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

[Bill Williams]

My friend, evidence is an a contrario logical process. It does not proceed in one way, it proceeds in two directions.
You have no authority to establish any causal order, whan you don't actually have any scenario. If you have "no idea", there is no probable or usual scenario.
The rest of the logical links and the evidence, analogies coincidences etc., you are just swweeping everything under the carpet.
You have no argument.



Ridiculous. A presumptive test becomes "authority" and should replace human intelligence...

With all respect, you perhaps cannot appreciate how truly bizarre this sounds.

I suspect you are not "lying" per se. These posts are as if churned from a random argument generator.

 

[RandyN]

I might have; but it would have been nice if you avoided gratuitous attempts of being condescending and derogatory (disruptive) about other posters. Especially if your point are based on claims about alleged others' lack of scientific culture.



Excellent.



The Carabinieri did not speak at all about "validation".
They talked about a "recommendation" and they said exactly the same thing Stefanoni said. Actually, they gave exactly the same answer Stefanoni gave, to basically the same question.
They said the procedure must be a "compromise" between strategies recommended to increase realiability and strategies to have practicability.
They said they performed two amplifications, instead of three or more, because they assessed that was te number of tests they could do.
Stafanoni said the same: she planned just one amplification, because with the equipment she had, she assessed that was the number of tests she could do.



I wish to recall you that your insulting of Stefanoni is unjustified and baseless, actually defamatory.

hmmm.... sure?
(And the "difference beween catalyzer and catalyst"? The catalyzer peroxide...?)

Thats right LJ...get it right. It is idiot not a real doctor sloppy one test only because the quantifier told you too low at least 7 times and you ignored that in this one sample anyway Stefanoni. Which still only makes your conclusion ...your one test run invalid. The missing control data however proves that Stefanoni is a liar and a corrupt police girl. Notice that the latest dog and pony show at least presented all the files....why I even heard about controls and raw data files...none were withheld...why did they do that?

 

[acbytesla]

Thats right LJ...get it right. It is idiot not a real doctor sloppy one test only because the quantifier told you too low at least 7 times and you ignored that in this one sample anyway Stefanoni. Which still only makes your conclusion ...your one test run invalid. The missing control data however proves that Stefanoni is a liar and a corrupt police girl. Notice that the latest dog and pony show at least presented all the files....why I even heard about controls and raw data files...none were withheld...why did they do that?

The sad part Randy, is Stefanoni's job is really very easy. It's objective, not subjective and shouldn't be so easy to criticize her. All she has to do is be honest and open. But she has done none of that.

Stefanoni has done pretty much everything wrong. Mach can say this is all defamatory but it is NOT. He's an apologist for her and Mignini. The fact that he can spout this nonsense pablum about the Luminol prints and defend that Stefanoni has never turned over the EDFs....etc..etc..etc...

 

[codyjuneau]

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

.
I 'm not so sure. You seem to do it all the time. Have you not been sleeping well for the last six years or so?
.

 

[lane99]

Touche

 

[NancyS]

I have a question about luminol and the TMB. Aren't the chances that every single tmb test would come back negative if the lumiol was decting blood extraordinarily low? And, if the TMB doesn't register the blood because it is so incredibly diluted, isn't it almost certain to be from a single source, deposited in just one walk? And, if this is so, isn't the most likely source by far the bathroom, where after showering Knox may have stepped on the bathmat and picked up trace amounts of blood?

Are there alternatives to these choices?

If the blood is presumed to be incredibly dilute, perhaps one of the sexually active young occupants/visitors had a mild case of urethritis and sprinkled when they tinkled

 

[Planigale]

It seems from what I have read here the defence are obliged to ensure prosecution do the tests properly. If the defence experts see (or even fail to see but are present) and the prosecution make an error in testing, the defence cannot subsequently object to the result and however irrational the result may be; it becomes evidence.

Clearly in this system the incentive on the prosecution is to do tests badly, in a way that will give predetermined results. If the defence expert objects, you just do it correctly otherwise you 'get away' with making errors. It also makes it very expensive for the defence as they have to have experts familiar with all the different methodology on call to ensure the tests are all done correctly.

 

[toto]

Admissible, it's certainly admissible.
But "credible" or "reliable", or "valid".... that would be another story.

Ms Vogt writes

(though the acquittal was annulled, the various reports introduced during the first appeal remain a part of the case file, including the report by forensic experts that cast doubt on the reliability of the first trial’s findings)​

Is this quite helpful to the defence do you think?

She wrote in October:

If, on the other hand, the DNA results are inconclusive, the forensic evidence could be interpreted as weakened and there is more likelihood of acquittal, partial acquittal or conviction on lesser charges, such as omicidio colposo (manslaughter), options that remain open to the court​

Is there cause for some hope for the defence resulting from the latest tests?

