• 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 Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way - where is Machiavelli with his spin on today's events? Apparently he was tweeting from the courtroom and stopped tweeting when the Ris Carabinieri was testifying.
 
Bill Williams said:
And people like Machiavelli have the GALL to say that the prosecution was not leaking these things to the press to poison the well against Sollecito and Knox.
Click to expand...
Machiavelli, please share your perspective on this. Is there a way that information taken from the defendants by police is given to the media - sometimes within hours - without the police leaking it?
 
After all these years the guilters are still saying that Raffieale's knife was used to kill Meredith, and we are still arguing about it.
Don't we all know that MK was killed with a smaller knife that Rudy took with him when he left?
Even if that molecule of DNA on the big knife was proved to be from MK, it is unlikely that the DNA got on the knife because this knife was the murder-weapon.
Maybe Amanda was massaging Meredith's neck and a skin cell got under Amanda's fingernail. When she picked up the knife by the blade it fell out and on to the knife.
Mignini and the Psychic had it all figured out. What makes this case complicated is Mignini can't say anything about the psychic, so he is using this everything Amanda says is a lie theory.
 
Bill Williams said:
And people like Machiavelli have the GALL to say that the prosecution was not leaking these things to the press to poison the well against Sollecito and Knox.
Click to expand...

Strozzi said:
Machiavelli, please share your perspective on this. Is there a way that information taken from the defendants by police is given to the media - sometimes within hours - without the police leaking it?
Click to expand...
My guess is that Machiavelli would find some way to blame the defence.

Then again, if it was an illegal act, did Mignini EVER investigate or charge anyone for leaking things? (Why would he?)

It's like when they went to Comodi to say that Knox had just slandered them at trial, by saying that she'd been hit at interrogation. Comodi, instead of actually investigating the crime as she was required to do, just believed Ficarra, et al.

THAT was the extent of her investigation. She asked Ficarra, "Did you hit her?" Ficarra said, "Don't be silly." Then charges were laid.
 
Strozzi said:
My relative, who lives in the Ozark Mountains in Missouri, has a pack of "coon hounds." The most exciting thing to him is to hunt racoons with his coon hounds. I guess they are tastier than squirrel. If he were more sophisticated he would own English setters and shoot grouse.
Click to expand...

I believe it. I don't actually remember what squirrel taste like, but hunting and eating them is very common in the Midwest and South. I'm sure the same is true for raccoons. They are all over the place.
 
Strozzi said:
Machiavelli, please share your perspective on this. Is there a way that information taken from the defendants by police is given to the media - sometimes within hours - without the police leaking it?
Click to expand...

Machiavelli has said many times that prisoners in Italy have no right to any expectation of privacy. He also has said many times that leaking of information is routine in legal cases in Italy. I believe Machiavelli's view reflects the views of other members of the legal community.

If you read the prison diaries of Raffaele, Amanda and Rudy, you can detect that they are somewhat contrived and formulaic. They all say something nice about Meredith, and/or talk about the last time they saw her. They all talk about how and why they are innocent of the crime, and how much they love their families.

I have always been of the opinion that, given the prevailing climate of leaking and non-privacy, the defendants' attorneys advised them to keep the diaries and told them what to write. The lawyers knew the diaries would eventually make their ways into the press or court, and thus were means of the defendants defending themselves. That, I believe, is partly the reason Raffaele tried to explain how the DNA could have gotten on the knife.

Both PMF's have pages titled, "In their own words," where you can find copies of the diaries:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewforum.php?f=8
http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewforum.php?f=8

It probably never occurred to Amanda, of course, that they would leak her personal health information, as that is against the law, and tantamount to psychological torture.
 
In the U.S. there are federal laws referred to as HIPAA laws that protect the privacy of healh-care information. To use an example similar to what the prison medical staff did to Knox - if in the US a prison doctor (or other health care worker or, possibly, a guard or warden) released health information about a prisoneer, the FBI would investigate and the doctor would probably be criminally prosecuted, lose his prison employment, and probably lose his medical license. After that, the doctor would probably be sued in civil court.

Does Italy have any similar laws that protect the privacy of health-care information? If so, perhaps Knox should file a formal complaint and cause an investigation to be initiated.
 
acbytesla said:
I think you have that backwards. You see the greys all over the Northwest and none of the Reds. But in the Midwest where we use to hunt squirrels and knoodle for catfish, you only seem to find the reds. It's been a long time since I've been to Iowa...but I don't recall ever hunting or eating the greys.
Click to expand...

You might be right - I'm speaking as parochial Brit.

Here, the indigenous red has been all but displaced by the grey, brought over from America a few centuries ago.

By all accounts (but not from personal experience) red squirrels are not good eating at all (rather unpleasant, even) but greys definitely are (from personal experience).
 
