I'm not sure I understand the rationalization by certain posers posters regarding the post acquittal pictures of Amanda Knox. If she is smiling, she must be guilty and is displaying joy over having gotten away with murder. But if she appears sad or depressed, it must be because of the guilt she is harboring.
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
We agree there Mach,
Meredith (and her family) has never been forgotten by me.
As far as the truth is concerned, I have always had issues with Rudy's criminal history and this crime. Like Amanda. he has no violent criminal history and this makes me wonder whether he actually did kill Meredith and also whether he was telling the truth in his first recorded skype call.
THAT call is probably as close to the truth as we'll ever get, but regardless, Amanda ain't going back to Perugia, and that's a truth you can take to the bank,
Dave
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
What about the apartment Rudy broke into and pulled a knife on the resident?
I'd call that violent.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
But this is no argument. It is obvious to anyone in Italy that this is irrelevant. Here the OJ rule doesn't apply, nor the Clinton "sex" perjury charge applies. This "lie" does not imply anything.
In order to accuse Stefanoni of cheating and dismiss her evidence, you have to accuse her to lie about something relevant in the body of evidence. The Qbit/PCR method of quantization is obviously not relevant. Because it is an entirely legitimate protocol, there are negative controls, the profiles obtained are authentic, the documentation was not altered, the defence experts were invited to assist.
It is just wrong to think that because she "lied" in a preliminary hearing about a technical matter, this implies that the evidence is invalid. She did not bring the information about quantification methods to the preliminary hearing, maybe because the prosecution did not want this to be discussed preliminarly. Is there a procedural flaw? I don't know, but not of such kind to nullify the trial. Did Stefanoni "lie"? I don't know. I have no proof: presumption of innocence, she didn't lie maliciously, she didn't lie. Even in the abstrace case that she lied, does this cause a relevant change in the data? No. Is the topic of quantification relevant as it is discussed now, in the assessment about the reliability of the knife DNA? Yes, it's a reasonable topic, and when it was the time to discuss it, in fact the data was entirely disclosed. Everything is ok, to me. Whether she was "malicious" or not in the preliminary hearing makes no difference to me. It is irrelevant. This is no argument for innocence.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
There was testimony that Rudy had threaten a man (Christian?) with a knife when confronted in the man's home. Mignini didn't call him because he was not reliable having not called the police at the time.
Nara, Curatolo and Quinravalle were called even though they didn't come forward for months and only after doing media interviews.
Why would he lie in the way he would have had to in the Skype call? Why wouldn't he have said that Amanda and Raffaele were there? Why did he pick the most likely TOD if he wasn't telling the truth?
Amanda Knox was under duress and not under oath. Stefanoni was not under duress and was under oath. Preliminary hearings are judicial proceedings that can result in criminal charges that can take someone's freedom for life. For you to act as if preliminary hearings don't matter is dishonest, because you know otherwise. It is corruption and perjury for a law enforcement officer to lie about the evidence in any proceeding.
And there is no way this was an honest mistake. It's Stefanoni's job to know what the evidence was, and the knife was the supposed "smoking gun." It was the single most important piece of evidence in the case. In order to believe that she didn't remember what evidence was on the knife and in what quantity, after testing it herself, you'd have to be the stupidest person alive. She knew how small the sample was - she tested it, and the small size of the sample required it to be tested differently from normal DNA testing. And she knew that the size of the sample was relevant to the probative value of the knife as evidence. That is exactly why she lied and said there was a much larger sample than there actually was.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Pay attention, Meredith and the truth. The truth is also about Rudy Guede.
Rudy Guede had no criminal history. He was picked by the police sleeping in a private place in Milan with stolen objects, a week before, this is his criminal history. Not very long.
Again, instead I don't take anything for granted about what will happen to Amanda, unless someone very powerful interceded for her.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
Second Memoriale and letter to her lawyers
Machiavelli,
I wish I had a nickel for every time a pro-guilt commenter wrote that Amanda did nothing to help Patrick the whole two weeks he was in custody. Now that we have all had a chance to review Amanda's testimony, do you agree that those comments were wrong? The portion of the second memoriale that PM Mignini quoted is a complete retraction, is it not? The letter to her lawyers on 9 November 2007 is also a complete retraction, by the way (Murder in Italy page 294).
Machiavelli,
I wish I had a nickel for every time a pro-guilt commenter wrote that Amanda did nothing to help Patrick the whole two weeks he was in custody. Now that we have all had a chance to review Amanda's testimony, do you agree that those comments were wrong? The portion of the second memoriale that PM Mignini quoted is a complete retraction, is it not? The letter to her lawyers on 9 November 2007 is also a complete retraction, by the way (Murder in Italy page 294).
It's relevant because the tiny sample was too small to produce a result that had even a slight tendency to implicate Knox, especially given that Stefanoni did not use the proper equipment or the proper technique for sample sizes that are so small. That's why Stefanoni lied and said it was larger. At least if you believe the real experts, which I assume you do not. I'm not surprised you didn't grasp the relevance, since that seems to be a bit of a trend.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
JREF2010,
Come on, to me that's like saying soccer is violent.
