cuki777
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 264
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Truly I am not being confrontative. It's a mystery why it would be perceived as such. Did you just want me to agree with you and be quiet? Aside from with my wife, I don't do that much!!!!
Mary_H seems to agree with you, because she has provided a nuance (one I do not agree with) which has the ISC saying basically, "do some more digging into Curatolo, Nara, and the motive about sex games, and if you still come back with these as unfactual, then we'll sign off on an acquittal." That would be a case, even I would admit, which only partly steps all over the Italian Constitution.
And please note my point - when the Supreme Court does it, there is no other recourse. It's the same in other countries... when the US Supreme Court virtually elects George W. Bush as President in 2000, there simply is no other recourse. We can jump up and down and scream and yell that the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds to elect a president, but there just is no recourse.
Did the Supreme Court set a precedent? Would this bind some future supreme court sitting to make essentially the same decision? Patently NO! Because that future supreme court is not accountable to anyone other than itself.
I do believe you are not looking for confrontation. But you are particularly resistant to anything other than, "Massei found them guilty", "the Supreme Court found Hellman's verdict faulty", "the prosecution won all of its points in the SC hearing", etc., to quote Antony.
I was one who initially asked you what the fire in your belly was to post so much here - and I hope you did not take that as a challenge to your right to post here.... you have a right to do that! As does pretty much anyone else with a keyboard and an internet connection.
You really have no need to explain yourself.
But this is also a conversation (of sorts!) No matter what anyone else says, you come back to, "Massei found them guilty", "the Supreme Court found Hellman's verdict faulty", "the prosecution won all of its points in the SC hearing", etc.
Strangely, all those things are, in their simplest rendering, true. But I remember that you also said you were very concerned that Meredith's Kercher's memory neither be forgotten nor trodden upon. Again, that is very true - if for no other reason than that there remains a grieving family hungering for some measure of justice.
And that's where these comments come to play - my non-confrontative opinion only. "Massei found them guilty", "the Supreme Court found Hellman's verdict faulty", "the prosecution won all of its points in the SC hearing", etc.
Massei found them guilty:
- and refuted at least 11 claims the prosecution made: including rejecting motive, saying there was no mixed blood, there was no animosity between Meredith and Amanda, implying there was NO presence of Amanda Knox in the murder room, etc.
The Supreme Court found Hellmann's verdict faulty:
- mainly on facts as found, rather than on rules of law or procedure.
The prosecution won all of its points in the SC hearing:
- with little, if any, reference to law or procedure, with the possible exception of an implied law that if an expert says she had no contamination in her lab, then it is up to the defence to take her at her word, and further PROVE contamination or perhaps risk a defamation suit.
- in an area where every other lab which does police work demonstrates up front the protocols they use which prove no contamination before they even send anything to the court or to the defence. It is not up to the defence to prove contamination, in every other place except Italy it is up to the prosecution to prove there has been no contamination.
- in an area where every other lab which does police work demonstrates up front the protocols they use which prove no contamination before they even send anything to the court or to the defence. It is not up to the defence to prove contamination, in every other place except Italy it is up to the prosecution to prove there has been no contamination.
So maybe you're right, CoulsdonUK - the ISC perhaps has now set a (dangerous) precedent that experts are to be believed on their say-so, so much so that they do not need to release data files, even when the court ORDERS them to do it.....
That's a great precedent that goes outside of saying, "Well if it's Italian law, it's Italian law." It speaks to the reasons why many say Italy is in the fix it's currently in. And why, for instance, some businesses actually choose not to do business there because there seems to be an unstable court system.... which if nothing else will tie you up for decades in these neverendums on guilt or innocence.
I'm not being confrontative!!!!!
Mary agrees with you on one thing - that the ISC ruling may not be the disaster for the defence that many claim. I agree with you on one thing - that the Kerchers deserve justice.
I'm not sure Anthony agrees with you on anything!
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Duke Lax Redux
So it looks like the Duke lacrosse thing was ultimately blown open by withheld DNA results. The similarities to this case are astonishing.