Strozzi said:
In the U.S. there are federal laws referred to as HIPAA laws that protect the privacy of healh-care information. To use an example similar to what the prison medical staff did to Knox - if in the US a prison doctor (or other health care worker or, possibly, a guard or warden) released health information about a prisoneer, the FBI would investigate and the doctor would probably be criminally prosecuted, lose his prison employment, and probably lose his medical license. After that, the doctor would probably be sued in civil court.

Does Italy have any similar laws that protect the privacy of health-care information? If so, perhaps Knox should file a formal complaint and cause an investigation to be initiated.
Click to expand...

They have something similar, Strozzi, but those laws are probably as nebulous and "flexible" as other Italian laws.

The police made sure they would not be prosecuted for the crime by turning Amanda's diary over to a journalist, Fiorenza Sarzanini, who published it in the form of an embellished book. Amanda's lawyers did sue Sarzanini and won damages, but I believe the decision was overturned on appeal. It is probably in its second appeal at this time, I would guess. I will see if I can find a more recent article about it.

Here is an article about the original suit.

"Amanda Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told ABC News that in the proceedings against Sarzanini and Rizzoli, he had argued a violation of Knox's privacy as far as her sexual activity and medical history were concerned, both of which are protected by privacy laws in Italy."

I think if Italy had laws like HIPAA, the "doctor" who gave Amanda the HIV tests would be in jail.
 
GreyFox said:
I got the feeling (from Barbie's CNN report when Knox was flying home 2011) she really wasn't sure which way the general public was going to go with this and she kind of wanted to move back to the center and say "well who really knows the truth".
Almost like she wanted to get a feel of how readers would perceive if she jumped ship.
Kind of like her article she just wrote. She avoids the DNA results that point to one side or another and stays with angry judge story.Her Movies the same way.It's about her and not so much the case itself.

I think long term she want's to be viewed as neutral now so as to keep from falling when the prosecution's case finally falls for good.

I think she want's to hide from the truth that she (like Mignini) benefitted from these outright lies and furthered her career at AK/RS expense. Not to mention one MK who may never get the justice she deserves thanks to Barbie's willingness to deceive the general public.

She may want to pretend she's a regular Sherlock Holmes now but I still see her as voice of the Nazi PLE Propaganda machine. She owes more than an apology for her role.
Click to expand...

I agree with your take on this, GreyFox. We should gird our loins for the possibility the Winterbottom movie will transform Barbie into a pro-innocence heroine.
 
Mary_H said:
They have something similar, Strozzi, but those laws are probably as nebulous and "flexible" as other Italian laws.

The police made sure they would not be prosecuted for the crime by turning Amanda's diary over to a journalist, Fiorenza Sarzanini, who published it in the form of an embellished book. Amanda's lawyers did sue Sarzanini and won damages, but I believe the decision was overturned on appeal. It is probably in its second appeal at this time, I would guess. I will see if I can find a more recent article about it.

Here is an article about the original suit.

"Amanda Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told ABC News that in the proceedings against Sarzanini and Rizzoli, he had argued a violation of Knox's privacy as far as her sexual activity and medical history were concerned, both of which are protected by privacy laws in Italy."

I think if Italy had laws like HIPAA, the "doctor" who gave Amanda the HIV tests would be in jail.
Click to expand...


What's more, they would have lost their medical license.
 
Diary confiscated temporarily

Pages 107-108 of Honor Bound discuss the diary. Raffaele showed to Maori to see if it would be useful. Maori asked to keep it, but the guards took it from Maori. Maori complained to Mignini that this violated the law and got the diary back. However, Raffaele thinks that someone must have photocopied it in the meantime, because it later appeared. Pages 91-92 discuss the time when Raffaele cooked at the women's flat and touched Meredith's skin with a knife.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Pages 107-108 of Honor Bound discuss the diary. Raffaele showed to Maori to see if it would be useful. Maori asked to keep it, but the guards took it from Maori. Maori complained to Mignini that this violated the law and got the diary back. However, Raffaele thinks that someone must have photocopied it in the meantime, because it later appeared. Pages 91-92 discuss the time when Raffaele cooked at the women's flat and touched Meredith's skin with a knife.
Click to expand...

This shows the collusion between prison guards, prosecutor, and media. Are there other countries in Western Europe where this sort of collusion is commonplace?
 
LondonJohn said:
Today it might have, yes.

But wait til Bongiorno drills home the inference in relation to Meredith's "DNA" on 36B in closing arguments.

Those of us who realise the significance of the Carabinieri experts' testimony today are thinking one step ahead - in that it's now obvious that the defence teams will (in closing) link today's testimony back to Stefanoni's disastrously-inept examination of the knife to show why 36B (and therefore the whole knife) should be thrown out as evidence.

I imagine that much of the media haven't made the link yet. And defendants speaking in court are always more "mediagenic" than dry and detailed scientific testimony - especially when the findings linked to that testimony have been leaked in advance.

However, it happens that today the scientific testimony unearthed a rough diamond in the "two or more tests are needed to validate the DNA results" testimony. Once Bongiorno has polished that diamond and presented it back to the judicial panel, I think they'll sit up and notice alright.
Click to expand...


