Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I pointed out that I was not the man with the magaphone because I guessed that, had I just posted the video and said nothing, you (I mean in particular LJ and Mary H) would have insinuated that I was the man with the megaphone.
So, now that you don't have the man with the megaphone among your charachters, I bet you will insinuate that I was someone else in the crowd. Don't worry I don't mean to frustrate entirely your right to ad personam insinuation.

This accusation strikes me as startlingly personal, which I find out of character for Machiavelli, whom I have an impression of as being more or less oblivious to his opponents' identities as he argues his position. Moreover, the thought that Machiavelli was "the man with the megaphone" has never crossed my mind. He has said he was in the courtroom.

Be that as it may, my understanding of what happened in the streets after the decision was handed down is aligned with Steve Moore's, which is that the demonstration was planned and organized, and taht there was more than one person with a megaphone:

Following the verdict, a crowd of over 1,000 Italians formed around the courthouse, and a cheer went up when Amanda’s sister Deanna spoke of her release.....

Sadly, the vindictiveness of a corrupt local system is not easily escaped. About half an hour after the initially popular verdict, a “spontaneous” anti-Knox demonstration began outside the court. In a striking bit of serendipity, the “spontaneous demonstrators” just happened to have megaphone with them that night, and all knew what they would chant. Though in jeans and polo shirts, the demonstrators (all men between their middle-20’s and late 40’s) bore startling, almost eerie individual resemblances to the dozens of policemen who had originally signed the warrants against Amanda and Raffaele, and who had been in court that night in a “show of solidarity.”.....

After the ‘impromptu’ demonstration, the men began individual fist-fights with Italian Amanda supporters, (I counted at least five such fights) and generally shamed the town of Perugia at a moment when the city deserved to be basking in the glory of the world spotlight. I want to point out here that the people of Perugia are good, honorable people, by and large. The Carabinieri (military) police in the town are honorable and professional. But the local police and the local prosecutor ruthlessly run the town. As an example, while we were in Perugia, five people were arrested---in the courtroom---by the local police. All for criticizing the prosecutor in some way or another......

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html

 

[davefoc]

THANK YOU. Jeeze. I think everyone is giving Machiavelli way too much credibility here. I have a feeling that if we were to do some research, we would find quite a few tabloidesque pictures from the crime scene in the early Italian media coverage. Candace Dempsey was following this case in the Italian media from the beginning and I recall her publishing all kind of links to Italian articles, if not photos.

I'm not so sure. Machiavelli seems to be making two claims that are disputed.
1. The photos weren't released to prejudice the case against AK/RS.

It seems like we can't know the motivation of the person that sold the images but money and prejudicing the case against RS/AK seems like plausible explanations. From my perspective, it looks like we can't know if Machiavelli is wrong or not on this from the information available.
​

2. The photos were released in some standard non-corrupt way through a case file or some non police individual sold the right to use the images.

I may not understand what Machiavelli's theory is on this. It looks clear that some kind of right to use the photos was sold to Barcroft. It seems likely that this required official police/prosecution sanction. But again we don't seem to know what went on here other than that an investigation was not initiated into this which suggests the authorities approved the sale. But does the available information preclude the possibility that Machiavelli was right? Could anybody that had access to the photos have sold the rights to them?

​

ETA: Is it possible that the photos weren't released in Italy because it would have been illegal to release them into Italy because of restriction against releasing prejudicial material before a trial? So the authorities tried to get around this by insisting on a license that precluded the release in Italy? This may have been part of what LJ or others were suggesting and I missed it. Regardless of this speculation it seems like the bottom line here is that there are too few facts available to make concrete conclusions about all this but the available facts suggest that unethical police/prosecution behavior was likely.

