Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Well, there's your first problem.

Put it this way, we've had years of 'truthers' coming to this forum and exclaiming that they cannot see how we can't accept that 9-11 was an inside jobby job and how can we possibly call ourselves skeptics when it's all soooooooo obvious.

But the truth is that the defendants were found guilty. Their innocence is not obvious.

The same can be said about their guilt.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, there's your first problem.

Put it this way, we've had years of 'truthers' coming to this forum and exclaiming that they cannot see how we can't accept that 9-11 was an inside jobby job and how can we possibly call ourselves skeptics when it's all soooooooo obvious.

But the truth is that the defendants were found guilty. Their innocence is not obvious.

Wow. Suddenly a Carpenters song sprang into my head: "Yesterday once more"

 

[Diocletus]

There are many questions for Patrizia Stefanoni to answer, in my opinion. I very much hope that Judge Hellmann decides to recall her to the stand, and that he allows her to be asked the questions that matter. I then hope that she either gets extensively retrained, or else she gets transferred to a non-operational admin position where she can't harm anyone else.

This report fries Stefanani to such an extent that I think it could be grounds of appeal for Rudy. I am sure his lawyers will immediately ask for review of the vaginal DNA, and if that is wiped out, then conceivably it could undermine the sexual assualt charge.

Thank God Stefanoni was so incompetent that she never tested the semen stain. Now a real lab can test it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Edited by kmortis: 

REmoved previously moderated content and response to same

So, pilot, what evidence does your fine farming mind think still proves the guilt of Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt?

(Simple question, but I have the feeling that I'm going to be getting a convoluted and evasive "answer")

 

[Chris C]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

Actually, I'm still waiting on you [pilot padron] to respond to my question. You can try and target one person for your lack of response. But then again, I'm not surprised by your inability to respond. You have nothing to respond with other than banter and attempts to change the discussion. You have that evidence yet? Im still waiting on what evidence places Knox and Sollecito in the murder room without the bra clasp and knife.

While we are at it. Hows it possible Guede can leave his dna all over that room and Knox/Sollecito not leave their dna all over the room? I'll give you a hint. They were not in the room. Maybe you should change your theory of guilt to be more inline with Mignini. Apparently Knox and Sollecito were both outside the room cheering Guede on now.

 

[LondonJohn]

This report fries Stefanani to such an extent that I think it could be grounds of appeal for Rudy. I am sure his lawyers will immediately ask for review of the vaginal DNA, and if that is wiped out, then conceivably it could undermine the sexual assualt charge.

Thank God Stefanoni was so incompetent that she never tested the semen stain. Now a real lab can test it.

Your point about Guede is very true - although Guede has of course already provided his own reason for his DNA to be inside Meredith, and I think he'd now find it hard to argue that he only did so because he was presented with the DNA evidence. And of course the hand print in Meredith's blood on the pillowcase would have been analysed by a totally different department - and I think that this evidence alone would be enough to convict Guede.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This is terrific news!

Not only both of the evidence items are rejected but the experts questioned every step of the cops "work": collection, testing, interpretation.

komponisto, thanks for the translation!

It is good that after all those years of hell Amanda and Raffaele can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here is a translation of Conti and Vecchiotti's conclusions:

Thanks for that, komponisto. It seems pretty damning.

 

[LondonJohn]

"international procedures for inspection and international protocols for gathering and sampling exhibits have not been followed."

Wow, really wow. I mean, if a scientist is researching a new topic in his field, mistakes in his analysis and conclusion are common and absolutely normal and can even help to understand the topic better if they are found and solved correctly.
But when a scientist, here those of the scientific Police in Rome(?) can`t even stick to the basics of their job, it makes me really sad and angry given the importance of their task. I mean, this is like a mathematician, who can`t solve a quadratic equation. Though his failure wouldn`t have such a large impact...

The funny thing is, Liam, that many of us have been arguing here for some time that this must have been what happened. And we were not arguing this from an irrational indefensible position of blind belief in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence - we were arguing it based purely on the evidence we had in front of us.

Yet there were many who took the very position you're alluding to here: "How on earth can so many people be so egregiously bad at their jobs? How can there have been such sustained incompetence and malpractice?" The problem was that this led in many people to the corresponding argument from incredulity: "I can't believe that so many people can have been so incompetent, so I choose to believe that this is a practical impossibility".

It wasn't impossible. It happened. And it's happened before, in other cases, and it'll happen again. Rational thinking can help to identify cases where it happens. Irrational thinking (including argument from incredulity and appeals to authority) only serve to help perpetuate the problem.

 

[billyryan]

Does anybody think in the light of this report that there will enourmous pressure come on Hellmann to end this freak show sooner rather than later

 

[Matthew Best]

"That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right...'"

 

[pilot padron]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

So, pilot, what evidence does your fine farming mind think still proves the guilt of Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt?

(Simple question, but I have the feeling that I'm going to be getting a convoluted and evasive "answer")

Forgive me, but before 'arguing' further, I am still attempting to put into perspective your 'acceptance via silence' about the 'eloquent one liner' argument from BillyBob (sic) in the post you quote.

Agreed; most of your questions in your arguments are indeed 'simple'.
The only thing difficult to understand about them is why you feel you have any self-anointed authority to dictate when and how they must be answered, as well as the mind reader hubris to insinuate the yet to be delivered answers will be less than satisfactory (to you).