 

[acbytesla]

It seems from what I have read here the defence are obliged to ensure prosecution do the tests properly. If the defence experts see (or even fail to see but are present) and the prosecution make an error in testing, the defence cannot subsequently object to the result and however irrational the result may be; it becomes evidence.

Clearly in this system the incentive on the prosecution is to do tests badly, in a way that will give predetermined results. If the defence expert objects, you just do it correctly otherwise you 'get away' with making errors. It also makes it very expensive for the defence as they have to have experts familiar with all the different methodology on call to ensure the tests are all done correctly.

That does seem to be Machiavelli's argument. But it is insane.

The police have experience, or at least should have. The same cannot be said or necessarily expected from the defense. Consider also, that many of the tests are probably made before a defendant is arrested or charged, so many tests are made outside the view of defense counsel and what possible experts they may hire.

Also, what about defendants that cannot afford a personal attorney, they are bound to get the short end of the stick.

It seems that the defense should be entitled to "full discovery" and the right to object to any mistake throughout the process. The process needs to be unimpeachable. Anything less is bound to result in innocent people paying for prosecutorial errors.

 

[Caper]

I am absolutely impressed with Machiavelli's staying power. He is completely wrong... but I love the staying power.

 

[acbytesla]

Ms Vogt writes

(though the acquittal was annulled, the various reports introduced during the first appeal remain a part of the case file, including the report by forensic experts that cast doubt on the reliability of the first trial’s findings)​

Is this quite helpful to the defence do you think?

She wrote in October:

If, on the other hand, the DNA results are inconclusive, the forensic evidence could be interpreted as weakened and there is more likelihood of acquittal, partial acquittal or conviction on lesser charges, such as omicidio colposo (manslaughter), options that remain open to the court​

Is there cause for some hope for the defence resulting from the latest tests?

I seriously doubt that Vogt has a clue what she is talking about. What possible justification could there be for a conviction on lesser charges? Either the evidence demonstrates that there is reasonable doubt that they were involved in the crime or not. The fact that Meredith Kercher's DNA was not found on Sample 36I doesn't does not lead one to believe that they are guilty of some lesser charge.

It would have been one thing had their been some kind of plea bargain. I'm not sure if that is common in Italy as it is in the US. I would think it is, but I don't really know. Maybe Machiavelli knows if plea bargaining happens in Italy's judicial system.

What I am wondering and maybe others might know. Who form the Perugia legal authorities are still involved in this case? Is the PM from Perugia? Or from Florence? Is the PM from Florence as passionate about prosecuting this case as Mignini and Galati or possible just going through the motions?

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli, I am sorry you have not gotten much sleep in the last few days. I hope you are able to rest well tonight

I note you have not developed illusions or false memories. But I would like to point out several things:

Your housemate/friend was not brutally murdered by a stanger (of which you are innocent).

You are not trying to function in a language in which you have elementary communication skills.

You are not in an interrogation room with manipulative adult police detectives telling you you are a liar, or that a friend has changed his account and says you were not where you said/believed you were 3 nights ago.

You do not have shouting police holding your cell phone in your face claiming that you did meet with the person and are lying about it.

You do not have police shouting at you that "he is the one. He is the killer!"

You do not have shouting police tell you that if you won't tell the truth you will go to prison for 30 years and never see your family again.

You do not have an older woman translator tell you that you were there but are traumatized and just don't remember it, but you were there.

You don't have a policewoman standing in back of you hitting you from behind.

Indeed what you are highlighting is the inappropriate claiming of the moral high ground by many people who see these anomalous behavioural traits as signifying guilt, without walking in their shoes.

 

[GreyFox]

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

Uhmmm...aren't you still accusing Knox of a crime she did not commit.

Did Steffanoni stay at a Holiday Inn . Is that why she claims to be a doctor?

I don't think she's a very good lab tech myself. Let alone worthy of a doctors title.

So why did the experts in this trial hand over the edf's as well as negative control paperwork with their report like C&V also did yet Steffanoni left her homework at home. Doesn't she want to validate her work ??? The other big kids showed their work !

Why hide the edf's for such silly things like cat blood ,knife , bra, etc? It was cat blood wasn't it ??? Why cant we see for ourselves.

 

[Dan O.]

I never stopped tweeting.
But I had problems to actually send the tweets. I have problems with the duration of internet connection inside that courtroom. Most journalists go in the press room, I don't want to use the press room, where there is excellent connection ans wi-fi; I like to be in medias res, but I noticed internet connection inside that courtroom doesn't last at some hours (the place is a kind of bunker). At a certain moment in order to send the tweets I needed to walk out the room, in the corridoors area I could connect with no interruptions.

It sounds like you are claiming that a spread spectrum radio signal can exist in an area at one time sufficient to establish a connection and not exist in that same area at other times being as if your phone was turned off. But you didn't turn your phone off did you. Here you insist that it's the signal but elsewhere you insist the person must have turned their phone off. It's like a different set of rules apply to yourself.