 

[Mary_H]

But there is a trace that indisputably belongs to Sollecito. The DNA on the bra clasp. It's difficult to explain away. It doesn't fit the rest of the evidence so I'm inclined to believe that "funny business" at the lab is responsible for it. But I hate resorting to conspiracies of evidence tampering because it smacks of desperation. This makes the clasp DNA very problematic for me. There was definitely contamination as evidence by the additional male profiles pointed out by C&V but where did it occur? If at the cottage, then that's some very bad luck for Raff because his DNA was the second strongest profile after Meredith. The other two were much weaker profiles (or fragments as Mach calls them). What are the odds that contamination from dust would result in Raff having the second strongest profile? It seems like a stretch to me and so does evidence tampering (but that would explain why Raff's profile is stronger than the other two males), but it's there and I don't know what to make of it.

The Conti & Vecchiotti report's conclusions about the bra clasp, from The View from Wilmington:

ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

Ammonitida, have you seen the film of the collection of the bra clasp? It's highly unlikely there was any DNA on the metal clasp of the bra closing when tested.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes you are right; but I have a queue of unanswered posts to consider, which either came first or are about more sticking topics, and more interesting to me.
This about the computer data update is something I have learned by listening directly to the court discussion. This was mentioned in court in the days of closing arguments. As they talked about it I also recalled vaguely about that from a previous information, at the beginning of the appeal trial, but in the closing argument this rejection of the new computer report was addressed again by the prosecution, and I was there as the prosecution asked the chancellery to make the file physically available to give it back to the defence.
It was explained that the computer report had been previously dismissed by Hellmann’s court at the beginning of the appeal, the reason, as far as I understood, was its late submission, that was made by defense attorneys beyond expiration deadline.
The court had rejected the computer report, but this happened to be included by mistake in the trial file. It was still in there at the time of the closing arguments, even if formally should not have been. That was a chancellery topic.

The staged break in is an interesting topic; I have started a post about it, however if I recall correctly I had discussed on PMF about it quite extensively.

So you claim yourself as the cite on this? The article containing some of the pages of the filings indicated it was submitted prior to the deadline, IIRC. If true and they missed the deadline big mistake on the part of the defense and the prosecution should have nothing to complain about trying to get some doubtful negative control information added in after the appeal was underway. I'll look again for some news reports on this, but I have seen nothing on it.

 

[Dan O.]

One of Machiavelli claims is that the photo could have been in the case file. I had the same speculation some time ago but further research showed that the case file photo was in fact a different shot. Here you can see for yourself the different perspective and lighting in the two pictures

The image on the right was found in the case file. The one on the left is what the Mail published. Machiavelli again has no support for his claim.

 

[davefoc]

...

The image on the right was found in the case file. The one on the left is what the Mail published. Machiavelli again has no support for his claim.

What is this case file and how did you access it?

 

[LondonJohn]

The photographer we see in the video taking a picture of the pink bathroom is tall and carrying a Nicon D50 with a flash separated from the camera. The photo sold to the UK press was taken someone that is much shorter and with a camera that has a built in flash that is much closer to the lense. There was a short person standing in front of the door to the bathroom just before the photographer took his shot but she was carrying a mop and I don't think mops are very good at taking photos even when they aren't gift wrapped.


ETA: ... and what do we have here...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/qimg]

This is in the Dec. 18 part 1 video at time index 35:04. The guy in the blue cap appears to have given the instruction to take that shot.

Were all the photos from that little camera placed in the case file or was this more evidence withheld from the defense?

Oh. My. Word. The portly figure holding the compact digital camera: it couldn't possibly be.................

Giuliano Mignini?

The body shape and eyebrows are a strong match, and I can't remember any other personnel at the crime scene except Mignini who looked in any way similar. I'm inclined to believe that this is Mignini taking his own photos of the scene. How very........ interesting.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA amounts

A question. Where do you get the info that Raffaele was the strongest profile after Meredith? I don't recall that being anything that C&V found as part of their analysis. In fact, although I am not a scientist, it is my understanding that using terms like "strongest" for the profiles is not an accurate way to look at it. From what I have read, C&V concluded that there were many profiles on the bra clasp, and there were so many different profiles on the bra clasp that there was no way to know when or how they got there.

