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

[Strozzi]

What's in a name?

Strozzi; is there some subtle insult or innuendo hidden to non-Italians when calling Mignini "Magnini"?

Supernaut, the surname "Mignini" is a 13th century derrivative of the more dominant Tuscan name "Magnini". "Mag" is the prefix of "mago" which in English means "sorcerer" or "conjuror", that is, "one who performs slight of hand". I'll use it in a sentence: Prosecutor Magnini told the journalists "The bitch set me up!"

All six 5^th degree Masons on this board understand the significance of "Magnini", but I will write it "Mignini" going forwards because I do not want to confuse those of you who are not yet sworn to the Order.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you calling the PMF people "experts?" Seriously?

I paste again what I wrote:

If you want to be fair, you should say that the IIP cultists don't have the competence to lecture the PMF people, the experts like Stefanoni and the Supreme Court, abaout what is "valid or invalid", either.

It seems to me there are three subjects mentioned: the PMF people(1), the experts like Stefanoni(2) and the Supreme Court (3)

A prominent pro-guilt poster claimed that calm discussion with pro-innocence posters is not possible because either the PI-posters are ignorant or they are lying for the sake of someone they know is guilty. The concept of discussion implies that two people exchange views and listen to what each other says. There can be no discussion whatsoever (calm or otherwise) under such circumstances. Person A can say to person B, “You are lying,” but not much productive can happen after that. Or Person A can treat person B as a child and say, “I will teach you.” Neither scenario is a discussion in a meaningful sense of the term.

I agree more or less with that pro-guilt poster as for a great number of pro-Knox supporters. I think the majority of prominent pro-Knox supporters are not honest interlocutors, in various ways.
However I believe there are also further reasons for why a dialogue with those people is impossible.

 

[Machiavelli]

She quoted her testimony and she reviewed her work. I am certain she knows that Stefi is a liar and a cheat.

She did not know what was written in her testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

If they have seen the video of the evidence collection then it's proven.

Of course you recognized Sollecito's DNA from its shilouette.

 

[Machiavelli]

Supernaut, the surname "Mignini" is a 13th century derrivative of the more dominent Tuscan name "Magnini". "Mag" is the prefix of "mago" which in English means "sorcerer" or "conjuror", that is, "one who performs slight of hand". I'll use it in a sentence: "Prosecutor Magnini told the journalists "The bitch set me up!"

All six 5^th degree Masons on this board understand the significance of "Magnini", but I will spell it "Mignini" going forwards because I do not want to confuse those of you who are not yet sworn to the Order.

Actually the surname Magnini (far derivative of Magni) comes from Magnus, as it is evident its root (containing -gn-) is not the semantic root of Magus, mag/magn, the radical phonemes are not the same.

http://www.cognomiitaliani.org/cognomi/cognomi0011agn.htm

Magni è molto presente in tutto il centronord, Magnini ha ceppi in Lombardia, Toscana, Marche ed Umbria, Magno è abbastanza diffuso in tutto il sud, hanno diverse origini, che si riconducono alla derivazione, anche tramite forme ipocoristiche, dal cognomen latino Magnus, o direttamente, o attraverso toponimi correlati con questo nome, in altri casi discende da soprannomi collegati con il vocabolo magno (grande).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If they have seen the video of the evidence collection then it's proven.

The Supreme Court's position on this is one of flat denial:

Nor could it be said, as was, that during the time between the first and the second site inspection, carried out at a distance of more than forty days at the casa locus commissi delicti, that "it was all messed up" since the house was boarded up and in that interval no one had the opportunity to access it, as seen from the results of the proceedings.

 

[Grinder]

I don't think it's strange at all.
I don't think it's even true that this would go against most systems in the world; btw most systems in the world are civil law systems, the UK amd US common law based and plain adversarial systems are a small minority.

Scientific evidence does not have a legal nature itself that makes inherently different from any othe piece of evidence. No piece of evidence is required to have a standard of certainity, or to be perfect, in order to exist. If it has a lesser quality, lacks an absolute certain and universally validated, it will still be given a value and a weight, comparable to its statistical value as proof.

That is simply not true. A fingerprint must match not just be compatible. Yes, pieces of evidence need to have a standard of certainty or at least a very, very chance of being mistaken. The "bloody" footprints would most certainly not be admitted in most systems because they could come from a large percentage of people and they aren't dated by being identified as from Meredith"s blood.

It is true that things don't need to be perfect to exist but they need to be damn close to be used in trial - "if the glove don't fit you must acquit".