Pulling a knife is definitely an aggressive action yes (like soccer is an aggressive sport), but violent. Sorry, don't buy it.
Dave
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
We do hold LE to very high standards. It would seem that unlike a young person, (less than a year from being a teenage) speaking in a new language(one year of study), after an extreme experience and being questioned for many hours over a few days; a professional Doctor of police science would not only be held to the highest standard but would be expected to volunteer all information in seeking the truth.
If she would lie about these "irrelevant" elements, what did she lie about that hasn't been discovered? Did she really have the bra clasp in her possesion and she returned it to the cottage? Who knows because it is clear she didn't do everything she could to shine light on the investigation.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Preliminary hearings can result in criminal charges, but DNA quantification is normally not discussed in preliminary hearings. Anyway in this case the knife was pulled out by the prosecution themselves, and judge Micheli concluded: the knife will be an object of discussion in the trial.
This item was not discussed in the preliminary hearing: technical opinions discussion were remended to a next trial.
This matters nothing about the evidence. If you think there is a perjury you should fill a complaint about Stefanoni and ask for an investigation. But NOT throw out Stefanoni's evidence on this.
Knox, has no excuse for lying. She was not under "duress", unless there was any element of evidence for that, and there isn't. She released a spontaneous statement and then she wrote another statement where she says she stands by the first. Then she made a series of other declarations and for week (then years) always failed to excuse her false testimony. And she never said sorry to Lumumba, as for what he maintains (unles you call "saying sorry" the words she dropped years later, a by the way statement during her defensive speech). They never spoke to each other. Knox then invented changing timeline accounts about her interrogation and contradictory excuses (unrealistic false memory, fear).
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Why do you keep repeating a rant that you can't prove? What do you gain by that?
Do you think my and others' intents will change?
Do you think you make Amanda become safer by showting in capital letters?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
the defendant has the right to examine and challenge the evidence
Some of the information did not get released until the trial was already underway. I believe that this was the case for the amount of DNA on the bra clasp and the information that certain TMB tests came back negative. For the defense to have information about presumptive blood tests so late into the trial cripples their ability to construct their case: That was the opinion of the Illinois Supreme court in the People vs. Lovejoy.
You seem to think that it is the prosecution which is totally within its right to dole out information when it sees fit. How do you know that the defense would not benefit from knowing that the determination of the amount of DNA was not done with real-time PCR? How do you know how the defense would have examined and argued about the negative control runs (if they exist)?
Machiavelli,
Some of the information did not get released until the trial was already underway. I believe that this was the case for the amount of DNA on the bra clasp and the information that certain TMB tests came back negative. For the defense to have information about presumptive blood tests so late into the trial cripples their ability to construct their case: That was the opinion of the Illinois Supreme court in the People vs. Lovejoy.
You seem to think that it is the prosecution which is totally within its right to dole out information when it sees fit. How do you know that the defense would not benefit from knowing that the determination of the amount of DNA was not done with real-time PCR? How do you know how the defense would have examined and argued about the negative control runs (if they exist)?
AmyStrange
Philosopher
This says it all (from the above link):
" ...He is threatened with a knife, recognizes Rudy as his aggressor... "
But what's also interesting is this (from the same link):
" ...Tramontano chased the man downstairs as he tried to escape, but the front door was locked. The thief -- who Tramontano identified as Guede -- first used a chair to keep Tramontano at a distance, and then pulled out a switchblade knife... "
And this (same link):
" ...Christian wasn't very hospitable. He even didn't ask him if he needed to use the toilet. He rushed Rudy and yelled at him to go, which was exactly what Rudy was trying to do. At this point, since Christian was insisting, Rudy pulled out a knife and showed it to him.
"Christian just told him not to be stupid because he knew who he was and he could tell the police. Rudy said, 'But if the door is blocked, how can I go away?'"
None of this sounds remotely violent,
Dave
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
We instead do not hold witnesses under "very high" standard in this sense. We hold them by very high presumption. If you suspect a conspiracy you have to bring elements to build a logical scenario. Even if Stefanoni has "lied" - but it is far from being proven - this is easilly explainable by the prosecution not wanting the knife to be discussed in the preliminary hearing. They had no interest in releasing all their information in advance. This is not evidence of conspiracy, this is not an argument to claim the evidence doesn't exist because you discover that a person can "lie". Everybody can lie. The law enforcement officers don't represent anything here really, they are just witnesses, don't have a "special standard".
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Thanks! I'm not entirely sure it's worth it at this stage though. It was the unit used in the other paper I've posted that showed the pictures of the brightness at variable dilution levels with Bluestar. I employed it as one could cross reference with the other paper as it listed figures for both Bluestar and luminol at differing dilution levels, and frankly it just shows graphically what should be obvious, that with less material to react with, less chemiluminescence will be emitted. They both claim to be measuring 'light intensity' but one with RFUs and the other
Another interesting thing about the Blum et al paper was figure 6, also on page 89, which suggested that (base) luminol reactions do no exceed a minute. I found that very interesting in light of the metadata from the pictures that Dan-O and LondonJohn commented on, as it appeared the exposure of the pictures taken exceeded a minute and as LJ previously noted they repeatedly use the term 'luminol' in Massei...
- Status