It is also not necessary to show where or when the contamination took place, and from what I can see, there were multiple opportunities. This was a cottage that Raffaele had been in several times, and the cops walked in and out of that room from the hall, potentially tracking who knows what. Rudy took towels from the bathroom into the murder room, and those could have been used by Raff at some point. The clasp was found under a pile of clothing and other items -- who knows what DNA was mixed up in that pile?

So to ask how Raff's profile got on the bra clasp we also have to ask -- how did all those other profiles get on there? C&V said that it would have been possible to say that the DNA of many people was on there, including Judge Hellmann. I think that they were not saying that, literally, the judge's DNA was on the clasp, but that the way the clasp was collected, and the large number of various profiles and partial profiles on it, make it unreliable to conclude anything relating to the DNA on it. Scientifically, the thing was a mess.

Dougm,

I am in general agreement, but I would like to add a few thoughts. When one sees a very small amount of DNA in an electropherogram, one can infer that there is a greater chance of secondary transfer or contamination than for a normal sized sample. However, I would say that the presence of DNA almost never gives information on how or when it arrived on an object. Some of Raffaele's putative peaks are the second largest in the bra clasp electropherogram, but some of the peaks that might be attributed to him are smaller than some that are not.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of Machiavelli claims is that the photo could have been in the case file. I had the same speculation some time ago but further research showed that the case file photo was in fact a different shot. Here you can see for yourself the different perspective and lighting in the two pictures

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5162[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5161[/qimg]


The image on the right was found in the case file. The one on the left is what the Mail published. Machiavelli again has no support for his claim.

And if the distributed photo is demonstrably of lower quality and taken from a lower perspective than the official crime scene photos, and if a short, stocky middle-aged man is seen in other footage wielding a compact digital camera, and if that short, stocky middle-aged man were to be none other than public prosecutor Giuliano Mignini......

Surely, surely, Mignini couldn't have had anything to do with selling his own private photos of the crime scene to the highest bidders via a photo agency? Surely not............

 

[Mary_H]

I'm not so sure. Machiavelli seems to be making two claims that are disputed.
1. The photos weren't released to prejudice the case against AK/RS.

It seems like we can't know the motivation of the person that sold the images but money and prejudicing the case against RS/AK seems like plausible explanations. From my perspective, it looks like we can't know if Machiavelli is wrong or not on this from the information available.
​

2. The photos were released in some standard non-corrupt way through a case file or some non police individual sold the right to use the images.

I may not understand what Machiavelli's theory is on this. It looks clear that some kind of right to use the photos was sold to Barcroft. It seems likely that this required official police/prosecution sanction. But again we don't seem to know what went on here other than that an investigation was not initiated into this which suggests the authorities approved the sale. But does the available information preclude the possibility that Machiavelli was right? Could anybody that had access to the photos have sold the rights to them?​

I have never commented on the bathroom-soaked-in-blood photo because it never looked like a bathroom soaked in blood to me, and I find it hard to believe that some people actually believed that's what it represented. It should be apparent the photo shows a bathroom soaked in chemicals.

I always found the articles about Amanda's character and history to be more dangerously bias-inducing than photographs of the crime scene. As Maresca proved during the appeal, photographs of the crime scene say nothing about who committed the crime, and many people are insulted when they realize their sympathies are being played on.

My argument with Machiavelli is that he seems to be suggesting that Italian media played only a small part in the massive media campaign surrounding the case, when in fact, Amanda was named Italy's Woman of the Year in a TV/internet poll. He also wants to convince us that a majority in Italy believe in the defendants' guilt:

The same conclusion of guilt is reached by many other people, not only the previous judges and not only the folks of which those on PMF are examples, but in Italy thousands, or maybe millions have a convincement similar to mine. Among my friends (and relatives), people whom I know, I found not one of them thinking the defendants are innocent. And there was a thousand people shouting “vergogna” outside the court house in Perugia.

