Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[charlatan]

And still the court convicted. Probably for rather similar reasons to Massei.

They didn't know it but they were simply following Massei's First Law: If a thing is possible, then it must indeed be probable. Future generations, I'm certain, will look back in awe at Massei's critical contribution to the field of formal logic.

 

[smkovalinksy]

From Peter Quennell, TJMK---Implying the Hellman jury "was not up to the task":

The Casey Anthony And Sollecito/Knox Outcomes Spark A New Discussion Of The CSI Effect

The jury is still out on what really swayed the Perugia appeal jury. Their sentencing report is due out in the New Year. They sure didnt look at very much except for a small fraction of the DNA.

Which leaves us with a big question. How did Judge Hellman brief his jury? We’re told this might be his first DNA case so Cassation will sure be looking closely at that.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Machiavelli]

This isn't the same guy that was wearing the hideous "Denmark" sweatshirt in a different shot, is it?

Can anybody ask Frank to ID this guy?

Machiavelli--Can you identify this guy?

No. But Mignini appeared to me as a man of average height, I had the feeling he was as tall as me, I would say between 1.75 and 1.80, and a rather big guy in his building. So I think he cannot be the man in the video.
You may assess Mignini's size next to a table and another person in this picture:
http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2010/03/12/304034-phishing_milionario.shtml

 

[Rolfe]

They didn't know it but they were simply following Massei's First Law: If a thing is possible, then it must indeed be probable. Future generations, I'm certain, will look back in awe at Massei's critical contribution to the field of formal logic.

Somehow, they managed to prefigure what Massei had yet to articulate, indeed. It was a case of "there is a danger of reading far too much into this mass of vague and conflicting evidence - so dammit, we'll just do that then."

We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. We are also aware that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified. However, having considered the whole evidence in the case, including the uncertainties and qualifications, [....] we are satisfied that the evidence [....] does fit together to form a real and convincing pattern. There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of [Abdelbaset al-Megrahi].

Soulmates, huh?

You know, if you get bored with rehashing what is now a done deal in the Knox/Sollecito case, there's plenty more where that came from.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

Media Italiani

It would be interesting to know how many times phrases like this were repeated in Italian papers over four years. It might help explain where some people got the idea that Amanda is a liar, with nothing to back up their claims.

Volevamo divertirci, poi ho sentito le urla
07 novembre 2007 — pagina 12 sezione: CRONACA

"Amanda è una bugiarda. Per quattro giorni, non ha mai smesso di mentire. E forse, lo diranno le prossime ore, continua a farlo. Almeno in parte.

"Amanda is a liar. For four days, she has never stopped lying. And maybe, the next few hours will tell, she will continue to do so. At least in part."

 

[Machiavelli]

It would be interesting to know how many times phrases like this were repeated in Italian papers over four years. It might help explain where some people got the idea that Amanda is a liar, with nothing to back up their claims.

Volevamo divertirci, poi ho sentito le urla
07 novembre 2007 — pagina 12 sezione: CRONACA

"Amanda è una bugiarda. Per quattro giorni, non ha mai smesso di mentire. E forse, lo diranno le prossime ore, continua a farlo. Almeno in parte.

"Amanda is a liar. For four days, she has never stopped lying. And maybe, the next few hours will tell, she will continue to do so. At least in part."

They will say this forever, and they are right. The article you quoted is by Fiorenza Sarzanini if I remember correctly. It was nov 07. and Amanda had just falsely accused Patrick Lumumba and wrote her infamous written paper.
This news reports were correct: both Sollecito and Amanda were liars.

errata corrige: it was Carlo Bonini

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more thoughts on the clasp bra DNA

That's interesting. Since you're more knowledgeable on the subject of DNA, can you explain the below quote for me?

From Frank


I find this quote very interesting because it appears that it could support the idea that Stefonini engaged in a suspect-centric approach in constructing the data. In the past, this idea was countered by the Y-Haplotype DNA which "corresponded with Sollecito's haplotype" (confirming the autosomo STR). But it appears that even the Y-haplotype DNA can be constructed with bias and from the above quote we learn that many unattributable Y chromosome alleles were found but not noted in the review. So is the suspect-centric approach still plausible as an explanation for the supposed DNA of Sollecito being found on the clasp?