 

[LondonJohn]

Forgive me, but before 'arguing' further, I am still attempting to put into perspective your 'acceptance via silence' about the 'eloquent one liner' argument from BillyBob (sic) in the post you quote.

Agreed; most of your questions in your arguments are indeed 'simple'.
The only thing difficult to understand about them is why you feel you have any self-anointed authority to dictate when and how they must be answered, as well as the mind reader hubris to insinuate the yet to be delivered answers will be less than satisfactory (to you).

Surprise, surprise: I was right. No answer. I didn't expect anything else, unfortunately. I believe that you have no argument for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that you can't admit that (for reasons that I can only begin to guess). Of course I might be wrong in this belief. But I think I'm right.

What time on November 1st 2007 do you think Meredith died, and how would you support your answer?

 

[LondonJohn]

Does anybody think in the light of this report that there will enourmous pressure come on Hellmann to end this freak show sooner rather than later

He couldn't even if he wanted to. The trial has to follow due process, and there have to be arguments, a deliberation and a verdict. I don't believe that an Italian appeal court judge would have the power to dismiss a case unilaterally.

 

[Kaosium]

Frankly, she (and Mignini) has some 'splaining to do about why the hell she was in charge of crime scene investigation in the first place. It's highly irregular for laboratory scientists to be the ones who are identifying and gathering the evidence: it's improper, and the two roles require very different skill sets.

Very strange. I still haven't figured out what her primary role was either. I'd think if she had the training to do the DNA testing it must have been labwork she was accustomed to, but the only other thing we'd heard of her doing was identifying disaster victims, was that through DNA testing do you recall? Perhaps she'd been promoted recently?

But while we're on the subject, let's not forget Stefanoni's now-legendary wrapping of the mop handle in gift wrapping from the very cottage in which the murder occurred. Or the police photographer being the one who smeared up all the evidence in the bathroom sink.

That might simply be the standard practices of the Polizia Scientifica. In a system where the only oversight regarding standards of evidence is the judgment of the prosecutor and she can say with a straight face in court ridiculous things like there's never been contamination in her lab, that suggests an air of complacency that might be systemic in nature.

There are many questions for Patrizia Stefanoni to answer, in my opinion. I very much hope that Judge Hellmann decides to recall her to the stand, and that he allows her to be asked the questions that matter. I then hope that she either gets extensively retrained, or else she gets transferred to a non-operational admin position where she can't harm anyone else.

That's not the only questions I'd want her answering...

 

[pilot padron]

Lets define pathetic for a diversion

Surprise, surprise: I was right. Pathetic.

Almost as 'eloquent' a one liner as BillyBob's (sic) that you *still* ignore (condone).

No surprise either, but yes, as you describe; pathetic indeed.

BTW
Along the previously applied description of 'neutral at best'

1) The defense asked for 33 items; TWO were granted
2) What ever happened to the blood that Raffie told us was on that knife from his pricking of Meredith's finger while cooking ??

 

[Katody Matrass]

So far Hellmann put to test the evidence that the prosecution declared as the strongest ( and I think he might see it as such, too):
1) The single eyewitness allegedly breaking the alibi.
2) The only two pieces of evidence clearly pointing to guilt if accepted.

And so far everything he touches crumbles to dust.

Prosecution will have a much harder task arguing guilt this time.

 

[Chris C]

Almost as 'eloquent' a one liner as BillyBob's (sic) that you *still* ignore (condone).

No surprise either, but yes, pathetic indeed.

BTW
Along the previously applied description of 'neutral at best'
1) The defense asked for 33 items; TWO were granted
2) What ever happened to the blood that Raffie told us was on that knife from his pricking of Meredith's finger while cooking ??

What ever happened to the blood the prosecution claims was washed off the knife? Oh thats right, the knife wasn't cleaned. Why are you still defending the knife? Eventually you will realize that tuft of grass you are clinging too will give way and the knife will tumble over the edge of the cliff.

 

[Diocletus]

What the heck does this mean: "There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item"?

There never was any touch DNA on the clasp in the first place??? Jesus.

 

[Dan O.]

Seeing as the wiki article was mentioned I just had a look there and at the talk page.

A couple of months back in CT the fact that there was an ongoing edit war being waged by the Foakers was mentioned. I had a quick look then and noticed a few familiar names. Not very interesting.

On revisiting I see a curious altercation seems to have occurred.
Somebody "has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet of CandaceDempsey"



Why weren't we told ???

Was Mignini behind this ? Is there no end to his villainy !

What is so interesting with all this message board/blog war nonsense? Can't we just stick with the case and leave people fighting on the internet to their own devices. It's extremely boring, really. This goes for both sides of this discussion, actually.

In wikipedia, it's a simple matter for anyone to check the evidence for themselves. It's very telling that platonov is attacking Candace Dempsey and hasn't done the due diligence to find out what was behind the action he refers to.

Wikipedia has a core group that are actively fighting to prevent the facts from being told and have systematically blocked and banned many of the pro innocence voices on the slightest pretext.

Is this a conspiracy spearheaded by Mignini himself or is this just the result of a strong belief in the rule of authority?

ETA: Does this belong in the Conspiracy Theory section or should it be filed under Religion??