This case is based on a large set of circumstantial evidence, like most cases, evidence which - as stated by the Supreme Court - must be assessed as a whole.

No problem if this was actual evidence you were talking about. Footprints that don't match left in a substance that can't be identified is not evidence.

This evidence consistes in very many pieces of several nature and from multiple sources, which form a "system" (or a number of systems) amongst themseles, and they can be regrouped in several areas. I list here some of them:

And one can take a bunch of Legos and make all kinds of things out of them.

1. the immediate phisical evidence of the scene, which is evidence pointing to multiple perpetrators (shows two different modus operandi/ behaviours of perpetrators); it is a system of elements roughly visible prima facie that includes evidence that some perpetrator returned to the murder scene some time after the murder, and also that spent some time in the murder room.

There is no diffinitive evidence that there were more than one killer and if so no evdience who it was. There was no DNA left on Meredith except Rudi's. The murderer may well have spent some time at the cottage after the murder. Rudy said he cleaned up and put on a sweatshirt. He took the keys, money and credit cards and the phones.

2. physical evidence pointing to the fact that the break in was staged; this is also a made of a set of physical things, which would distinguish this "break in" from the true "break ins" as they are always seen.

Perhaps or perhaps not. The glass sure looks like it was a result of a rock thrown from the parking area.

3. the autopsy report, crossed with other physical findngs. Despite the claims of the contrary, and despite the quotings from pathologists who were not sure about this based on their information, the combination peculiar set of injuries is evidence that Meredith Kercher was killed by more than one person; this is also crossed with contextual findings (like DNA on her wirst etc.). This evidence is absolutely important in my view.

Just don't see that there is proof of more than one - where is the DNA on Meredith?

4. Capezzali and Monacchia's testimonies: these testimonies are credible and related to the murder, no logical argument exists against this; these testimonies are evidence not just about the time of death but because they can be "crossed" with other areas (such as the autopsy report).

Please, their testimonies are worthless. They came months late. They never saw anything. They don't know what time they think they heard something. To the extent they know anything it conflicts with the witness that saw a black man running at 10:30 ish and we all know there are only two black men in the area - the beautiful one and Rudi.

5. The luminol prints. This evidence carries a strong probative value, despite denials of those who try to dismiss it (TMB etc), because of its extreme peculiarity, because of its striking analogy with the bloody bathmat print, because of its correspondence with the peculiar activity of shuffling on a mat/towel after washing oneself in the bathroom; above all, because it's value as a contrario evidence, that is because of the absolute weakness of the contrary scenario, the lack of alternatives (no alternative substance, no alternative activity);

The prosecution needs to prove what caused and when the prints were left. They didn't prove it was blood. The TMB test may not prove it wasn't blood but they didn't.

6. The lies of Amanda Knox (the mop-shower story). This topic is disregarded both by the pro-Knox field, and (partly) even from the prosecution. But it is something huge and would deserve a chapter on its own. There is crushing evidence that Knox told a load of lies from minute zero of the investigation. Evidence of lying does not mean automatically proof of being a murderer, but this is one solid piece of circumstantial evidence, a "system" or an evidence area on its own that stands like the elephant in the room.

Could you explain what the police chief meant when he said that they questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be true?

7. The unexplained false accusation of an innocent (for this, Knox was definitively found guilty). I say "unexplained" meaning unjustified, I mean that this is a furthe area on which Knox opened an additional chapter of changes and lies. Actually, the manifest inconsistency of all the claims of "coercion" or "false memory", the logical analysis of Knox's inconsistencies about the topic and the crossing with others' testimonies leave asolutely no reasonable doubt on this point.

How did they know something false was correct?

8. The bathmat print. This print is compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Rudy Guede. It's a rather obvious piece of circumstantial evidence in my opinion.

Well it doesn't match and that is for sure. Maybe it could have been made by Raf but it looks like Rudi's

9. Sollecito's lies. They have a lesser weight compared to Knox's lies, but several Sollecito's statements are a tool for crossing evidence, that helps to illuminate some of the severe inconsistencies in Knox's stories.

He is lame and an airhead but the lies don't seem to be there

The above areas are not all. There are other sets and other classes of evidence, it's just a summary scheme as an example to how this case appears to me.

Why isn't there DNA in the murder room except for Rudi? If they were involved in this violent murder why wasn't there a few obvious cuts on the kids. Why was Meredith almost certainly dead by the time even the prosecution admits they were using the computer.

 

[RandyN]

She knows that Stefi is a lying liar and cheating cheater. I know that as well.

Me 2

 

[Machiavelli]

Have you heard about this case?

