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

[Dan O.]

I couldn't help but notice the difference in color of the centers of a couple of the stain spots. This is about what I would expect if a stain were to be carefully swabbed with a moistened q-tip for a semen and/or DNA test without damaging the article or distorting the outline of the stain.

Makes one really wonder why the prosecution doesn't want this stain tested.

 

[Diastole]

Stefanoni is a molecular biologist and a witness, not a public figure.
You don't have a shread of evidence to allee she is lying; but moreover nothing justifies insults and slurs against anyone, name calling for the sake of it is indefensible (several posters like to indulge in this). The same goes for your numerous xenophobic attacks.

"Lying" is such a harsh term, isn't it? I much prefer "intentional mis-statement" - something like submitting a false PCR quantification document in a murder trial. Or maybe giving bogus HIV test results to a terrified young woman.

 

[RandyN]

You're welcome.

Never saw your link here...sorry I am behind on these pages.

But if you actually need the wind blown up your dress for every post then ...whiff!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RandyN]

My claim is falsifiable and if it was shown to be wrong I would concede the point.

Please find an example where testimony in the form of a letter was allowed to be read at a trial when the author of the letter was allowed to invoke his right against self incrimination to prevent his cross examination unless an obvious exception to the right to cross examine witnesses applies such as the death of the author.

And while we are on the subject of Guede's refusal to submit to a cross examination because it would have tended to incriminate him: Huh? Did the judge interrogate him as to how his testimony might lead to self incrimination? The right not to testify because of the possibility that it might lead to self incrimination is not some sort of rule that can be invoked at the prosecutor's discretion. There is supposed to be a legitimate possibility of self incrimination. How could Guede incriminate himself for a crime that he had been convicted of and was essentially confessing to in the letter read at the trial?

Here's a thought: Because Mignini realized that Mignini had concocted Guede's testimony and Mignini realized that if Guede was cross examined the truth about Guede's testimony might come out. Mignini manipulated the court so as to allow the introduction of perjured testimony into the trial without the possibility of cross examination that might have revealed Mignini's malfeasance.

EXACTLY...could not have put it any better myself.

And this is just one trick of hundreds maybe thousands pulled by Mignini that is so obvious and blatant that corruption more than stupidity has to be the reason.

 

[Mary_H]

Never saw your link here...sorry I am behind on these pages.

But if you actually need the wind blown up your dress for every post then ...whiff!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are in so much trouble with me.

 

[RandyN]

Do the Kercher's understand that their lawyer opposed the defense requests for new testing? It seems to me he disobeyed their wishes. Who is he representing?

I agree Rose. The Kerchers have without question stated their desires to open all investigations and even the SC has demanded this. But this court and this prosecution and even the Kerchers own lawyer have no interest in honoring their wishes to look at all the unanswered questions. Semen on the pillow case found under the buttocks of the victim in a purported sex game gone wrong and then murder with multiple participants that is UN-analyzed seems to go directly against the wishes of the Kerchers and the ISC.

I hope the Kerchers realize by now that they are being used one more time. Who has ever seen more illogical nonsense from any judicial case spread out over so many crazy lying casino (THANKS MARY!) players...?

Yummi...why cant you understand that the rules here are fairly applied? I understand that you are accustomed to the echo chamber of PMF's or TJMK and that attacking people there is encouraged especially if they happen to disagree with your echo of guilt.

You violated the rules and made offensive posts that attacked the poster and not the post. Mignini is not a member here and therefore I can call him any name I wish as long as no foul language is used. You OTOH are a member and therefore I can not comment on you personally...for example it is against the rules for me to call you an idiot...but it is within the rules for me to call your argument idiotic...which I certainly think it is. Please this is only an example...I would never call you an actual idiot on this site. I will always call your arguments idiotic and dishonest and typical casino nonsense... capisce?

 

[RandyN]

You are in so much trouble with me.

Is it too late to say I think you are one of the greatest minds to analyze this case and I think Amanda and Raff are darn lucky to have your sharp personality and keen wit on their side?

 

[Mary_H]

Is it too late.....?<snip>

o Thank you.) It's never too late to get on my good side. Even platonov could do it if he tried.

 

[snook1]

I know it's a little bit too early to start a legitimate discussion about it, but do you guys think that if the trace 36I is Meredith's DNA, then this is game over for Amanda and Raffaele? Obviously, they're innocent, but Meredith's DNA could get there in a number of ways - we know how though (Stefanoni and her team did the magic), if that's the case, then what's next? I've read some comments that if it's her DNA, then it's done. I, personally think that it shouldn't have that much of a meaning.

 

[RoseMontague]

The recommended procedure to avoid leaving a permanent stain on the garment is to use a buffer solution to moisten the suspected biological material and absorb it on another media such as blotter paper or cotton swab before applying the staining enzyme.

Now, could Machiavelli honestly not figure this out or is he just continuing to spin lies.

It isn't hard. Any excuse that says the forensic folk didn't test something because they were afraid it would compromise the evidence is pretty funny after watching the video of the evidence collection. As Raffaele's appeal points out, Rinaldi didn't even examine the bathmat in person, just went by photographs. I wonder if he did the same with the pillowcase?

BTW, I wonder how they were able to test the bathmat for DNA without cutting it up and destroying it, rendering it completely useless for footprint evidence?

 

[LondonJohn]

No he did not read his letter. The prosecution read the letter (and deposited the letter as a document).
Then Guede testified about his letter. Confirmed that he was the author, said why and when he wrote it.
But he decided to remain silent about the murder. He never waived his right about this.
I meet a big crowd of people here apparently eager to lecture courts and Supreme Court about the procedure code.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Confirmation bias, ignorance and poor reasoning rear their ugly heads once again.

Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1. Guede stands up in court, makes an oral statement accusing Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

2. Guede writes a letter in which he accuses Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, confirms in court that it was he who wrote the letter, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

Well, apparently the difference - in Italy - is that the first example is (obviously) unlawful and non-judicial, whereas the second example IS lawful, judicially-acceptable and fair...

So, if that's true, then any witness in a criminal trial in Italy can use the same tactic. For example, if I witnessed a murder in Italy, it appears that rather than go on the stand and testify that I saw the Person A shoot the victim - and then be examined and cross-examined on my testimony - I could instead choose to write a "letter" in which I stated that I saw Person A shoot the victim. I could then be called to court merely to confirm that I had written the letter, and refuse to be examined/cross-examined on the contents of the letter. In that way, the court would learn that I had accused Person A of shooting the victim, but would have had no opportunity to test or validate that accusation. Perfect!

I would have to add that, on the basis of these remote observations of the workings of Italian courts, there are serious institutionalised problems inherent in the system, in both the structure and the application of justice.

 

[RoseMontague]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Confirmation bias, ignorance and poor reasoning rear their ugly heads once again.

Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1. Guede stands up in court, makes an oral statement accusing Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

2. Guede writes a letter in which he accuses Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, confirms in court that it was he who wrote the letter, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

Well, apparently the difference - in Italy - is that the first example is (obviously) unlawful and non-judicial, whereas the second example IS lawful, judicially-acceptable and fair...

So, if that's true, then any witness in a criminal trial in Italy can use the same tactic. For example, if I witnessed a murder in Italy, it appears that rather than go on the stand and testify that I saw the Person A shoot the victim - and then be examined and cross-examined on my testimony - I could instead choose to write a "letter" in which I stated that I saw Person A shoot the victim. I could then be called to court merely to confirm that I had written the letter, and refuse to be examined/cross-examined on the contents of the letter. In that way, the court would learn that I had accused Person A of shooting the victim, but would have had no opportunity to test or validate that accusation. Perfect!

I would have to add that, on the basis of these remote observations of the workings of Italian courts, there are serious institutionalised problems inherent in the system, in both the structure and the application of justice.

It doesn't make sense in terms of fairness for the accused. For the prosecutor it is just another unfair advantage. That is probably why it is allowed.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree with this. One caveat, though. There is DNA in 36i. So what will the egram show? My thought is that it is most likely that we see a jumbled, uninterpretable mix. Alternatively, we might see Knox or Sollecito DNA. Or, maybe some unknown person. All of these results are bad for the prosecution, because they suggest contamination and/or undercut the argument that the knife was used to stab Kercher simply because maybe one cell of her non-blood DNA was on the blade.

The only good result for the prosecution would be if Kercher DNA is in 36i. I believe that there is almost no chance of this.

In effect, the 36i argument was a Hail Mary by the prosecution in order to make the appeal stick. But, now they are going to have to live with the consequence of this strategy, and the consequence is likely to be the destruction of the knife as a serious piece of evidence.

They cut off their nose to save their face.

My guess is the latter was the initial motivation, i.e. looking for anything they could protest in order to give weight to the appeal, but being as the most probable donor of the material they sampled is Raffaele (being as it was in his drawer) they plan to capitalize on the idea that 'Raffaele's DNA was on the 'murder knife' too!'

 

[Machiavelli]

You violated the rules and made offensive posts that attacked the poster and not the post. Mignini is not a member here and therefore I can call him any name I wish as long as no foul language is used. (...)

Well, I disagree, what can we do. I think you are a criminal if you offend people. I do not "belong" to the JREF laws. I may well follow other codes and violete JREF laws, since I think other laws are more important.
The fact is that you asserted that you don't offend persons, but in fact you actually offend individuals (and communities) to the point of not even considerig them persons (you do not grant them the minimal respect that you ar required to apply to posters).