It seem that the Duke defendants looked at the DNA report and they found about 20 samples that had been extracted, but for which the report indicated there was “No Profile.” Well, it turns out that “No Profile” didn’t mean that the extracted samples weren’t amplified and analyzed, instead what it meant was that the Lab didn’t find the defendants’ DNA in the samples. Basically, they had performed the analyses and the results came back as (i) mixtures of unidentified individuals, and/or (ii) contamination.
Instead of disclosing these results, the Lab withheld the electropherograms and said that they returned “No Profile”. When the “No Profile” electropherograms were finally produced, it became clear not only that there were multiple contributors (not the defendants) to the samples, but that there was contamination in the lab.
The prosecutor had reached an agreement with the Lab Director not to produce the egrams. The prosecutor was disbarred and went to jail for this.
It seems to me that in withholding a large number of egrams, evidently of "unidentifiable" mixtures, Stefanoni has done the very same thing for exactly the same reasons. Very disturbing.
So it looks like the Duke lacrosse thing was ultimately blown open by withheld DNA results. The similarities to this case are astonishing.
It seem that the Duke defendants looked at the DNA report and they found about 20 samples that had been extracted, but for which the report indicated there was “No Profile.” Well, it turns out that “No Profile” didn’t mean that the extracted samples weren’t amplified and analyzed, instead what it meant was that the Lab didn’t find the defendants’ DNA in the samples. Basically, they had performed the analyses and the results came back as (i) mixtures of unidentified individuals, and/or (ii) contamination.
Instead of disclosing these results, the Lab withheld the electropherograms and said that they returned “No Profile”. When the “No Profile” electropherograms were finally produced, it became clear not only that there were multiple contributors (not the defendants) to the samples, but that there was contamination in the lab.
The prosecutor had reached an agreement with the Lab Director not to produce the egrams. The prosecutor was disbarred and went to jail for this.
It seems to me that in withholding a large number of egrams, evidently of "unidentifiable" mixtures, Stefanoni has done the very same thing for exactly the same reasons. Very disturbing.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I've taken a page from Leila Schneps (Math on Trial) and have actually calculated the odds of either Mr. Mignini or Ms. Stefanoni going to jail over this. The results are interesting, and I am petitioning Ms. Schneps to include this in an addendum to her book:
The odds are:
- Slim
- None
- and Slim just left town
- None
- and Slim just left town
Remember you heard it here first.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
This is how you dismantle a dishonest forensics lab:
http://www.ncids.org/MotionsBankNonCap/Discovery/MotiontoCompelExpertDNA.pdf
This is what needs to be done in Perugia.
http://www.ncids.org/MotionsBankNonCap/Discovery/MotiontoCompelExpertDNA.pdf
This is what needs to be done in Perugia.
codyjuneau
Muse
.
Diocletus, I think the research and analysis you are doing will prove to be critical here also.
No wonder there has been such a concerted effort to keep the missing data, missing.
Just like the missing interrogation recordings, missing CCTV recordings, missing telephone recordings, missing computer data.
What a disgusting way to operate a justice system, and the Supreme Court Magistrates appear to be either blind to it, or facilitators.
.
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,166
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
CoulsdonUK asked a question about precedents. Maybe the precedent here is that if a prosecutor theorizes, then that theory is accepted as-if it was accompanied by evidence. However, in the case of a prosecutor's theory it is not dependent on evidence, just that the prosecutor can theorize about it.
I think that's the one (fairly dangerous) precedent being set here. Then again, future sittings of the ISC are no accountable to anyone, so it seems - neither previous sittings nor even future sittings - they can say pretty much what they want.... and until some future sitting says something different, it's the law!
Why on earth would you want to release raw data files for peer review? Isn't that insulting to the technician who did the original testing?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,166
Maybe precedent is not the right word. or is it? Did the ISC create new Italian case law as a result? Probably not. And while the Supreme court may be answerable only to itself, there is the doctrine of "stare decisis" when considering Supreme Court rulings. In the US this is a very important doctrine that the courts are reluctant to set aside.
It would concern me if a US Supreme Court acted in such a manner. I know of no case in the US where an appellate court ruled in such a way without NEW information.
Last edited:
RoseMontague
Published Author
Follain normally uses "prison diary" when describing what she wrote in prison, IIRC. To me, this is along the same lines as the washing machine still spinning or warm or holding mop and bucket when the cops arrived, or even a bleach receipt dated a few days after the murder. It is not real, just rumor and innuendo. She did however, have a large bag. That is true.
codyjuneau
Muse
.
Yes, much better to imprison innocent people, than to hurt someone's feelings by exposing their incompetence and/or corruption.
I guess as long as the defendants are not relatives, friends or associates, who gives a damn, eh?
.
anglolawyer
Banned
That sure is the way to do it. Brilliant. All fantasy of course, because we all know that nobody associated with a prosecution ever does anything wrong and certainly not in concert with anybody else! That would be a
CONSPIRACY!!!!
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
Imagine my surprise with Mary_H’s comment and interestingly no Tsunami of posts for Mary_H, go figure! Essentially that is my position with addition of a motivation document that demonstrates “more digging” as you say.
I don’t know whether the above applies to signatories of the ECHR, nor do I know if a member states Supreme Court act as you and others believe whether there is any recourse through ECHR.
I do not see the above as being resistant but accurately stating the starting point of the Florentine court next month which as you know is an appeal against the first level trial.
I doubt that the Kercher family will learn anything new.
I do not know whether your observations are typical of Italy or Italian jurisprudence; nor do I see anything controversial or indeed confrontational about my position prior to the Florentine trial.
Do you prefer exceptional rather than precedent?
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Don't worry, Coulsdon; I think a lot of people have me on "ignore." Otherwise, they would have avoided that whole exchange about precedent, based on a link I have posted here at least twice:
"'The Cassation is submerged by so many cases that it cannot even ascertain contradictions within the system,' said Davigo, who is now a supreme court judge. He added there was no law of precedent because the judges could not read all the cases."
Raffaele also wrote in his book that there is no law of precedent in Italy. Maybe someone with a Kindle can find it for me; it's near the end.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
two parallels are better than one
I used to blog on the Duke lacrosse case, and I once compared the two cases. When I found out about the lack of discovery in this case, I immediately gravitated toward it and started writing about the lack of release of the EDFs. The other case that the present one strongly resembles (especially with respect to the forensics) is the Lindy Chamberlain case.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
implications for future cases involving DNA
EDT
*I see that Mary_H has addressed the issue of legal precedent.
I am uncertain that precent works the same way in Italy* as it does in the United States, but I will have to put that uncertainty aside for a little while. What I am convinced of is that if all trials involving DNA evidence play by the same rules as the ISC has suggested for this one, that the defendants will get convicted every time, unless the jury decides that the evidence is simply non-probative (an example of nonprobative evidence off the top of my head: I am arrested for drunk driving, and a swab of my steering wheel shows that my DNA is present). In other words, the ISC has rendered it almost impossible for the defense to win on the basis of contamination, and I wonder whether the same is true of errors of interpretation. Yet, both phenomena are well known. Dan Krane wrote, "I have been saying for more than ten years now that approximately a third of the cases that we see at Forensic Bioinformatics have DNA results where there are serious questions about the interpretation (meaning that a reasonable argument can be made that the results are more consistent with innocence than guilt). Another third have issues that significantly alter the weight that should be attached to the findings of a 'match.'"
EDT
*I see that Mary_H has addressed the issue of legal precedent.
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
It's at location 85 - near the beginning.
Would you mind quoting it, kind sir?
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
I think that we can go beyond the EDFs issue and say that there are specific egrams that have been withheld by the prosecution. The egrams very likely show quantities of DNA coming from a source other than victim/defendants. In the case of 365bis, this will show contamination in the entire plate, and in the case of the missing vaginal/rectal swab egrams, I would hope that the answer is contamination. The witholding of the egrams from the downstairs/outside crime scene and the "cat's blood" lie is deceitful.
Of course, the EDFs would solve the whole problem in one fell swoop.
Last edited:
Supernaut
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
"Precedent"?
Who knows? It's obvious that despite the fact that Italy has been functioning as an industrial centre for the last century or so, it never "modernised".
Someone might want to re-iterate the per-capita numbers of lawyers there, the number of cases awaiting a hearing, the numbers awaiting appeal by the supremos, the total spend on the courts/judiciary.
It is, basically, a parasitical "service sector" that produces nothing.
"Precedent" might have some meaning in the judiciaries of developed, Western nations, but in the context of the Italian one, it's meaningless.
- Status