Never heard. Don't know why you link this.
A case like this would be impossible in Italy. One further peculiarity some may not know about the Italian system, is that it that the defendant is not allowed to plead himself guilty. That would be close to a contempt of court.
There is a kind of plea bargain which is allowed on some small charges, but it does not include an admission of guilt by the defendant.

 

[RandyN]

She quoted her testimony and she reviewed her work. I am certain she knows that Stefi is a liar and a cheat.

Me 2

 

[Machiavelli]

That is simply not true. A fingerprint must match not just be compatible. Yes, pieces of evidence need to have a standard of certainty or at least a very, very chance of being mistaken. The "bloody" footprints would most certainly not be admitted in most systems because they could come from a large percentage of people and they aren't dated by being identified as from Meredith"s blood.

It is true that things don't need to be perfect to exist but they need to be damn close to be used in trial - "if the glove don't fit you must acquit

".

No. My position (and I believe the law is with me) is of a flat "no" to this point.
A fingerprint may well be just compatible, and be a piece of circumstantial evidence.
Pieces of evidence do not need to have a standard of certainity.

At least we may agree that my position and yours are incompatible.

Anyway this is a simple point, quite at the root of any reasoning. Regardless everyone opinion, I think it is quite clear to everybody that the Supreme Court jurisprudence expresses my view.

I'm not offering my point as a legal argument; I think it is an argument about rationality. I think it belongs to logic not just to legal procedure.

 

[RandyN]

You know, anything is possible....agree??

Joanna Dennehy the woman in question was known to have serious psychological issues, was unemployed and was in the process of being evicted from her home. She murdered her landlord and one of her roommates. There are also 3 other men who seemed to be involved although they have not plead guilty.

Not exactly close.

Well its not close because you have failed to look at it thru the twisted mind of Mignini.

The Star indicates the order of the star which is the ladies auxiliary of the Masons. She certainly had accomplices or how else could she ...a girl not even trained in karate...kill one guy let alone 3 or whatever. Bet there was some sex going on somewhere in the world that day as well. If you look closely at the pic you will notice tiny horns coming up from her head.

Lets call her in (no lets trick her in) and meanwhile schedule 12 interrogators for an all righter w/o recording so we can beat the crap out of...err give her a couple of rabbit whacks...and we will get her to say what weeeee already know to be true.

Then we will have our pal Claudia ignore the law and evidence and have Sly Star held for a year w/o charge while we go and make up...errr investigate the case fully in order to reveal the case we finally decide on ....errr at least by the appeal ....errr OK by the time of the SC decision and no later I promise...unless weeeee need to appeal some sane judges logical decision and then of course all bets are off....Italian pride be damned...we don't care how stupid we appear by now..

See...exactly the same case. Elementary.

 

[christianahannah]

I paste again what I wrote:



It seems to me there are three subjects mentioned: the PMF people(1), the experts like Stefanoni(2) and the Supreme Court (3)



I agree more or less with that pro-guilt poster as for a great number of pro-Knox supporters. I think the majority of prominent pro-Knox supporters are not honest interlocutors, in various ways.
However I believe there are also further reasons for why a dialogue with those people is impossible.

It seems that pro-Knox supporters and the pro-guilt people haven't much common ground on which they agree about this case.

However my question doesn't concern them but rather the persons of the court on both sides - the defense attorneys, civil attorneys and prosecution, the defense experts and prosecution experts, etc. - how are they towards one another? Amiable, respectful, courteous of each other and able to have a dialogue?

I would also be interested in why you think a dialogue with pro-Knox supporters is impossible.

 

[acbytesla]

".

No. My position (and I believe the law is with me) is of a flat "no" to this point.
A fingerprint may well be just compatible, and be a piece of circumstantial evidence.
Pieces of evidence do not need to have a standard of certainity.

At least we may agree that my position and yours are incompatible.

Anyway this is a simple point, quite at the root of any reasoning. Regardless everyone opinion, I think it is quite clear to everybody that the Supreme Court jurisprudence expresses my view.

I'm not offering my point as a legal argument; I think it is an argument about rationality. I think it belongs to logic not just to legal procedure.

You maybe right about this....On that, I am not sure. If you are, that is sad.

However, I don't buy it. Many pieces of evidence absolutely are required to meet a standard of certainty. For example, for a fingerprint to be considered a match, It must have a minimum of 12 similar points. And even this may not be enough. A good set of prints may have 50 points that match. However, sometimes there is a distinguishable feature that is so different from a 12 even 20 similar points that may still eliminate that print.