Meanwhile, Steve Moore says:

Many times in Perugia, I experienced an indication of the overwhelming Italian sentiment of Amanda’s innocence. Italians would learn that I was involved in the case, and I would find that my drinks had been paid for, unrequested desserts came to the table, and strangers came to encourage or to hug me. People who spoke no English would walk past and cross their fingers in the “good luck” sign, smiling. The Italian public had figured this one out. At the end, the Italian (legitimate) press was vociferously in Amanda’s corner. Immediately following the verdict, I looked over at two of my newfound friends in the Italian television media, and tears were rolling down their smiling cheeks....

(I am keeping in mind that the people who were in Perugia the last week of the trial may not be a typical population.)

There has been a truism floated around that Italians have always fought their court cases in the newspapers, but that is, of course, anecdotal. Whether or not one believes it, to me there is no question that the population of Italy was prejudiced by news coverage of the case, and the prejudice spilled over into the attitudes of the town of Perugia and thus to the judges, who were all of one mind in the first trial -- that a decision of guilt was a done deal.

After the first decision, interest in this case increased, and a lot of pro-innocence arguments that criticized Italy, their legal system, the Perugians, Mignini, etc., were put forward. In response, a backlash grew, with the pro-guilt faction, along with some pro-innocenters, warning that if the criticism online and in the media grew too loud, Italians would not take kindly to it and that might make things worse for Amanda. In the same breath, guilters denied that what happened online and in the media had anything to do with the decision on the case; that was entirely up to the court.

Since one cannot have it both ways, that is, that vocal opinions simultaneously do and don't influence the minds of Italians, Perugians, Mignini, etc., it was recognized the media could play a strong role in changing public opinion to support a case for innocence in the second trial, and both sides of the guilt/innocence question tried to avail themselves of opportunities to influence the public (and thus the judges). That's what websites are all about.

ETA: Is it possible that the photos weren't released in Italy because it would have been illegal to release them into Italy because of restriction against releasing prejudicial material before a trial? So the authorities tried to get around this by insisting on a license that precluded the release in Italy? This may have been part of what LJ or others were suggesting and I missed it. Regardless of this speculation it seems like the bottom line here is that there are too few facts available to make concrete conclusions about all this but the available facts suggest that unethical police/prosecution behavior was likely.

Barbie Nadeau said crime scene photos were handed out to reporters on the streets of Perugia.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Oh. My. Word. The portly figure holding the compact digital camera: it couldn't possibly be.................

Giuliano Mignini?

The body shape and eyebrows are a strong match, and I can't remember any other personnel at the crime scene except Mignini who looked in any way similar. I'm inclined to believe that this is Mignini taking his own photos of the scene. How very........ interesting.

Yes, quite interesting. And that is Mignini, for certain. No one else has those bulging eyes. The plot thickens (or did so in the past).

 

[Dougm]

I always found the articles about Amanda's character and history to be more dangerously bias-inducing than photographs of the crime scene.

Excellent point, and I was going to say the same thing. While the debate about the "bloody" bathroom picture is interesting, it is clear that false details about Amanda and Raffaele were reported by media all over the world that prejudiced public opinion about the case. Unless we want to believe that none of this information was ever reported by the Italian media (which I don't), it is clear that false information was diseminated to affect the case via the media.

 

[Ammonitida]

A question. Where do you get the info that Raffaele was the strongest profile after Meredith? I don't recall that being anything that C&V found as part of their analysis.

"The additional alleles pointed out are of significantly less height than the alleles associated with Sollecito, so if they are actual DNA and not artifactual there is DNA from additional males in lower quantity."

http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-2/

It is also not necessary to show where or when the contamination took place, and from what I can see, there were multiple opportunities. This was a cottage that Raffaele had been in several times, and the cops walked in and out of that room from the hall, potentially tracking who knows what. Rudy took towels from the bathroom into the murder room, and those could have been used by Raff at some point. The clasp was found under a pile of clothing and other items -- who knows what DNA was mixed up in that pile?

