Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

Just trying to get something clarified. This excerpted from a PMF post:

The evidence of staging or alteration of the crimescene after Guede had departed is going to be the toughest thing for Hellmann to explain.

I thought Hellmann had in fact ruled categorically that there was NO simulation of a crime scene at all: Neither by Knox, or Sollecito, or by any parties.

Am I wrong? I will admit that I sometimes miss nuance or fine points. Can it actually be alleged that this alone will be Hellmann's gravest obstacle to overcome?

 

[Dougm]

Just trying to get something clarified. This excerpted from a PMF post:

The evidence of staging or alteration of the crimescene after Guede had departed is going to be the toughest thing for Hellmann to explain.

I thought Hellmann ruled categorically that there was NO simulation of a crime scene at all: Neither by Knox, or Sollecito, or by any parties.

Am I wrong? How can they be alleging that this and this alone will be Hellmann's gravest obstacle to overcome?

The "crime scene cleanup" seems to be one of the issues where the PG thought process clashes with the pro-innocence group. PGers are convinced there is unequivocal evidence of a cleanup, and pro-innocence folk largely believe there is clearly no evidence of a clean up. So of course PMF posters will be perplexed as to how Hellmann will explain this away, while Hellmann will probably not have any problem at all with this point.

 

[Kaosium]

Just trying to get something clarified. This excerpted from a PMF post:



I thought Hellmann ruled categorically that there was NO simulation of a crime scene at all: Neither by Knox, or Sollecito, or by any parties.

Am I wrong? How can they be alleging that this and this alone will be Hellmann's gravest obstacle to overcome?

They are barbarians, they think the Stupid Reasons^TM that crime scene was 'staged,' which Mignini was forced to come up with to 'explain' the apparent evidence of a break-in, are laws of nature, instead of the Stupid Reasons^TM that they are. They've attached reverent importance to irrelevancies like whether there was or was not glass on top of clothes at one time, and don't like having to contemplate the horror of the 'groupies' having been right, that they actually were Stupid Reasons^TM all along.

Hellmannn is going to tell them that, they're not going to like it.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The "crime scene cleanup" seems to be one of the issues where the PG thought process clashes with the pro-innocence group. PGers are convinced there is unequivocal evidence of a cleanup, and pro-innocence folk largely believe there is clearly no evidence of a clean up. So of course PMF posters will be perplexed as to how Hellmann will explain this away, while Hellmann will probably not have any problem at all with this point.

Yes. I see this, but as Hellmann did rule that the simulation did not exist as a fact, then he must be very, very confident in his reasons for doing so.

 

[smkovalinksy]

They are barbarians, they think the Stupid Reasons^TM that crime scene was 'staged,' which Mignini was forced to come up with to 'explain' the apparent evidence of a break-in, are laws of nature, instead of the Stupid Reasons^TM that they are. They've attached reverent importance to irrelevancies like whether there was or was not glass on top of clothes at one time, and don't like having to contemplate the horror of the 'groupies' having been right, that they actually were Stupid Reasons^TM all along.

Hellmannn is going to tell them that, they're not going to like it.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Right - it is a shame we cannot simply flash forward in time: I believe Hellmann's ruling will be where the SC rests with all. Until then, as you said, heavy , heavy denial. How do you (and they) make that TM mark anyway? I always hated their "Bruce Fisher, TM" but wondered how they made the TM.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

He will also have to rationalise the "guilty" verdict against Amanda on the calunnia charge. I agree as far as the acquittals go, but it's certainly my hope that Amanda's lawyers will challenge the calunnia conviction, on the grounds that the only evidence for it is her signature on 2 documents that were typed for her in a language she was not familiar with, and were ruled inadmissible in the murder trial. In addition, they had to make the murder charge their priority, and were therefore not able adequately to focus on the calunnia.

We have seen some pro-guilt posters claim that the SC is not at liberty to strike out the calunnia conviction without ordering a re-trial on all counts, but this doesn't has the ring of desperation on their part, for me. Is there any basis for this view (LJ)?

confirming the calunnia charge was an easy solution for Hellmann. It lets everyone off the hook as well as giving freedom to Amanda and Raffaele. People can now say that the pursuit of Amanda was justified by confirming the charge and in the end their system is supposed to be seen to work by eventually finding the truth.

The problem is that the charge is completely ridiculous and should be reversed. If the court ruled that Amanda was innocent then why would she need to cover for herself?

It is now up to the citizens of Perugia to stand up and stop the corruption. They must not let Hellmann's ruling give a free pass to those responsible. If they allow the same faces to maintain power then the door will be left wide open for history to repeat itself over and over again.