 

[Machiavelli]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Confirmation bias, ignorance and poor reasoning rear their ugly heads once again.

Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1. Guede stands up in court, makes an oral statement accusing Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

2. Guede writes a letter in which he accuses Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, confirms in court that it was he who wrote the letter, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

Well, apparently the difference - in Italy - is that the first example is (obviously) unlawful and non-judicial, whereas the second example IS lawful, judicially-acceptable and fair...

Exactly. From the point of view of judges, the second example follows the law.
While the first example is obviously unlawful because witnesses are not allowed to make statements in court.
But an extra-judicial declaration is considered not only legitimate, but valid as a legal document.

So, if that's true, then any witness in a criminal trial in Italy can use the same tactic. For example, if I witnessed a murder in Italy, it appears that rather than go on the stand and testify that I saw the Person A shoot the victim - and then be examined and cross-examined on my testimony - I could instead choose to write a "letter" in which I stated that I saw Person A shoot the victim.

Yes. They can. But only if they enjoy also the additional status of "co-defendant", of "defendant in connected proceedings" or "ex co-defendant/ in connected proceedings", and only about the topic on which they were co-defendants.
In fact, if yout think about it, it's what Sollecito and Knox did when they wrote their book. They made extra judicial-declarations on which they avoided cross questionings.

This is allowed. However there are also provisions regarding the credibility of a witness when such things happens, and the witness refuses to confirm accusations in court.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh no! Who would want to have a little hole in their pillowcase?

LOL. We can destroy the computers. But take a chad-size piece out of a pillowcase? No way. You can't make up stuff this stupid.

But these arguments about "why didn't they do" based on "common sense" are useless; you consider the investigators as an independent entity which do things alone. But that's wrong. The defence and their experts play a key part. They are altogether responsible of what they decide to do an not do. And these tests are not done by police alone, they take place in judicial sessions when lawyers and experts are summoned altogether.
You completely fail to spot that one absolutely relevant thing was that the defence never requested this, despite Vinci knew there was a putative semen stain (it was Stefanoni the one who first said it was a probable semen stain when they analyzed the pillowcase together).
You do not attribue any consequence to defence choices. You don't undestand that the decision to delay the test is a shared decision, and you fail to attribute any meanig to this.
You also fail to consider that firt there were the Kerchers oppising and second, and above all, that it was the judges who later refused to perform the test: Massei refused, then Pratillo Hellmann refused, and now judge Nencini refused. And you fail to consider how this proves that the prosecution is not at fault, normal people would consider this as evidence suggesting that after a certain point of evidence collection in the trial the stain was indeed irrelevant.

 

[WildCat]

So the kangaroo court is back in session?

 

[snook1]

So the kangaroo court is back in session?

It's to early to say, really. Tomorrow is another session and we will get a much better view as to whether there are any kangaroos involved.

 

[snook1]

You also fail to consider that firt there were the Kerchers oppising and second, and above all, that it was the judges who later refused to perform the test: Massei refused, then Pratillo Hellmann refused, and now judge Nencini refused. And you fail to consider how this proves that the prosecution is not at fault, normal people would consider this as evidence suggesting that after a certain point of evidence collection in the trial the stain was indeed irrelevant.

Do you think the stain is irrelevant? Is it safe to assume that testing the stain should be a first thing to do after The Supreme Court ruled that there should be another look at the possible "sex game gone wrong" or not? Wouldn't it be amazing for the prosecution if the stain turned out to be Sollecito's sperm? Wouldn't that confirm that it indeed was a sex game/sex assault gone wrong? If it turned out to be Guede's, it wouldn't be that big of a blow to the prosecution, wouldn't it?

 

[RoseMontague]

You also fail to consider that firt there were the Kerchers oppising and second, and above all, that it was the judges who later refused to perform the test: Massei refused, then Pratillo Hellmann refused, and now judge Nencini refused. And you fail to consider how this proves that the prosecution is not at fault, normal people would consider this as evidence suggesting that after a certain point of evidence collection in the trial the stain was indeed irrelevant.

Do you think the stain is irrelevant? Is it safe to assume that testing the stain should be a first thing to do after The Supreme Court ruled that there should be another look at the possible "sex game gone wrong" or not? Wouldn't it be amazing for the prosecution if the stain turned out to be Sollecito's sperm? Wouldn't that confirm that it indeed was a sex game/sex assault gone wrong? If it turned out to be Guede's, it wouldn't be that big of a blow to the prosecution, wouldn't it?

Well it is a change from they didn't test because it would damage the evidence. I agree with you snook1, it is just as relevant now than it was then. It may even be more relevant now in light of the ISC directives. One thing I am curious about in Machiavelli's statement. He seems to be saying that the Kerchers opposed the testing of this stain initially because he adds it was "later" that the judges refused. I wasn't aware of this. Strange, if true.