Ammonitida,

That is a very complicated question, and I do not have time to do it full justice. However, I can give you a few quick thoughts. IMO the suspect-centered approach can lead to finding DNA from a person who is not there when one has a mixture. Maundy Gregory did a post where he put pink dots on the bra clasp electropherogram where Casey Anthony's profile would be. There are quite a few places where there are peaks that correspond with her profile, and there are not many places where there is a dot with no peak. Given that the other peaks are small, one could argue allele drop-out, for example, and conclude that we have a partial profile of Casey Anthony.

Several months ago, I wrote a long comment about the clasp, but I would like to look at the electropherogram one more time before giving my final thoughts. At the time I concluded that Stefanoni's analysis was likely to be suspect centered. It is quite possible that Raffaele's DNA is present on the clasp, but the suspect centered approach makes one more prone to ignoring or wishing away the peaks that are not part of the reference profile of the suspect in question.

 

[Machiavelli]

While I patiently await your response to my post 13,640 (no rush, take your time), this bit from your post above drew my attention.

You seem to be saying that it's not a criminal offence for a police officer (and/or a public magistrate such as Mignini) to sell crime scene photographs to be disseminated in the media. And yet, aren't various members of the Sollecito family charged with criminal offences for allegedly making crime scene video available to be disseminated in the media?

Sorry, I am afraid it will take a little to answer, I don't have all that time after all, and there are also other long posts.

I have explained the law articles that apply in a previous post.
A summary explanation of the jurisprudence on the topic:

http://www.penale.it/document/parenti_03.htm

(...)
La rivelazione dei segreti

Gli artt. 114 e 329 c.p.p. ridisegnano in maniera sostanzialmente nuova la materia del segreto nel processo penale. Innanzitutto non si parla più di segreto istruttorio, essendo venuta meno con il nuovo codice di procedura penale del 1987 la fase istruttoria: al più si potrà parlare di segreto delle indagini preliminari e di segreto dell’udienza preliminare. Mentre il vecchio codice escludeva il giornalista dal processo fino al momento del dibattimento, adesso il codice di procedura penale mantiene segreti solo quegli atti della polizia giudiziaria o del pubblico ministero di cui il soggetto sottoposto alle indagini non può avere conoscenza (art. 329 comma 1 c.p.p.). La dottrina [42] distingue due tipologie di segreto processuale: quello interno e quello esterno. Nel corso delle indagini preliminari la polizia giudiziaria o il rappresentante della pubblica accusa compiono una serie di atti all’insaputa del soggetto indagato: la ratio sta nel fatto che se lo stesso ne venisse a conoscenza, tali atti verrebbero vanificati e non raggiungerebbero il loro scopo. Si pensi ad esempio alle intercettazioni telefoniche. Si parla in tal caso di segreto processuale interno. Sempre nel corso della fase preliminare viene compiuta una serie di atti che, per espressa previsione normativa, l’indagato ha diritto di conoscere. Si pensi ad una perquisizione. In tal caso si parla di segreto processuale esterno: non sono atti segreti in senso stretto, in quanto noti alle parti, e pertanto non sarà possibile riprodurli per intero, ma sarà possibile divulgarne il contenuto, in quanto non si rischierà di ostacolare il corso delle indagini, trattandosi di atti conosciuti dall’indagato [43] .

Ai sensi del comma 2 dell’art. 114 c.p.p. il divieto di pubblicazione degli atti vige fino al termine dell’udienza preliminare, ossia quando il procedimento termina con l’archiviazione o invece prosegue nelle forme del dibattimento.

Gli atti dell’udienza preliminare non sono segreti: se ne può pubblicare il contenuto nel corso dell’udienza, mentre sono pubblicabili per l’intero al termine dell’udienza se non si procede a dibattimento (es. in caso di sentenza di non luogo a procedere). Se invece si procede a dibattimento bisogna distinguere: gli atti che vengono formati o letti in dibattimento possono essere pubblicati immediatamente ed integralmente (tranne particolari ipotesi in cui il processo viene celebrato a porte chiuse); gli atti che invece sono già formati e contenuti nei fascicoli non sono pubblicabili fino alla sentenza di primo grado per il fascicolo del dibattimento e fino alla sentenza di secondo grado per il fascicolo del pubblico ministero [44] .

Una particolare disciplina è dettata per i processi in cui sono coinvolti i minori.

L’art. 684 c.p. punisce la violazione del divieto di pubblicazione degli atti processuali. ......


The crime of publishing acts from a proceeding is the art. 684 administrative violation. This is committed by the journalist who publishes, not by a source who just makes the file available.