 

[Matthew Best]

Bruce, do you know if the calunnia conviction will be appealed?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Right - it is a shame we cannot simply flash forward in time: I believe Hellmann's ruling will be where the SC rests with all. Until then, as you said, heavy , heavy denial. How do you (and they) make that TM mark anyway? I always hated their "Bruce Fisher, TM" but wondered how they made the TM.

They did the same thing for Frank Sfarzo as if he was not a real person. None of that stuff ever bothered me. Frank and I both now that we exist. I know Pilot loves to say that Frank said I am "confused" (which he did say when we had one of our many spirited discussions regarding the case) but the truth is that Frank and I have a mutual respect for each other. I have great respect for his courage throughout this case. I doubt Frank cares that a "TM" was attached to his name by a hate group.

With all of that said, I don't know how to make the "TM" symbol.

Look at that, Bruce used an emoticon.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, do you know if the calunnia conviction will be appealed?

No word on that yet. The charge is not recognized in the United States so it will not have any long term effect on Amanda. Nothing at all.

 

[Dougm]

They did the same thing for Frank Sfarzo as if he was not a real person. None of that stuff ever bothered me. Frank and I both now that we exist. I know Pilot loves to say that Frank said I am "confused" (which he did say when we had one of our many spirited discussions regarding the case) but the truth is that Frank and I have a mutual respect for each other. I have great respect for his courage throughout this case. I doubt Frank cares that a "TM" was attached to his name by a hate group.

With all of that said, I don't know how to make the "TM" symbol.

Look at that, Bruce used an emoticon.

I always found it a tad humorous that people would post the name of a person with a "TM" at the end, when the person posting that was using some made up name that is clearly not their actual name.

 

[Antony]

They are barbarians, they think the Stupid Reasons^TM that crime scene was 'staged,' which Mignini was forced to come up with to 'explain' the apparent evidence of a break-in, are laws of nature, instead of the Stupid Reasons^TM that they are. They've attached reverent importance to irrelevancies like whether there was or was not glass on top of clothes at one time, and don't like having to contemplate the horror of the 'groupies' having been right, that they actually were Stupid Reasons^TM all along.

Hellmannn is going to tell them that, they're not going to like it.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

I agree with this. The only reason ever for believing that the break-in was "staged", or that there was a clean-up (other than the killer rinsing blood off his clothes in the bathroom), was the compulsion to implicate Amanda and Raffaele. Because there was no evidence of them at the crime scene at the time of the murder, it "must have been" because they cleaned up their own traces. Because there were indications of a break-in which wouldn't make sense if they were involved, it "must have been" because they "staged" the break-in to throw the investigation of course.

This is what makes the guilter argument so pernicious: contrary physical evidence is because the scene was altered by the accused; contrary public opinion is because of a PR campaign; contrary scientific opinion is because of corruption. There's no way we can argue with that.

 

[katy_did]

Right - it is a shame we cannot simply flash forward in time: I believe Hellmann's ruling will be where the SC rests with all. Until then, as you said, heavy , heavy denial. How do you (and they) make that TM mark anyway? I always hated their "Bruce Fisher, TM" but wondered how they made the TM.

Try this without the space: & #153;

smkovalinsky™

 

[smkovalinksy]

They did the same thing for Frank Sfarzo as if he was not a real person. None of that stuff ever bothered me. Frank and I both now that we exist. I know Pilot loves to say that Frank said I am "confused" (which he did say when we had one of our many spirited discussions regarding the case) but the truth is that Frank and I have a mutual respect for each other. I have great respect for his courage throughout this case. I doubt Frank cares that a "TM" was attached to his name by a hate group.

With all of that said, I don't know how to make the "TM" symbol.

Look at that, Bruce used an emoticon.

That you did! And no, you should not care about their silly "TM" nonsense. It is beneath you to concern yourself.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Try this without the space: & #153;

smkovalinsky™

Ah, thanks. Let me try: PerugiaMurderFile ™

 

[katy_did]

Ah, thanks. Let me try: PerugiaMurderFile ™

Now there's no stopping you.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Now there's no stopping you.

Tee hee...thanks to your help.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Responses to Dr. Novelli

TomZ53 responded elsewhere to a newspaper article that was critical of the Conti-Vecchiotti report. The article was coauthored by Dr. Novelli and Dr. Giardina. Tom wrote in part:
"Regading Professor Giuseppe Novelli and Dr. Emiliano Giardina, two Italian Scientists who have supported the Perugia investigation on the prosecution side, this Oct 6 post on TJMK from Professor Giuseppe Novelli and Dr. Emiliano Giardina, addresses the issue of their reasoning.

