Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.

What does brought entirely mean? Could you give examples of evidence that is not complete?

The luminol footprints was a piece of evidence brought in and discussed thoroughly and entirely.

Was there any evidence you can example that wasn't discussed thoroughly?

It is also meaningful. It is a strong piece of evidence, despite the innocentisti denials.

Why?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no evidence in a PIP's mind, but in others there is Toto the hobo, Amanda, Raff as well, that mysterious footprint of Rudi, the bra clasp the knife, the staged break in and the list just goes on and on. I am fully aware how you PIPs discredit all of this, I'm also aware how everyone connected to this case is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked, and I'm also aware how this encompasses the entire police force, the scientific community and the judges and prosecutors and almost everyone connected to this case that doesn't agree with the PIP way of thinking.

Unfortunately, one could quote you the hundreds of cases of wrongful prosecution and wrongful conviction, as well as wrongful execution, where the conditions you set up is now simply a matter of public record.

Debra Milke being one. It's why your characterization of PIP is a wee bit of a strawman. Are you denying that people are EVER wrongfully convicted, which by definition requires at least an arrest and a trial and a conviction? Were TWO juries in the Debra Milke case who came to identical conclusions about "the evidence", as well as two judges.... well you get my drift.

But I do like what is said upthread about "the scientific community". Patrizia Stefanoni is not a community. Her boos vouched for her, particularly the claim that they;d never had an example of contamination in their lab. The Jurists at the ISC level have jumped on that one essentially siding with the prosecution that contamination must be proven, rather than having demonstrated anti-contamination protocols in place, so that a peer review might theoretically in this case judge Stefanoni's methods.

Except, that from Massei to the ISC, it seems that the courts are now ruling that Stefanoni doesn't even need to release the raw EDF's.

This is called, circling the wagon's. This is major face saving going on.

That the only thing you can offer is basically a strawman argument about, "they cannot ALL be corrupt" is decidedly not the point. That argument has been made early on to the defenders of everyone who was eventually released because of wrongful conviction.... but congratulations for advancing the argument anyway.

 

[Grinder]

I know I should provide the cite of the Kiosk owners. But I know, like me, you consider Curatolo not credible. So I'm not going to dig for who contradicted Curatolo about the buses. And like you, I believe this to be a minor point in the overall credibility of Mr. Curatolo. And considering the fact that if Curatolo is actually correct in his testimony, he actually provides an alibi for Amanda and Raffaele as the TOD certainly would have been during the time that Curatolo said that Amanda and Raffaele were in the piazza.

Tesla I provided the cite from Massei that shows that the kiosk owners backed not contradicted Curatolo. The disco club owners contradicted him.

You should take the time to read the quote I provided as it shows that the kiosk owners testimony about the times of the disco buses was instrumental in setting the time Curatolo MUST have seen the kids.
They used their confirmation of the disco buses to move the time Curatolo to an earlier time. He had said 11:30 or just before midnight and the court used the kiosk owners timing of the buses to move the time he last saw them to 11 - 11:30. This is huge because now with the buses discredited they need to move the time back to just before midnight because that's what Curatolo said first.

I guess the evidence wasn't complete in the Massei court.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I provided the cite from Massei that shows that the kiosk owners backed not contradicted Curatolo. The disco club owners contradicted him.

You should take the time to read the quote I provided as it shows that the kiosk owners testimony about the times of the disco buses was instrumental in setting the time Curatolo MUST have seen the kids.
They used their confirmation of the disco buses to move the time Curatolo to an earlier time. He had said 11:30 or just before midnight and the court used the kiosk owners timing of the buses to move the time he last saw them to 11 - 11:30. This is huge because now with the buses discredited they need to move the time back to just before midnight because that's what Curatolo said first.

I guess the evidence wasn't complete in the Massei court.

You are 100 percent right that I should look for and provide the cite. But since I'm in the middle of a chess marathon while posting, I'm probably not going to get around to it immediately. My apology.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Unfortunately, one could quote you the hundreds of cases of wrongful prosecution and wrongful conviction, as well as wrongful execution, where the conditions you set up is now simply a matter of public record.

Debra Milke being one. It's why your characterization of PIP is a wee bit of a strawman. Are you denying that people are EVER wrongfully convicted, which by definition requires at least an arrest and a trial and a conviction? Were TWO juries in the Debra Milke case who came to identical conclusions about "the evidence", as well as two judges.... well you get my drift.

But I do like what is said upthread about "the scientific community". Patrizia Stefanoni is not a community. Her boos vouched for her, particularly the claim that they;d never had an example of contamination in their lab. The Jurists at the ISC level have jumped on that one essentially siding with the prosecution that contamination must be proven, rather than having demonstrated anti-contamination protocols in place, so that a peer review might theoretically in this case judge Stefanoni's methods.

Except, that from Massei to the ISC, it seems that the courts are now ruling that Stefanoni doesn't even need to release the raw EDF's.

This is called, circling the wagon's. This is major face saving going on.

That the only thing you can offer is basically a strawman argument about, "they cannot ALL be corrupt" is decidedly not the point. That argument has been made early on to the defenders of everyone who was eventually released because of wrongful conviction.... but congratulations for advancing the argument anyway.

People are and will be wrongfully convicted, but with time I'm sure there are fewer and fewer, DNA and science in general has helped, but still, it has to be a low percentage of all convictions. The opposite is also true, guilty are set free as well.
By the scientific community, I not only mean Stef, how about the ones collecting the clasp, the ones taking swabs in the bathroom. I feel contamination must be proved as well, otherwise eliminate DNA all together.
I also feel that you could take almost any case and argue every point that is against the accused and come up with a different verdict. They do it with the moon landings, J.F.K. assassination, big foot, 9/11 and so on, and we all know 3 out of those 4 are complete bogus.
It's not so much that they can't all be corrupt, just that is would be so unlikely, but I have never said impossible.

 

[Bill Williams]

People are and will be wrongfully convicted, but with time I'm sure there are fewer and fewer, DNA and science in general has helped, but still, it has to be a low percentage of all convictions. The opposite is also true, guilty are set free as well.
By the scientific community, I not only mean Stef, how about the ones collecting the clasp, the ones taking swabs in the bathroom. I feel contamination must be proved as well, otherwise eliminate DNA all together.
I also feel that you could take almost any case and argue every point that is against the accused and come up with a different verdict. They do it with the moon landings, J.F.K. assassination, big foot, 9/11 and so on, and we all know 3 out of those 4 are complete bogus.
It's not so much that they can't all be corrupt, just that is would be so unlikely, but I have never said impossible.

If you feel that way, then who's to argue, really? What's your point? Do you just enjoy the argument?

BTW - have you seen the video the Scientific Police themselves took of the collection of the bra-clasp?

 

[Dan O.]

I feel contamination must be proved as well, otherwise eliminate DNA all together.

What is the background level of DNA contamination in the cottage? Do you know? Can you find out from the scientific testing presented at the trial? Why is it that you don't have any answers?!

You have chosen to remain ignorant so your feelings on the matter are not relevant.

 

[Dan O.]

The ISC motivation must be embarrassing for Italians.

On "The conviction of KNOX for the crime of slander" they write:

The overlap of assessment on this one point is due to the strength of the given facts, of a documented nature, given that the accusation was "wrapped up" in the memoriale, 6.11.2007, in which Knox wrote that she could "see Patrick as the murderer" and in the verbal declaration of spontaneously made statements, even if in the depths of night, a few hours before by the accused, who indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator of the homicide.

They demonstrate the same ability to take words out of context as Mignini where they are implying that Amanda is saying that she saw patrick Murder Meredith. Whereas if we look at the note they are quoting from:

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.

Also, in evaluating this statement they look at the memorandums on Amanda's interrogation which they themselves had ruled inadmissible and they still refused to look at the statements by the only known witness to the crime that said Amanda was not there.

 

[anglolawyer]

Tesla I provided the cite from Massei that shows that the kiosk owners backed not contradicted Curatolo. The disco club owners contradicted him.

You should take the time to read the quote I provided as it shows that the kiosk owners testimony about the times of the disco buses was instrumental in setting the time Curatolo MUST have seen the kids.
They used their confirmation of the disco buses to move the time Curatolo to an earlier time. He had said 11:30 or just before midnight and the court used the kiosk owners timing of the buses to move the time he last saw them to 11 - 11:30. This is huge because now with the buses discredited they need to move the time back to just before midnight because that's what Curatolo said first.

I guess the evidence wasn't complete in the Massei court.

While I am still claiming credit for winkling the 'strongly suspected' admission out of Mach, I have to take my hat off for this acute observation. Oh the irony.