The crime of revealing acts covered by secret (art. 326) instead is more serious and committed also by the source.
The acts can covered by secret because they are secret for anyone external to the office.
But they can also be secretive because classified by decree, such as occurs on material involving minors or sexual content or showing violent gory content related to victims. This may also be a reason for a violation of art. 684 if such classified material is published.
Lastly, there could be a violation of privacy, another administrative violation.
Note that in art. 684 the crime of publishing anyway has to occur within the jurisdiction (the UK in this case is out of jurisdiction) and complaint must be filled within 90 days.

 

[Machiavelli]

As far as I undestood, the charges against the "Sollecitos" are various (the Sollecitos meaning a political "clan", not just family members):

art. 684 : arbitrary publication of judicial files (charge pressed by the Kerchers)
defamation (pressed by police officers, a local governor is also charged)
violation of privacy (charge pressed by the Kerchers)
unauthorised broadcast of obscene/gory material (only against Telenorba)

 

[curi0us]

Judy Bachrach has always been an outspoken supporter of Amanda's innocence.*The May 2008 Vanity Fair story recounts much of the prosecution's case, then adds:

"... From the start, the Italian authorities, after reviewing the American girl’s inappropriate responses to tragedy and her vulnerability to suggestion, believed she was an impassive villainess straight out of a Hitchcock film, heartless and indubitably guilty.

None of this was backed up by the evidence...."​

Snip
Bachrach was never a guilter.

Here's the article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806

Thanks for the links. The article does a good job of highlighting why the bogus bloody bathroom pic was so significant in shaping public opinion. Bachrach may have had doubts about Knox's guilt but she also wrote (false) details that would make most people think Knox must have been guilty or insane.

Bachrach wrote:
Amanda had returned to her house just a few hours earlier, Raffaele explained, after spending the night with him. She had found the bathroom she shared with Meredith smeared with so much blood it looked as though a butcher had attempted washing up and then given up the task. Amanda was puzzled. “It seemed a bit strange to me for the simple reason that all us girls are pretty clean and neat, and we clean up the bathroom,” she later reflected. Perhaps menstrual blood, she had thought with disgust. Or maybe someone in the house had hurt herself.

Amanda had also seen fecal matter floating in a toilet, police were told. The door to Meredith’s bedroom was locked, and there was a broken window in another bedroom. Amanda had tried three times to reach Meredith by cell phone, without success.

None of these ominous signs appears to have prompted the young couple to immediately phone the police, however. In fact, the American girl’s first response when she saw her blood-drenched bathroom, she explained to incredulous policemen, was to leave Via Pergola and return to Raffaele’s house to tell him the whole story over a leisurely breakfast. (Raffaele says he made two calls to the police shortly before the officers arrived. The police insist the calls were made after.)

 

[smkovalinksy]

Thanks for the links. The article does a good job of highlighting why the bogus bloody bathroom pic was so significant in shaping public opinion. Bachrach may have had doubts about Knox's guilt but she also wrote (false) details that would make most people think Knox must have been guilty or insane.

Obviously, at some point Bachrach underwent a change of opinion, because her description of the butcher's bathroom and the leisurely breakfast is designed to make you doubt, as said, Knox's sanity or innocence, or both. No wonder a PR firm was needed.

 

[Chris C]

Lalli is not the only source of evidence.
There is evidence of sexual violence because of other medical opinions, and because of logical grounds.
There is evidence of multiple attackers because of a physical analysis of the wounds (autopsy report) and a logical inference on them, crossed with that of the murder scene, and of the items found of the scene. And also with the witnsses report.

That wouldn't happen to be the same experts that didn't even bother to watch the autopsy tapes? Medical opinions on what logical grounds? Medical opinions should be established on facts not logic. Especially considering its completely illogical not to test the stains. So basically what your saying is the prosecutions medical experts made logical opinions based on illogical evidence gathering and withheld evidence. That doesn't sound to logical.

 

[RandyN]

Dan O. just posted it. Here it is again. Now, do you see it?

[qimg]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/322/migniniphotographer.jpg[/qimg]

Is this ^ Mignini or not?

Im not following the thread and dont understand why this photo is important but my opinion is that this is a photo of our portly convicted abuser of office himself ...the one, the only Mignini. Master of the Masons, all around bad guy and destroyer of truth and honesty and justice itself.

Then again it may be just another photo of some other random fat liar all dressed up for the big "find". I suppose we could ask the lawyers who are supposedly watching the video feed outside in a van.

Yummy/Mac....Lalli was fired by Mignini why? It couldnt be that he had an opinion that the attack was likely to have occured between 9 and 10 PM and was carried out most probably by a single attacker would it? And since we now know there is nothing in the murder room that indicates involvement by any other persons I guess Lalli was right all along. And why is the possible semen stain untested? I know he already answered that but I just love when someone tries to explain the absurd with some reason even dumber.

Maybe they forgot to test it. But then why did they object to the testing? What is Mignini afraid of? Or what does he wish to hide? BTW...I think that stain has been tested long ago by you know who and the results were given to you know who.

Mafia!

 

[Kid Le]

Bruce,

May I say that I think you're an absolute hero for all what you did for Rafaelle and Amanda? Especially considering the cowardish hostility that you faced from the idiots, even on this forum.
I am very interested in this book you mention. Will it deal with the background of the FOA campaign and the internet/media flame wars as well? What will be the title? Will it be published in mainland Europe as well?

 

[Kid Le]

Double post

 

[RoseMontague]

Obviously, at some point Bachrach underwent a change of opinion, because her description of the butcher's bathroom and the leisurely breakfast is designed to make you doubt, as said, Knox's sanity or innocence, or both. No wonder a PR firm was needed.

I agree. Perhaps something as simple as that email from Prof. Halkides contributed to her change of opinion on that bathroom photo.

 

[Kaosium]

I found some humor in this. Of course my friend Steve Shay is cropped out! I thought they proved Steve was a liar too! well, maybe not.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/vYXOr.jpg[/qimg]

Somehow PMF has determined that I am a proven liar. They are implying that I lied about Marriott's involvement. Of course I have always spoken the truth about Marriott, they on the other hand have pushed nothing but egregious lies about the "PR Supertanker." I discuss all of this further in my book coming out in November. I think the Anti-Knox hate clan is just a little bitter that Injustice in Perugia has had it right all along.

From IIP website March 2010:

What exactly does guilter mean?

A guilter is someone that believes in the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito regardless of any evidence that is presented proving otherwise. A guilter will continue to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty long after they are acquitted.

This is actually kinda funny when you think about it! The PR man decides to take credit for everything and his biggest promoters at PMF are overjoyed because they think they're 'vindicated!' They will no doubt choose to continue to spread the word etherwide about the Great David Marriott PR Supertanker (FOA walks the plank now!) which 'turned' the papers of three nations and created a groundswell of support which wouldn't have existed otherwise!

'Buddha, was he where it's at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain, or was that just PR!'

Damn he's good!

Hrm. I suppose it's not that funny for Bruce, the PR man takes all the credit and he gets called a liar.

He's a PR man, does anyone suppose he'd minimize his involvement?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is actually kinda funny when you think about it! The PR man decides to take credit for everything and his biggest promoters at PMF are overjoyed because they think they're 'vindicated!' They will no doubt choose to continue to spread the word etherwide about the Great David Marriott PR Supertanker (FOA walks the plank now!) which 'turned' the papers of three nations and created a groundswell of support which wouldn't have existed otherwise!

'Buddha, was he where it's at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain, or was that just PR!'

Damn he's good!

Hrm. I suppose it's not that funny for Bruce, the PR man takes all the credit and he gets called a liar.

He's a PR man, does anyone suppose he'd minimize his involvement?

I am trying to remember what Halkides told me about the Duke Lacrosse players and a PR firm, maybe he could comment. Curt Knox said hiring him was the smartest thing they did and I agree with that comment. I think his role was important.

 

[Kaosium]

I am trying to remember what Halkides told me about the Duke Lacrosse players and a PR firm, maybe he could comment. Curt Knox said hiring him was the smartest thing they did and I agree with that comment. I think his role was important.

Important to Curt Knox perhaps, certainly. Who'd want to deal with an onslaught of media without one? It's kind of like hiring a lawyer if you have to go to court, these are like 'lawyers' for media. However I don't think they did quite what their slavering admirers down the Rabbit Hole think they did either. There are people in this world who have the impression that you can reverse a court decision just by hiring a PR firm.

Personally I think that's just PR!

 

[snook1]

They will say this forever, and they are right. The article you quoted is by Fiorenza Sarzanini if I remember correctly. It was nov 07. and Amanda had just falsely accused Patrick Lumumba and wrote her infamous written paper.
This news reports were correct: both Sollecito and Amanda were liars.

errata corrige: it was Carlo Bonini

Isn't she the idiot who wrote a book based on Amanda's diary?