 

[billyryan]

Interesting event from the last court session:

The Court of Appeal of Florence decided to forward the deposition of the witness Luciano Aviello, made during the previous hearing in the new trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, to the Prosecutor's Office of the Tuscan capital. "The transmission of documents - said the President of the Court, Alessandro Nencini - is a necessary act in order to allow the prosecutor to assess any elements of crime present in the statements made by Aviello, in particular to the pressure received by the magistrates of Perugia".

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-sollecito...

Having lied so easily in this case themselves, Mignini and Comodi,and have gotten so many more to tell lies,Curatolo,Quintavalle,Napoleoni,Rudy Guede and Stefanoni,its only a matter of time before they become trapped by their lies

 

[Diocletus]

Evidence is a logical process not a fact.

That's true. In Italy, "evidence" is the logical process by which half-wit magistrates misuse facts to osmotically rationalize their perverted "Halloween"-"initiation"-"rite," orgy-murder wet dreams.

 

[Diocletus]

It seems from what I have read here the defence are obliged to ensure prosecution do the tests properly. If the defence experts see (or even fail to see but are present) and the prosecution make an error in testing, the defence cannot subsequently object to the result and however irrational the result may be; it becomes evidence.

Clearly in this system the incentive on the prosecution is to do tests badly, in a way that will give predetermined results. If the defence expert objects, you just do it correctly otherwise you 'get away' with making errors. It also makes it very expensive for the defence as they have to have experts familiar with all the different methodology on call to ensure the tests are all done correctly.

I think that the defense has a right to be present for testing. This really isn't different from most other places. For example, in the US, the defense would be entitled to have consultants present for destructive testing.

What I don't think is that the defense has an obligation to attend, to make sure that the testing is done right, to raise any particular objection at the testing, or, that by attending (or not attending), the defense somehow waives the right to access the underlying test data. And, any law providing any of these consequences would, I believe, be in violation of ECHR "equality of arms" standards. And, not to mention, would be unfair and illogical.

This whole line of argument--that somehow Stefanoni's tests are now incontestable because the defendants did not register specific objections at the time of testing--is a specious and disingenuous invention of the prosecution, which was lapped up by the half-wit perverts on the Italian supreme court.

 

[Diocletus]

My friend, evidence is an a contrario logical process. It does not proceed in one way, it proceeds in two directions.
You have no authority to establish any causal order, whan you don't actually have any scenario. If you have "no idea", there is no probable or usual scenario.
The rest of the logical links and the evidence, analogies coincidences etc., you are just swweeping everything under the carpet.
You have no argument.



Ridiculous. A presumptive test becomes "authority" and should replace human intelligence...

Do Italian courts often accept that spots are proven to be blood when they are luminol-positive but TMB negative?

Or, do we think that this might possibly be the first case in the world where TMB-negative spots are determined to be bloody footprints?

 

[davefoc]

... What possible justification could there be for a conviction on lesser charges? Either the evidence demonstrates that there is reasonable doubt that they were involved in the crime or not. The fact that Meredith Kercher's DNA was not found on Sample 36I doesn't lead one to believe that they are guilty of some lesser charge.

How is it predictable what of the evidence against AK/RS that someone is going to believe? It is all weak or insignificant. If someone believes that the evidence is strong enough to establish that they were there during the crime but not to prove what their role was, justification for a manslaughter conviction might be found.

It would have been one thing had their been some kind of plea bargain. I'm not sure if that is common in Italy as it is in the US. I would think it is, but I don't really know. Maybe Machiavelli knows if plea bargaining happens in Italy's judicial system.

At least once one person has put forth the claim in this thread that plea bargaining is not legal in Italy. I don't know if that is true or not, but as a matter of practice I am sure it is not. Prosecutors are going to put pressure on people that they believe are guilty of less important crimes to get cooperation against others. If plea bargaining isn't explicitly legal, prosecutors will find a way to do it anyway. If plea bargaining of any kind isn't legal, how is Guede's sentence reduction explained otherwise?

What I am wondering and maybe others might know. Who form the Perugia legal authorities are still involved in this case? Is the PM from Perugia? Or from Florence? Is the PM from Florence as passionate about prosecuting this case as Mignini and Galati or possible just going through the motions?

I was wondering exactly that.

 

[andreajo]

The simple truth is that we can assume that
WITHOUT A POSITIVE CONFIRMATORY TEST....A NEGATIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST is AUTHORITATIVE.

Ridiculous. A presumptive test becomes "authority" and should replace human intelligence...

Your faith in human intelligence is heartwarming.

The results of the application of human intelligence vary widely, depending on the human and the situation. Confirmation bias is a well-known feature of human thinking. A well-designed testing regime, properly applied, should be considered more reliable than the application of 'human intelligence', where you dismiss the prescribed testing protocol for blood identification because you think you know better, or because you want to believe something that the test results are not telling you.