I still think it's a bit problematic that Raff is the most significant of the minor contributors to clasp. If I'm not mistaken though, Raff was one of the last men to come near the murder room without protective gear, so it could be argued that because he likely deposited fresh DNA from trying to break down the door to Meredth's room the dust that eventually carried his DNA to the clasp had picked up a much stronger profile. The other men may not have been anywhere near the cottage during the time of the murder and this explains their weaker contributions. But then why wasn't Rudy's DNA found on the clasp when he was the rapist and the murderer? One would think the dust would have had collected traces of his DNA too, even stronger than Raff's.

It could be that Rudy is not the "shedder" type as only a few traces of his DNA was found in the whole cottage. None in Filomena's room where he scaled the wall and climbed through her window (but only five samples were taken from that room and only two of those were related to the burglary). None in the small bathroom where, after cleaning himself up and leaving behind his bloody footprint, he grabbed the towels to clean up the evidence in the murder room. No DNA of his was found in any of the samples taken from that bathroom, not even in the footprint he made (it only had Meredith's DNA). In the actual murder room, only four traces of his DNA was found -- one of which was extremely weak (just his Y haplotype). We know that he raped Meredith as confirmed by his DNA being found inside her. So even guilters must accept that he had the dominant role in the crime. But only four traces found. Contrast that with Amanda who left traces all over the place outside the murder room. She was a shedder. But Rudy's DNA didn't come off easily it seems so perhaps it's to be expected that his DNA didn't find its way on the clasp via the dust.

So to ask how Raff's profile got on the bra clasp we also have to ask -- how did all those other profiles get on there? C&V said that it would have been possible to say that the DNA of many people was on there, including Judge Hellmann. I think that they were not saying that, literally, the judge's DNA was on the clasp, but that the way the clasp was collected, and the large number of various profiles and partial profiles on it, make it unreliable to conclude anything relating to the DNA on it. Scientifically, the thing was a mess.

Certainly, the unattributed alleles (many being found on the Y-Haplotype) undermine its value as evidence. I just find all the explanations for how this DNA got there to be reaching (yeah, that includes the explanation that he was involved in the murder). "Funny business" at the lab seems the mostly likely, followed by dust contamination. Raff being involved seems impossible when looking at the totality of the tangible evidence.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Has anyone seen the PMFs today talking about possible extradition if Amanda loses her defamation suit against her by the police?

Its so funny to see all three admins give their uneducated legal analysis over an issue that is about as clear cut as it gets.

Here are the three relevant posts so far of this extradition analysis over there. Keep in mind that all three of these people are the administrators of these sites. Really sad. Also, its worth noting that PMF consistently boasts about what fine lawyers there are on their site, yet not one has taken the chance to educate these mice on the extradition treaty between Italy and the United States.

Here is the PMF "extradition analysis" from each moderator. Notice how they are all wrong.

Peter Quennell

Skeptical Bystander:

"I think we have to assume that Knox will be tried in absentia. If she is found guilty, my personal view is that a way will be found for her to avoid extradition. That's where Ted Simon comes in. Whether or not she will have legitimate grounds is another matter. But I don't see her being shipped back to Italy to serve any prison term that might be handed down. Perhaps Maria Cantwell will talk to John Kerry, who will talk to his former brother-in-law, the current ambassador to Italy, who will fix things. Just a thought."

Um, Ms. Bystander. First, congratulations on using the term "in absentia". You must have felt pretty neat using that legal language. However, Ted Simon won't be necessary because Knox can't be extradited in the first place. She doesn't have to avoid extradition because she can't be extradited. It's that simple.