There are standards of certainty for DNA You could have any number of alleles that match, but have one allele that is significantly mismatched. You wouldn't then declare that the DNA matched. Now would you?

A large amount of crap evidence doesn't mean the case in total smells like perfume.

Take the bathmat print for example. I've looked at that for hours. It looks a bit like Raffaele's foot, it also looks a bit like Rudy's, but it doesn't look like Amanda's. Now is it proof that it belongs to Raffaele's or Rudy? About the best thing we can say about that print is that it could be a match to half the men in Perugia and 20 percent of the women..maybe. In fact, we haven't a clue. Should it be used at all in this case or Rudy's case? I would argue NO for both. It's prejudicial as we have NO idea how many other people might be matches.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>7. The unexplained false accusation of an innocent (for this, Knox was definitively found guilty). I say "unexplained" meaning unjustified, I mean that this is a furthe area on which Knox opened an additional chapter of changes and lies. Actually, the manifest inconsistency of all the claims of "coercion" or "false memory", the logical analysis of Knox's inconsistencies about the topic and the crossing with others' testimonies leave asolutely no reasonable doubt on this point.<snip>

I certainly agree that it is unexplained and unjustified. I cannot imagine a reason in the world why Amanda would place a false accusation against Patrick. If she committed the crime as you and the prosecutor claim, then she was aware of the evidence that existed at the scene. Obviously, she had some knowledge of how crimes are investigated, or she wouldn't have gone to the trouble of cleaning everything up and faking a burglary. Why accuse someone who wasn't there, when she was fully aware that the evidence of who WAS there would eventually be uncovered? How do you think that worked in her mind, Mach?

 

[RandyN]

I paste again what I wrote:



It seems to me there are three subjects mentioned: the PMF people(1), the experts like Stefanoni(2) and the Supreme Court (3)



I agree more or less with that pro-guilt poster as for a great number of pro-Knox supporters. I think the majority of prominent pro-Knox supporters are not honest interlocutors, in various ways.
However I believe there are also further reasons for why a dialogue with those people is impossible.

Talk about your black kettle.

 

[RandyN]

Of course you recognized Sollecito's DNA from its shilouette.

Sure just like AK and RS noticed theirs when they did the selective clean up.

 

[RandyN]

If you use the Perugian definition of "met" and can confirm that she met Chris once, she and Chris must be old friends and co-conspirators.

I heard she was sittin on the lap of ole Gorgerty hisself watching the returns on the election...errr results of the appeal trial. Opa was hauling em sweet ice tea and pop corn so to keep all their hands busy at all times...thats what I herd.......

 

[RandyN]

Thanks, and generally thanks for being so articulate; I learn something every time you write.

I was looking at that middle paragraph and thinking about how it relates to the conversation about juries of peers and the need for them to remain focused on what the evidence shows. My sense is that what you wrote there would seem crazy to some Italians,while to me it's self-evident.

Stefanoni did or did not complete her work in this case in a scientifically valid manner. If she did, her results stand. If not, there are no results because the two samples that matter are both gone.

Her past work, her academic credentials, her relationships with the prosecutors, all of that is just as irrelevant as Raffaele's personal life or Amanda's work history.

Did she or did she not complete her work in a scientifically valid manner? Vechiotti says no, and she explains why. It ought to be the end of the story.

(And yes, I realize I just repeated what you said, only not as clearly. )

Glad no body ever thanks me for my articulitism!

 

[Machiavelli]

I certainly agree that it is unexplained and unjustified. I cannot imagine a reason in the world why Amanda would place a false accusation against Patrick. If she committed the crime as you and the prosecutor claim, then she was aware of the evidence that existed at the scene. Obviously, she had some knowledge of how crimes are investigated, or she wouldn't have gone to the trouble to clean everything up and fake a burglary. Why accuse someone who wasn't there, when she was fully aware that the evidence of who WAS there would eventually be uncovered? How do you think that worked in her mind, Mach?

You may know I've already talked about this. It's like jumping from a building on fire... you recall? Amanda Knox herself answered to your question: she accused Patrick because It could be truth (It could be true = it was beliavable; they could believe that).
So it could have side-tracked the investigators at least for some time.
Knox thinks she doesn't have any alternative, because the only alternatives would be to tell the truth and accuse herself or one of the true perps (so herself), or to keep on denying (they won't believe that any more, and now Sollecito withdrew her alibi). She sees an unexpected glimmer, the police have a false track, they believe she met Lumumba; she may have them believe to a scenario in which she is not the murderer. She sees an open window and she jumps. The jump may kill her but she is trapped in the fire, she has no alternatives; she tries.