 

[acbytesla]

People are and will be wrongfully convicted, but with time I'm sure there are fewer and fewer, DNA and science in general has helped, but still, it has to be a low percentage of all convictions. The opposite is also true, guilty are set free as well.
By the scientific community, I not only mean Stef, how about the ones collecting the clasp, the ones taking swabs in the bathroom. I feel contamination must be proved as well, otherwise eliminate DNA all together.
I also feel that you could take almost any case and argue every point that is against the accused and come up with a different verdict. They do it with the moon landings, J.F.K. assassination, big foot, 9/11 and so on, and we all know 3 out of those 4 are complete bogus.
It's not so much that they can't all be corrupt, just that is would be so unlikely, but I have never said impossible.

I wish I could be so confident that with time there will be fewer and fewer wrongful convictions. The judicial system is made up of people and every part of it can and does get corrupted. And while DNA has been used to correct some wrongful convictions, it clearly can and has been misused. DNA can be so damning in a jury's mind it is important that scientific and collection protocols be performed as well as thorough documentation.

There is NO REASON at all for Stefanoni not to provide the EDFs NONE. They should be made available to the Defense for every case including this case. Without them it is possible for a technician to actually to present fraudulent evidence. They could do it with virtually any image editor like Photoshop.

I for one do not believe that all DNA should be thrown out in this case. I am not arguing against the DNA taken from the bathroom. There are only two pieces of DNA evidence in this case that point to Amanda and Raffaele and both are extremely suspect. The knife where Stefanoni totally violated all the protocols of DNA testing and the knife doesn't match the stain on the duvet. The second is the bra clasp which collection 46 days later is beyond suspect.

Saying that people will argue against any decision is a cop out. People can and always do argue. The standard is, is there reasonable doubt? Personally I think there is more than enough reasonable doubt.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Also, I'll play your game and say that, from your point of view, everyone connected to this case that doesn't share your opinion is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked. I'm also aware this encompasses the scientific community (well, if you can say this I'll say it too), the judges,the lawyers and the prossecution. The real question is, what exactly is gained by this kind of argument?

I can see the purpose Sherlock's argument serves. I think he is trying to say that PIP have closed minds. PIP already believe that virtually everyone who supports the prosecution's case is wrong, and therefore they will not accept any arguments from those who support the prosecution. Am I right, Sherlock?

If that is your argument, then I think you also must be saying you see PIP as emotionally biased. Of course, PIP don't see themselves that way, because they believe their arguments are based on research and analysis, and can be explained and defended intellectually.

From the PIP point of view, when PGP like you say they don't know how the crime happened, they just have a feeling that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, or like Machiavelli say they know Amanda is guilty because she lied, then PGP, too, come across as very clearly emotionally biased. Machiavelli tries to explain and defend his argument intellectually by making claims about liars being manipulators, but when he condemns Amanda for lying and does not condemn others for it, his emotional bias is very easy to see.

People are and will be wrongfully convicted, but with time I'm sure there are fewer and fewer, DNA and science in general has helped, but still, it has to be a low percentage of all convictions. The opposite is also true, guilty are set free as well.<snip>

I agree. You are right that there are fewer and fewer wrongful convictions over time -- I mean, look at the difference between the Salem witch trials versus the many legal protections that exist for modern-day defendants.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

It's not so much that they can't all be corrupt, just that is would be so unlikely, but I have never said impossible.

???

Yes, I would think that impossible, and not all of them are connected to the prosecution, how is Filomena connected for one.

 

[Antony]

There is no evidence in a PIP's mind, but in others there is Toto the hobo, Amanda, Raff as well, that mysterious footprint of Rudi, the bra clasp the knife, the staged break in and the list just goes on and on. I am fully aware how you PIPs discredit all of this, I'm also aware how everyone connected to this case is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked, and I'm also aware how this encompasses the entire police force, the scientific community and the judges and prosecutors and almost everyone connected to this case that doesn't agree with the PIP way of thinking.

The only "list that goes on and on" is the list of lying, incompetence and corruption on the part of those sustaining the prosecution. You can add to that the illegal action of the Italian Supreme Court, who have based their ruling against Hellman not on law and procedure, but on revisiting the evidence, which they are not entitled to do. By doing so, they make the continued persecution Amanda and Raffaele a clear-cut matter of Double Jeopardy.

Some weeks ago, I posted a list of facts indicating an agenda of wrongful prosecution on the part of the police. Your response was "you would have to be blind to believe all of these". "Blind" to believe facts?

On your side, your "list that goes on and on" consists solely of Curatolo's claimed sighting of A&R in the plaza, which has no credibility. The rest, as others have pointed out, is not evidence that the 2 of them were anywhere other than where they said they were.

Your thinking, like the down-the-line PGP, is conclusion-driven; you start with the conclusion that A&R were lying and that the police and prosecution can be trusted, and then look for indications to support that while refusing to look at facts that go against it. You cite the alleged "staged break-in" as evidence against A&R. It isn't evidence; it's a conclusion based not on any genuine investigation, but one that is needed for the prosecution claims to be in any way supportable. It's equivalent to biblical fundamentalists claiming that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth by Satan to mislead us.

The list of misconduct by the Perugia police and prosecution, along with the lack of impartiality shown by the Massei court and now by the Supreme Court leads to a conclusion you don't like: that there is widespread corruption in the Italian police and judiciary. So you switch off when it comes to considering the real facts of the case.

 

[Antony]

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/CassazioneTranslationFull.pdf

Thanks for this. More required reading to add to the pile.

Is there anyone who's made a summary of what's in it? Like, where does it deal with any breaches of procedure by Hellman's court?

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for this. More required reading to add to the pile.

Is there anyone who's made a summary of what's in it? Like, where does it deal with any breaches of procedure by Hellman's court?

I might have a crack at that. I am part way through just reading it but it looks as though the main thing is not procedural error but logical shortcomings in Hellman's reasoning.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for this. More required reading to add to the pile.

Is there anyone who's made a summary of what's in it? Like, where does it deal with any breaches of procedure by Hellman's court?

I think this sums that part of it up...

In addition, the contested decision ictu oculi presents a fragmented and atomistic evaluation of the evidence, items considered one by one and with their demonstrative potential then discarded, without a broader and more complete evaluation, to operate on full beam, so that the fragmentation of the individual elements has chipped away at the valency and the thickness, such that there inevitably follows a disjointed scrutiny of their necessary synthesis, ignoring the value that the pieces of the mosaic take when evaluated synergistically.

Simples.

 

[RoseMontague]

And the most astonishing quote in the whole thing....

In conclusion, the contested judgment is set aside for the many profiles
highlighting the shortcomings, contradictions and manifest lack of logic,
mentioned above. The Court of Review must therefore remedy, in its
broadest powers of discretion, the critical aspects of argumentation,
operating a global and unitary examination of evidence, through which
examination is to be ascertained where the relative ambiguity of each piece
of evidence can be resolved, as in the overall assessment each clue is added
to and integrated with others. The outcome of this assessment will be
crucial not only to osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two
defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the
subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range
of hypothetical situations, ranging from agreement on genetic option of
death, to the modification of a program that initially contemplated only the
involvement of the young English woman in an unwanted sex game, to the
forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of
control.

They have told the new appeal court to find the two defendants guilty and just explain it better. I don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

 

[anglolawyer]

And the most astonishing quote in the whole thing....



They have told the new appeal court to find the two defendants guilty and just explain it better. I don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

It is not the least troubling aspect of the 'motivation' that it appears to be essentially untranslatable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the bra clasp was contaminated

I feel contamination must be proved as well, otherwise eliminate DNA all together.

The bra clasp had extra alleles on it not attributable to Meredith, Raffaele, or Amanda. By the van Oorshot definition of contamination, it was contaminated.

 

[RoseMontague]

The bra clasp had extra alleles on it not attributable to Meredith, Raffaele, or Amanda. By the van Oorshot definition of contamination, it was contaminated.

Yet Novelli testified that he examined all the DNA lab results, some 255 of them and found no evidence of contamination.

He is a lying liar.

 

[anglolawyer]

The bra clasp had extra alleles on it not attributable to Meredith, Raffaele, or Amanda. By the van Oorshot definition of contamination, it was contaminated.

Am I right in thinking Stefanoni saw fit not to mention these alleles at first instance? I gather this inter alia from the recent Balding article but I think it's in C-V as well. IIUC she selected the peaks referable to the victim and Raffaele only, choosing to ignore other peaks the existence of which was teased out of her (like pulling teeth) by C-V backed by Hellman.

I would be very interested to know what Sherlock makes of this unscientific conduct. Sherlock are you troubled in any way? Do you even understand WTH I am talking about?