Sure, its the only thing relevant in todays hearing. The Knox DNA was meaningless. And not finding more Kercher DNA is also meaningless...but those who wish to quickly dismiss 36b have not been paying attention to the life the prosecution has given this sample for the last 6 years.

Bongiorno asked the only important question today. How many tests are required to be legitimate? Two was the answer.

As LJ correctly points out...this is the bombshell conclusion of todays scientific report...not for us and still not noticed for the world thanks to Barbie and Vogt who also remain clueless I suspect. But this will be the anvil that is beaten by the defense in its arguments. AK and RS will hammer this point only after this in regards to the knife.

The bra clasp remains another matter. This SC ruling to prove contamination is an illogical bear trap. Consider that we already know that at least 3 male DNA traces are already there...or is it 4? And yet in full view of this multiple person conclusion the court still wants some sort of proof. Proof when nothing but contamination can explain the 3 or 4 guys found on it.

The SC stated that 36i would be the critical finding. Lets see if they back up on that or if the appeal court in Florence has already heard enough. I still suspect some face saving tricks remain up the sleeves of these 3rd rate clowns.
 
Mary_H said:
I agree with your take on this, GreyFox. We should gird our loins for the possibility the Winterbottom movie will transform Barbie into a pro-innocence heroine.
Click to expand...

If so then Barbie Nadeau will become a murderer, because will die laughing!
 
Bill Williams said:
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, give me strength.....
Click to expand...


I think you'll find that none of those three will be able to help you against the awesome might of Hollywood Revisionist History. Just wait til you see the (surely imminent) Jessica Lynch Story.... :rolleyes:
 
By the way, contrary to the misguided/ignorant/mendacious opinions of some pro-guilt commentators, the amount of Meredith's DNA that Stefanoni claims to have found on swab 36B on the knife most assuredly was well below the low-template quantity threshold. Granted, it was large compared to the quantity of DNA on 36I, but that's only because the quantity on 36I was minuscule even by low-template standards. The DNA present on Stefanoni's 36B was extremely low-template DNA ("too low", anyone...?).

And since that is the fact of the matter, it was essential for Stefanoni to have split the source DNA into at least two separate sub-samples, then to have amplified and tested each sub-sample separately. She did not do so. She should easily have been able to split out at least two sub-samples, even given that it was low-template quantities she was working with.

The other matter that needs clarifying is the "complete match to Meredith" canard. Not only did Stefanoni decide - seemingly completely arbitrarily - to include peaks in the chart that are usually discarded as amplification artifacts rather than true peaks, she has also refused to supply the source data from the test run (including the.....ummm......rather important negative controls) that would enable a defence or independent expert to see the true picture.

In essence, if you're looking for a specific match from an extremely noisy highly-amplified sample - and you're prepared to bend established rules of interpretation to make that match - you can create a "match" where none exists in reality, simply by deciding arbitrarily that any peaks that match your suspect are "true peaks", and ignoring the mountain range of other "peaks" at the same time.

It appears that Stefanoni indeed knew exactly which peaks she was looking for when she ran the tests on 36B. She knew Meredith's profile, and she knew that the investigators wanted to find a match to that profile on the knife. Confirmation bias and selective reasoning did the rest - bingo!
 
RandyN said:
The SC stated that 36i would be the critical finding. Lets see if they back up on that or if the appeal court in Florence has already heard enough. I still suspect some face saving tricks remain up the sleeves of these 3rd rate clowns.
Click to expand...

I have been lurking in this discussion for a few weeks. The high quality of the discussion (Go-effrey aside) prompted me to sign up for JREF. This is only my second post, so please bear with me if I make some mistakes. :)

With the physical evidence pretty thoroughly and publicly debunked, the Florence court and the SC are likely looking for any way to get out of this mess with a shred of dignity intact. Since the SC stated that 36i would be critical, both courts may see this as an open door and walk through it. I hope that it is all over except for the face-saving.
 
By the way, contrary to the misguided/ignorant/mendacious opinions of some pro-guilt commentators, the amount of Meredith's DNA that Stefanoni claims to have found on swab 36B on the knife most assuredly was well below the low-template quantity threshold. Granted, it was large compared to the quantity of DNA on 36I, but that's only because the quantity on 36I was minuscule even by low-template standards. The DNA present on Stefanoni's 36B was extremely low-template DNA ("too low", anyone...?).

Is it possible to say sample 36B was twice four times ten times the size of sample 36I,if sample 36I could be divided in two it takes some cheek for Stefanoni to claim that she could not divide sample 36B and repeat her tests,and for the claim that all of the sample was used up by the test

I had thought that Stefanoni would have to retake the stand and defend her analysis,but seemingly in defendant friendly Italy Amanda and Raffaele can be retried for their lives,but Stefanoni can not be forced to answer a simple question while under oath,why if the carabinieri lab could follow protocol and divide sample 36I in two why could she not divide a much larger sample and repeat her tests
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom