• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
LOL. You just spent the last week telling us that the publication of this picture couldn't be prejudicial because it was published in a UK tabloid and no one in Italy would ever consider such a foreign thing. And yet, Mignini's whole defamation case is based on a publication in a UK tabloid.

So, it's your belief that Knox might have been hit by the police and that even if she wasn't, that the alleged "defamatory" publication wasn't even published in Italy.

So, tell us what you think of Mignini's case against Knox's parents? Bogus, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That's a great pointed, Mignini speaked with forked tongued outed bothed sided of mouthed.
 
Machiavelli said:
But it is not true that "authorities" have a responsibility of custody of the investigation file: large portions of the file may well be accessible to parties (and they are).
Click to expand...

Custody and right of access are two different things. The authorities obviously create the investigation file and have custody of it. So if there is a leak, then they should investigate and not someone else who doesn't have custody.
 
halides1 said:
I seem to recall that the police found a witness to say that Mr. Lumumba's bar was closed on the night of the murder. Who is he or she? Will they be prosecuted for saying so? Will Mr. Lumumba bring a civil suit?
Click to expand...

RoseMontague said:
Of course not, it was a very vague statement, not unlike Amanda's:
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems to me that that evening the local was closed. I 19 I went out to the House and it seems to me that the door of the ' Chic ' was closed. Until when? I don't know. I do not remember what I did that night

Sì, mi pare che quella sera il locale fosse chiuso. Io verso le 19 sono uscito di casa e mi sembra che il portone del 'Le Chic' fosse chiuso. Fino a quando? Non so. Non mi ricordo cosa ho fatto quella sera"
Click to expand...


LOL
 
Diocletus said:
Did the cops ask him to imagine what it would be like if Le Chic was closed?
Click to expand...

My understanding is this kid's name is listed in the arrest warrant. I am surprised they could only find one witness who could say that it might have been closed but they don't remember what they did that night.
 
smkovalinksy said:
Opinion piece posted on pmf claiming to destroy the C & V report, but I do not see it:

A proposito di DNA, sentiamo l'altra campana - Gruppi Usenet
Click to expand...

Who wrote this report? Does the individual have or claim to have any technical expertise on the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases?

One of the things I noticed was that (ETA: according to this article) contamination was the only reason the evidence was rejected. This suggests to me that the author of this piece is basing his article on a popular understanding of the C & V report and not the information contained within the report itself.

Here's an article that I assume has been linked to before in this thread:

http://friendsofamanda.org/files/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf

It is by Elizabeth A. Johnson Ph.D and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D.

The credibility difference between the two sources is obvious. I wonder why some people might find the PMF article credible and reject articles like that by Johnson and Hampikian. Are there any articles on the internet written by people with credible forensic DNA expertise critical of the C & V report?
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Of course not, it was a very vague statement, not unlike Amanda's:
Click to expand...

Nice! Thanks for this Rose... Here's more for those interested:


All the doubts of supertestimone The enclosed? I'm not sure

November 15, 2007 - page 23 Section: CHRONICLE

PERUGIA - He says now: "I do not want to enter the world of newspapers and television." He asked that his name not be done, even if it is written in the 'order of Judge Claudia Matteini, 19 sheets that explain why Diya Lumumba, Patrick said, is closed for eight days in jail. Do not even want to be listed as "supertestimone," but his words were to send Patrick in his cell. The DJ said that at the time of the death of Meredith, was working in his shop. "One of the regulars - the judge says - reported that on the evening of November 1, he noted, about 19 ​​hours, the place was closed as well as he could see that fact even later to return to the pizzeria." But now the Supertest declares: "I'm not 100% sure." "Look - said the 'man in this story are a stranger. I am one who does not want problems. " But she said that night the place was closed, so removing the 'excuse of Patrick. "What a night this Halloween? No, it was open that evening. I came in with some of my friends, I saw that the party was not a success, in other words, there 'was a few people and left almost immediately. " But the crime was committed in the evening after, on 1 November. "Yes, it seems to me that night the restaurant was closed. I pour the 19 I left home and I think that the door of the "Le Chic" was closed. Until when? I do not know. I do not remember what I did tonight. " The 'man - always asking not to appear with the name - is also approached by Studio open. "You sure they were just the 19? '. "I think that I came from home and the place I 've seen closed." It does not seem at all sure of himself, the 'man who is a pivot of the' charge against Patrick. The 'other pin is Amanda, who said: "I remember vaguely that Patrick killed Meredith." And in the same "stop order" the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini wrote: "Amanda Marie Knox has demonstrated a particular unscrupulousness in lying."
Click to expand...

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...ubbi-del-supertestimone-il-locale-chiuso.html

(Sorry if posted already)
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
So? What's wrong with that?

And BTW, what information did he release?
Click to expand...

If Lalli was not authorized to talk to the press by the prosecution or discussed information that the prosecution didn't want discussed I think the prosecutor would and should have the right to have Lalli removed from the case.

Of course, the prosecutor should not be allowed to put pressure on a pathologist to make claims not supported by evidence or interfere with the independence of a pathologist in any way.

So this issue boils down to what the facts are about this situation and whether the facts are known publically.

Did the pathologist that replaced Lalli make claims that were more helpful to the prosecution? Was any of the testimony by Lalli suppressed or not available to the defense? Unless at least one of these things is true it seems at least that the prosecution didn't gain by replacing Lalli which suggests but doesn't prove that on this issue the prosecution acted with good faith.

ETA: I think that the normal practice in the US and I presume in Italy is that once the case has gone to the prosecution the prosecution is in charge of the release of all information associated with the case. So if some information was released to the public it is reasonable to assume the prosecution approved the release unless the prosecution took steps to investigate and punish the leakers. If this wasn't true everybody that was involved in evidence collection and analysis would just be yapping away to the press without concern for the problems that might pose to the prosecution or the defense. For instance if crime scene photos were released anonymously it is probable that the prosecution approved that, particularly if the prosecution didn't do anything to investigate the source of the leak.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Who wrote this report? Does the individual have or claim to have any technical expertise on the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases?
Click to expand...

Novelli was prosecution's expert in the appeal. He is not a forensic scientist and apparently has no experience with DNA in criminal context.

What is ironic and funny is that he is effectively arguing that the DNA was planted by the cops.
 
Malkmus said:
Nice! Thanks for this Rose... Here's more for those interested:

It does not seem at all sure of himself, the 'man who is a pivot of the' charge against Patrick. The 'other pin is Amanda, who said: "I remember vaguely that Patrick killed Meredith." And in the same "stop order" the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini wrote: "Amanda Marie Knox has demonstrated a particular unscrupulousness in lying."
Click to expand...

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...ubbi-del-supertestimone-il-locale-chiuso.html

(Sorry if posted already)
Click to expand...

Thank you, that part quoted above is a good way to describe The Mignini hisself, imo.
 
Machiavelli said:
There cant be an investigation initiative just because some (unknown) individual released photos - personal or from investigation file makes no difference, since all photos on the scene are eligible to be included in the investigation - for money.
Click to expand...

So, a police officer acting in a official capacity collects photos on police time using police resources, and then sells them for personal profit, and you can't see why someone might want to look into that?

An authourised private photographer takes photos that are supposed to be kept available to be included in the investigation file, sells those photos privately to a company that is not covered by Italian jurisdiction - and you cant think why someone might look into whether those photos were ever made known to the police (you can't include photos you don't know about) and whether or not the photo owner had deliberately avoided making them available to be eligible to be included in the investigation file?

An unauthourised photographer gains access to a crime scene without any apparent permission or notification and then sells the copyrights to a company that is out of Italian jurisdiction - and you can't see why someone might want to know how and when this breach of security happened?

The logic that there's no need to investigate the origin of the photo sale because they eventually end up eligible to be included in the investigation file only makes sense if:

a) there's no possibility of professional misconduct in the selling of the photos.

This can be dimissed as a reason not to investigate as you won't know whether it's a private photo or one taken in an official capacity until you investigate.

b) there's no possibilty of the photos being taken for a private collection by a person who was otherwise working in an official capacity, and thus acting on police time using police resources.

This can be dismissed as a reason not to investigate, as you won't know what capacity the person was working in (and thusly if there's any misconduct for personal gain) when they took the photos until you find out who took the photos.

c) there's no possibilty that the photos were not made available to be eligible to be included in the investigation file.

This can be dismissed as a reason not to investigate as you won't know if the photographer avoided making them available until after you find out who they are and whether they were made known to the police before or after selling - if at all. Arguements about eligibility do not count here if the damage/misconduct was done before they were available to be eligible.

In short, there's little reason not to conduct at least a precursory investigation as to how the photos and copyrights 'co-incidentally' happened to be sold to a major media agency that just happens to be outside of Italian jurisdiction, and which just happens to be in the victims home country, where the victims biological father just happens to have some influence in the national media. In short, you would want to look into why it has the appearance of a direct targetted leak by a party that has interest in motiviating public opinion against one of the suspects, but who knows enough about Italian law to not risk doing it through an Italian agency.

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and one of its feathers was under investigation for being suspected of belonging to a duck, then you would want to know whether of not it is an actual duck.
 
Dr. Novelli

davefoc said:
Who wrote this report? Does the individual have or claim to have any technical expertise on the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases?
Click to expand...
davefoc,

My perusal of Dr. Novelli's list of publications indicated to me that he is mainly a medical geneticist. He does appear to have some research experience in the possible use of single nucleotide polymorphisms in future DNA profiling. SNPs are distinct from short tandem repeats (STRs), which are currently at the core of DNA profiling at present. However, I would not say that DNA forensics is the centerpiece of his research. I am very baffled as to why he has chosen to go public with his criticisms. I also think that the methodology of the low template analysis done in this case was at odds with a DNA forensics review article which he coauthored.

Malkmus and RoseMontague,

Thank you for digging up the stuff about the Le Chic witness. He does not sound certain at all, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Skind said:
In short, there's little reason not to conduct at least a precursory investigation as to how the photos and copyrights 'co-incidentally' happened to be sold to a major media agency that just happens to be outside of Italian jurisdiction, and which just happens to be in the victims home country, where the victims biological father just happens to have some influence in the national media. In short, you would want to look into why it has the appearance of a direct targeted leak by a party that has interest in motivating public opinion against one of the suspects, but who knows enough about Italian law to not risk doing it through an Italian agency.

.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum.

It does seem rather suspicious and that photo seems to have been misinterpreted or misrepresented by a lot of the media and their readers to show something that pointed to guilt. Of course, the cops are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, so maybe they really had no clue. They seem to have a history of pleading incompetence and ignorance rather than something unsavory or illegal.
 
RoseMontague said:
Seems to be the comments of Novelli in a statement given to Mignini and presented in court during the appeal. Nothing that hasn't been reported that I can see, although the comments via google are pretty funny.
Click to expand...
Ha, yes they are. I had wondered if this wasn't merely the same old ground being covered. :eek:
 
Reading some of the old Repubblica stories... Thought this was interesting. A friend of Patrick tries to rationalize:

Nov. 8 2007

The hope and 'incredulity prevent your friends to speculate on what might have happened inside the head of Patrick Diya Lumumba that night, if the facts will eventually be confirmed in what they now appear. Yes, the last time he was nervous. Once, someone remembers, he was angry and broke a bottle. Everyone was stunned. Very strange for Patrick. Which, among the 'other, was not the heavy stuff. On this, in the 'Acropolis, c' is the consensus. Some cane, of course, every now and then, like so many. He drank, yes, sometimes too much.
Click to expand...

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...1/08/poesie-scatti-di-violenza-enigma-di.html

Just reminds of the small irrelevant stories that emerged about Amanda.

ETA: Apparently, when the friend says Patrick had "some cane", this means to get high.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
The following question was asked on .org. I think the answer is not obvious for many of us(incl me, of course)so can someone help with that one?

I have this question. If the Court of Cassation reviews the dossier in the case and comes to the conclusion that the acquittal is not well motivated, can it, based on its own review of the file, conclude that there is no credible interpretation of the facts consistent with innocence, and in essence re-instate the judgment of guilt as a final judgment, or must it always return the case to the appellate court for proceedings consistent with its (Cassation's) opinion in any event?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Cassation is within its rights to rule on the merits based on the existing body of evidence, so in theory the judges can do whatever they want short of conducting their own trial. The problem for the prosecution is this body of evidence includes Curatolo, C&V and the confusing, contradictory elements Comodi introduced on close (uncertain ToD, 'they killed for nothing', etc.). Since they've got nothing at this point that stands up to scrutiny, the prosecution's best shot at securing a conviction on appeal is to force a re-review of the DNA evidence and pray for a miracle, which would require a new trial, making this discussion moot.

It's all Universe B stuff at this point however. In our universe the acquittals will stand at Cassation. The only open question is how long it takes for that calunnia conviction to go away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom