, and the refusal to allow other pieces of evidence testing and witness testimony that were potentially helpful to the defence. In addition, of course, Massei's sentencing report vividly reveals just how poor and unbalanced his (and his judicial panel's) reasoning was.

But as well as all that, I do believe that the defence teams in the first trial made a number of important errors. The three which stand out are the failure to analyse Sollecito's computer data properly (in light of the allegations contained in the appeal submissions), the failure to discredit Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali, and the failure to argue the ToD issue properly (when they even had evidence in front of them from earlier in the trial that the prosecution's own pathology experts had put the ToD at no later than 4 hours maximum from the start of the meal, and the police's autopsy pathologist had narrowed this (correctly) to a maximum of three hours).

 

[RandyN]

Are the cuts on the hands supposed to be accidentally self-inflicted? I don't see why one would necessarily get cuts stabbing a restrained person, or possibly even an unrestrained person, in the throat.

Some people...not me...actually think the parallel cuts on RG hand are cat scratches and thats how the downstairs light switch bla bla bla...


Dont ya just hate people 3 pages behind on the thread?

 

[RandyN]

What makes you think the court is going to address any of this? On Saturday:



I think the family knows better than you what's coming up. Sorry, John, you're wrong. It's the DNA evidence, the five convicts and that's it. So yes, the five convicts are the best the defense can come up with.

www.westseattleherald.com/node/180416

Is that it? Are there no other dates other than July whatever? You may be right...Its the DNA (which is enough maybe) and the 5 convicts.

This trial may go into 2012. Maybe Barack will mention something day after tomorrow.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quick question: did Hellmann request that Mignini participated in the appeal trial as one of the "under-prosecutors", or did Mignini inject himself into the appeal (and Hellmann subsequently allowed it)?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cuts on the hand

Are the cuts on the hands supposed to be accidentally self-inflicted? I don't see why one would necessarily get cuts stabbing a restrained person, or possibly even an unrestrained person, in the throat.

I am under the impression that inexperienced knife users get cut when their hand slips forward onto the blade. Others may know more.

 

[RandyN]

To me, those don't look like marks of somebody climbing the wall, but what do I know? If they are, the person doesn't seem to have had any mud on their shoes.

Going back to a previous post of yours. The Mignini CNN interview. Are you saying that its obvious from the text alone that Mignini wants people to believe the mark on Amanda's neck was significant, or that ,given a wider knowledge of Mignini, that that is the most likely of multiple possible readings?

I think it one of those straw man...men issues. Since there is no mixed blood proven anywhere, anytime , and anyhow.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

appeal from the prosecution

Quick question: did Hellmann request that Mignini participated in the appeal trial as one of the "under-prosecutors", or did Mignini inject himself into the appeal (and Hellmann subsequently allowed it)?

Off the cuff, I think it was the fact that the prosecution is appealing the sentence. Without an appeal, I am under the impression that a separate prosecutor would have handled it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is that it? Are there no other dates other than July whatever? You may be right...Its the DNA (which is enough maybe) and the 5 convicts.

This trial may go into 2012. Maybe Barack will mention something day after tomorrow.

The court has announced the next dates, which are not exhaustive. They are June 18th and 27th for the witness testimony of the five inmates, and July 25, 29th and 30th for discussion of the DNA report (which will be delivered to the court a month earlier on June 30th). There might be extra dates scheduled earlier in July for further additional witnesses, and similarly there might be further witnesses called after the July 30th date.

I think that it's very unlikely that any arguments will start before the court recesses for the August break. It's also conceivable that Hellmann will schedule yet more witnesses to be heard when the court reconvenes in early/mid-September. If that happens, it;s conceivable that the argument phase might not start until we're into October, with deliberations and a verdict coming towards the end of October.

 

[RandyN]

Well tell that to Amanda Knox's family. They are hoping for closing arguments in late July. They have made no mention of any other witnesses or evidence being heard beyond the DNA and the five convicts. I find it quite hard to believe that you think you know more about what's going on in this appeal than they do.

Come on...you know they are a bunch of hillbilly hicks...what can they really know?

I will catch up and I will be read...or ignored.

 

[LondonJohn]

Come on...you know they are a bunch of hillbilly hicks...what can they really know?

I will catch up and I will be read...or ignored.

Yes - maybe this is all part of Curt and Edda's "acting stupid" strategy for their slander case

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

I have seen pro-guilt commenters slant it this way, and possibly some anti-guilt commenters such as LondonJohn. But I don't. I think that the defense was not perfect, but it was not incompetent, either. Massei ruled in a pro-prosecutorial way at every turn. Allowing PM Mignini to move the TOD in his closing remarks was absurd. Yes, the defense can certainly argue more effectively, but that was not the sole reason for their defeat. MOO.

I'd be surprised if they were incompitent. As far as I'm aware it's been used as a stupid bit of abuse to hurl periodically by pro-guilt folks and an excuse for some pro-innocence people's pet theories that destroy some prosecution argument not being used in court.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,

Elsewhere you wrote, “That we (in the wider sense of the various posters on the various boards) can still argue about how long, and when, she was interrogated, and whether all the DNA evidence has been released is beyond ridiculous.”

I see that The Machine brought up Luciano Garofano in his/her list of experts in response to you. Colonel Garofano has no standing in this case, whatsoever. Moreover, by his own words, it is obvious that he either does not know what he is talking about with respect to DNA, or he does, but wants to make the DNA forensics look better than they are. You can search on my username and “Garofano” as a search term to find my reasons.

We will have to agree to disagree about the importance of what Carlo Dalla Vedova recently said with respect to asking for the data since 2009. I think it is an unquivocal statement of something for which we have had plenty of indirect evidence. It is “beyond ridiculous” that the data were not even turned over to the defense; it is not “beyond ridiculous” to remind people that this fact alone made the trial of the first instance unfair. If the defense’s expert witnesses had been given the information that the two independent experts are now getting, they might have been able to convince the jury of the weakness of the DNA forensics, leading to an acquittal in the trial of the first instance.

We know where we both stand on this and I don't think we disagree on so much.