As a DNA scientist, here is my response:

I read the translation of the article by Professor Giuseppe Novelli and Dr. Emiliano Giardina, two prominent contributors to the Prosecution’s DNA team, and found a variety of problems with it. To begin, throughout the article the authors ignore the central issues of the management of the crime scene and the mishandling of the evidence. These are fundamental problems that introduced ambiguity into the DNA results and are central to why the evidence has been invalidated. Instead, they downplay the significance of DNA contamination in forensic DNA samples. Specifically they state, 'To determine the invalidity of such evidence, in the process, have been invoked improbable and absurd phenomena(contamination), lacking scientific legitimacy.'

"This statement is in stark contrast with the widely accepted understanding in forensic science; see for example Donald E. Riley, Ph.D...."

(scroll down about a third of page 102 on the Injustice in Perugia Forum to find the full response)

Allow me to add a few comments from the perspective of a protein biochemist with an interest in DNA forensics and blood testing. One, Drs. Novelli and Giardina do not acknowledge the existence of peaks on the bra electropherogram which cannot have arisen from Meredith or Raffaele (nor are at all likely to be stutter peaks, a type of artifact). The DNA giving rise to these peaks must have arisen from secondary transfer or contamination. Two, negative controls can detect wholesale contamination but may miss sporadic contamination, a point raised by Dr. Donald Riley in the citation provided to Dr. Riley's article. Three, Drs. Novelli and Giardina do not discuss how they evaluated the evidence in this case. If their review were without the electronic data files, then it was incomplete; if their evaluation were with the electronic data files, then they are tacitly acknowledging that the defense experts were at a disadvantage, not having access to them. Four, they fail to wrestle with one of the most problematic aspects of the knife, the lack of blood. It is widely known that the knife was negative by TMB. My reading of the translation of the Conti/Vecchiotti report indicates that there was a confirmatory test for blood as well, and it was also negative. The prosecution would have to explain how one can clean a knife, then use it to cut bread (to account for the starch), and still have the DNA persist. Here is more on the frequency of DNA contamination.

 

[Grinder]

I largely agree with everything you wrote here about what Hellmann is likely to put in his motivations report.

And I generally agree with your longer version.

As a slight aside, bear in mind that Curatolo and Quintavalle will not be charged with calunnia. Their testimony - bogus and unreliable as it was - never constituted a direct accusation of criminal conduct against Knox or Sollecito. Curatolo merely said that he saw Knox/Sollecito in the square/basketball court that night, and Quintavalle merely said that he saw Knox in his shop at 7.45am the following morning. While both men's testimony strongly supported the original prosecution case - and, importantly, it directly contradicted Knox's/Sollecito's version of events - neither man directly accused Knox or Sollecito of murder (or any other crime). Therefore calunnia charges can never apply here, regardless of the fact that both men will be totally discredited by Hellmann's report.

"Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. "

I'm not intending to start a Mach/LJ debate but I'm sure that there is a crime in Italy for giving false testimony. If it's not calunnia then they should be charged with that crime whatever it is.

And lastly, as another aside, writing "direct circumstantial evidence" is a contradiction in terms: evidence is by definition either direct or circumstantial.

Yes, I was aware of that; however I was being lazy and only meant to distinguish between footprints, DNA etc., and cartwheels, pizza eating etc.

 

[geebee2]

"Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. "

.

If that's the callunia law, it's hard to understand how the remaining charge against Knox can stand.

(1) She didn't fabricate evidence (e.g. plant something incriminating).
And even if the note she wrote somehow constitutes evidence..

(2) She didn't know Patrick was innocent. It's clear that she had been persuaded by the police that he might have done it. She wasn't there, so it was a possibility.

Given the fact of her innocence, she had no reason to accuse Patrick falsely, so there is no reason to doubt the clear evidence she gave on this.
[ That's to say the evidence she gave was true - she really did have a confused recollection that Patrick might have done it - this must have been induced by the police's ham-fisted interrogation technique ]

I'd like to see this cleared up mainly so that the Italian justice system is seen to be just. On the other hand, I guess if the verdict stands, it will be a rallying point for reform for many decades. It's now the Italian justice system that is really on trial here, not Amanda. They can choose to remain a laughing stock, or take a more sensible course.

 

[smkovalinksy]

If that's the callunia law, it's hard to understand how the remaining charge against Knox can stand.

(1) She didn't fabricate evidence (e.g. plant something incriminating).
And even if the note she wrote somehow constitutes evidence..

(2) She didn't know Patrick was innocent. It's clear that she had been persuaded by the police that he might have done it. She wasn't there, so it was a possibility. Given the fact of her innocence, she had no reason to accuse Patrick falsely, so there is no reason to doubt the clear evidence she gave on this.
I'd like to see this cleared up mainly so that the Italian justice system is seen to be just. On the other hand, I guess if the verdict stands, it will be a rallying point for reform for many decades. It's now the Italian justice system that is really on trial here, not Amanda. They can choose to remain a laughing stock, or take a more sensible course.

Yes.