And now for my favorite disaster case, Michael/Fulcanelli:

As for the extradition thing, 'grounds' for resisting it can be subjective. I cannot see any actual technical legal arguments Knox's lawyers could make, but being lawyers, they may attempt to make arguments of the basis of Knox's rights, claims of Italian systemic corruption, claims that she could never have a fair trial due to her notoriety making any conviction unsafe, claims that it's for a crime that is not a crime in the US (although it actually is, just under different names). How successful arguments like that may be will probably depend on whether the extradition hearing is heard by a mate of Judge Heavey's or not."

Oh my lord. So much wrong here. First, there is a full proof technical argument: Amanda Knox cannot be extradited for a conviction for defamation. Period. Second, "how successful that argument will be" only depends on if a judge (btw, it would not even come before a judge) just read the treaty between the two countries.

Here it is in its entirety.

Look, here is the relevant text. I even highlighted it for PMF:

Criminal defamation is not an extraditable offense because it isn't a crime recognized by the United States Federal Government. It's really that simple. It's over, she's never going to be extradited anywhere.

Sometimes I wonder if they're this stupid or they just need things to talk about. This is about as clear cut as it gets. It's not up for debate. Where oh where are PMF's team of crappy lawyers when you need them to correct the record?

 

[LondonJohn]

Has anyone seen the PMFs today talking about possible extradition if Amanda loses her defamation suit against her by the police?

Its so funny to see all three admins give their uneducated legal analysis over an issue that is about as clear cut as it gets.

Here are the three relevant posts so far of this extradition analysis over there. Keep in mind that all three of these people are the administrators of these sites. Really sad. Also, its worth noting that PMF consistently boasts about what fine lawyers there are on their site, yet not one has taken the chance to educate these mice on the extradition treaty between Italy and the United States.

Here is the PMF "extradition analysis" from each moderator. Notice how they are all wrong.

Peter Quennell
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/FILqo.png[/qimg]

Skeptical Bystander:



Um, Ms. Bystander. First, congratulations on using the term "in absentia". You must have felt pretty neat using that legal language. However, Ted Simon won't be necessary because Knox can't be extradited in the first place. She doesn't have to avoid extradition because she can't be extradited. It's that simple.

And now for my favorite disaster case, Michael/Fulcanelli:



Oh my lord. So much wrong here. First, there is a full proof technical argument: Amanda Knox cannot be extradited for a conviction for defamation. Period. Second, "how successful that argument will be" only depends on if a judge (btw, it would not even come before a judge) just read the treaty between the two countries.

Here it is in its entirety.

Look, here is the relevant text. I even highlighted it for PMF:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZTChT.png[/qimg]

Criminal defamation is not an extraditable offense because it isn't a crime recognized by the United States Federal Government. It's really that simple. It's over, she's never going to be extradited anywhere.

Sometimes I wonder if they're this stupid or they just need things to talk about. This is about as clear cut as it gets. It's not up for debate. Where oh where are PMF's team of crappy lawyers when you need them to correct the record?

Oh, they've already got their hands full being utterly ignorant of the issue of so-called "libel tourism". If they knew anything about libel law and its international implications, they would know that it is in fact already frighteningly common for a non-UK plaintiff to bring a libel action in the UK courts against a non-UK defendant, regarding allegedly libellous statements made in a publication based outside of the UK.

As an aide to them and their embarrassing ignorance, I will point them to the relevant Wikipedia page. The Ehrenfeld case is something of a cause celebre for those opposed to libel tourism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

Note that Khalid bin Mahfouz (a Saudi national with no UK residency) was able to bring a successful libel action in the UK courts against Rachel Ehrenfeld (A US national with no UK residency) for comments written by her in a book which was not even published in the UK! The mere fact that 23 copies of the book had been ordered through a UK based website (including amazon.co.uk) was sufficient for the UK courts to allow the case to be brought.

As a very poor lawyer might write: for this service, there is no charge

 

[Antony]

I have never commented on the bathroom-soaked-in-blood photo because it never looked like a bathroom soaked in blood to me, and I find it hard to believe that some people actually believed that's what it represented. It should be apparent the photo shows a bathroom soaked in chemicals.

I always found the articles about Amanda's character and history to be more dangerously bias-inducing than photographs of the crime scene. As Maresca proved during the appeal, photographs of the crime scene say nothing about who committed the crime, and many people are insulted when they realize their sympathies are being played on.

The significance of the "bathroom soaked in blood" picture is that many people, at least up until early 2010 when I started to take an interest in this case, seemed to believe that Amanda took her shower with the bathroom in this state. Needless to say, this was taken by some of the lynch mob as a certain indication of her part in the murder, as what innocent person would shower in such surroundings?

As for not believing it to be blood, the trouble is that it was released by the Daily Mail in an article specifically stating that it was blood, and using such phrases as "house of horrors". I agree that it doesn't really look like blood, but that says more about the DM reporter who wrote the article than the readers who swallowed it whole - after all, the colours in a newspaper picture might not be accurate.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Has anyone seen the PMFs today talking about possible extradition if Amanda loses her defamation suit against her by the police?

Its so funny to see all three admins give their uneducated legal analysis over an issue that is about as clear cut as it gets.

Here are the three relevant posts so far of this extradition analysis over there. Keep in mind that all three of these people are the administrators of these sites. Really sad. Also, its worth noting that PMF consistently boasts about what fine lawyers there are on their site, yet not one has taken the chance to educate these mice on the extradition treaty between Italy and the United States.

Here is the PMF "extradition analysis" from each moderator. Notice how they are all wrong.

Peter Quennell
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/FILqo.png[/qimg]

Skeptical Bystander:



Um, Ms. Bystander. First, congratulations on using the term "in absentia". You must have felt pretty neat using that legal language. However, Ted Simon won't be necessary because Knox can't be extradited in the first place. She doesn't have to avoid extradition because she can't be extradited. It's that simple.

And now for my favorite disaster case, Michael/Fulcanelli:



Oh my lord. So much wrong here. First, there is a full proof technical argument: Amanda Knox cannot be extradited for a conviction for defamation. Period. Second, "how successful that argument will be" only depends on if a judge (btw, it would not even come before a judge) just read the treaty between the two countries.

Here it is in its entirety.

Look, here is the relevant text. I even highlighted it for PMF:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZTChT.png[/qimg]

Criminal defamation is not an extraditable offense because it isn't a crime recognized by the United States Federal Government. It's really that simple. It's over, she's never going to be extradited anywhere.
Sometimes I wonder if they're this stupid or they just need things to talk about. This is about as clear cut as it gets. It's not up for debate. Where oh where are PMF's team of crappy lawyers when you need them to correct the record?

Thank you for posting this. I used to have a decent amount of respect for PMF, but no longer. For me, the beginning of the end was when their predictions on the independent review of the DNA (" it will only uphold the original findings') and the C & V report ("it won't make any difference in the verdict") were totally off the mark. Whosoever cannot predict well, does not think well. They were positive the convictions would be upheld.

Now, they are downright delusional, living in a little world of their own, without any connection to reality. Delusion makes stupid. The will to blindness makes stupid.

Their legal opinings - whether about extradition or any other matter - are ludicrously naive and ill-informed. I am truly embarrassed for them. They have only eachother now. Their opinions will never garner respect again: They have been way wide of the mark too many times, on gravely important matters. ugh....

Yes, this is as clear cut as it gets, and their "debate" is merely spitting into the wind....

I think it is obvious that they are grasping at straws, as their little world goes down in flames.

 

[Dougm]

Certainly, the unattributed alleles (many being found on the Y-Haplotype) undermine its value as evidence. I just find all the explanations for how this DNA got there to be reaching (yeah, that includes the explanation that he was involved in the murder). "Funny business" at the lab seems the mostly likely, followed by dust contamination. Raff being involved seems impossible when looking at the totality of the tangible evidence.

Completely agree that Raffaele's profile being there at all is an odd occurance, but my point was that once we know that contamination could have happened, the rest is mostly moot.

I could ask the question, for example: Why would anyone's DNA be on the metal hooks of the bra, except for maybe Meredith's? Typically, when latching or unlatching a bra, a person does not touch the hooks, they manuver the hooks by holding the fabric. In the case of this murder, the bra was either cut or torn off, and the hooks were bent, most likely when the bra was removed by force. The whole reason the clasp is separated from the bra is that the bra was removed from the body with the hooks still latched. Then we find that the bra clasp has multiple DNA profiles on it, which were found on the metal hooks! Even if we can accept the idea that multiple people touched Meredith's bra clasp (after it was last washed), the idea that Raffaele, and all those other people, touched the metal hooks, murder or no murder, makes no sense. It almost has to be contaminated.

Now, did that happen on the floor of the cottage, or from the poor collection procedures, or in the lab? I don't think there is any way to tell.

 

[Antony]

Completely agree that Raffaele's profile being there at all is an odd occurance, but my point was that once we know that contamination could have happened, the rest is mostly moot.

I could ask the question, for example: Why would anyone's DNA be on the metal hooks of the bra, except for maybe Meredith's? Typically, when latching or unlatching a bra, a person does not touch the hooks, they manuver the hooks by holding the fabric. In the case of this murder, the bra was either cut or torn off, and the hooks were bent, most likely when the bra was removed by force. The whole reason the clasp is separated from the bra is that the bra was removed from the body with the hooks still latched. Then we find that the bra clasp has multiple DNA profiles on it, which were found on the metal hooks! Even if we can accept the idea that multiple people touched Meredith's bra clasp (after it was last washed), the idea that Raffaele, and all those other people, touched the metal hooks, murder or no murder, makes no sense. It almost has to be contaminated.

Now, did that happen on the floor of the cottage, or from the poor collection procedures, or in the lab? I don't think there is any way to tell.

In the notorious YouTube video, the second investigator to handle the clasp is shown holding it by the metal hook. He even brandishes it right in front of the camera in this way.

 

[davefoc]

Oh. My. Word. The portly figure holding the compact digital camera: it couldn't possibly be.................

Giuliano Mignini?

The body shape and eyebrows are a strong match, and I can't remember any other personnel at the crime scene except Mignini who looked in any way similar. I'm inclined to believe that this is Mignini taking his own photos of the scene. How very........ interesting.

Wow, you are good.

I just spent 15 minutes or so working with a photo manipulation program to compare an on-line profile image of Mignini with the crime scene image Dan O. posted and with my photo comparison skill level and the images available on-line of Mignini I would say that the two images match to the point that there is nothing that rules out the possibility that they are of the same individual and that the match is good enough that given the circumstances it is very likely that the crime scene image is of Mignini.

I wonder if Machiavelli has an opinion about this. He seems to be more familiar with Mignini than most of us. Perhaps he could look at the crime scene videos and make a better determination?

This certainly is consistent with what Dan O. noticed about the fact that the published images didn't quite match the image shown in the court file. And it certainly would explain the copyright issue. Mignini might view the situation that he owned the rights to the photo since he took the picture (a questionable legal view but plausible). It would throw a new light onto the issue of the intent of the individual who released the images.

At this point is it known whether any of the images taken by this unknown photographer (but probably Mignini) were made available to the defense.

I still remain confused as to what is the source for all these pictures. Dan O. seems to have access to some kind of case file photos, and some kind of collection of photos used in the trial and a video of the crime scene. Would it be possible for links to all these sources to be listed here? Perhaps Machiavelli has some sources that he would like to post links to on this?

ETA: It would also explain why Mignini didn't initiate an investigation of what looks at first glance like an illegal release of information about the case.