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

[Grinder]

My respectful opinion is that you may nt have a big experience about courts in European jurisdictions. (people who appear surprised about what the SC decided about the 11yo girl abuse for example, appear to be completely unaware about decisions taken by German, Dutch or Danish courts).

I didn't have 'big experience' with Soviet courts in the fifties and sixties but knew they didn't pursue justice. I don't need to know anything about the system to know that the fluid stain should be tested. If the German, Dutch or Danish courts wouldn't test this stain that wouldn't change the fact it should be tested.

The attributable luminol footprints did match Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The ideat that they don't match anyone is an opinion expressed by some Knox suporters (based on assessing small toe).

No court ruled they matched and I don't think that the prosecution even contended they matched.

The courts decide what they are tasked with.
The tasks of judiciary organs depends on what they are working on. The main explorative phase is the investigation, which is a formal period of time, followed by the preliminary hearing. There is an investigating judge ruling on the investigation, and a preliminary judge ruling on the preliminary hearing.
There are other smaller investigation frames which may be opened on requets called istanze istruttorie, at the beginning of a trial discussion.

Are you listing all those that didn't use their minds when investigating the case?

Could a judge decide the testing of something just to investigate possible direction or charges? In general: no. This is an investigator's task. Assise courts do not take investigating initiatives but on some codified occurrences (like if they are informed about the commission of a crime; in that case, they do not investigate but task another office with opening an investigation file). A judge can decide to open new investigation paths within his trial only if this is something absolutely necessary to decide on the charges that have been already set (the charges are set by the preliminary judge).
Which implies, if the judge has already evidence enough to decide on the charges on the presented evidence, there will be no further investigation.

Ridiculous. They can order the testimony of a nut case but not the testing of a stain found under the victim. No one was suggesting that the judge run a test themselves but assign it to the police or independent experts.


You can't seem to bring yourself to actually understand that the test could shed light on this crime and that system needs to allow it.

 

[Strozzi]

Uh-huh... so what was it about ?

Like most young American girls, Amanda was involved in gymnastics in middle or high school. As a college student she practiced yoga as exercise and for its calm benefits.

On the evening of Nov 5 2007, Raffael and Amanda were eating dinner at about 9:30 pm when the police called Raffaele back to the police station for more questioning (the police knew Amanda's mother was flying in from Seattle to arrive the next day and the police were desperate to get something on them before Amanda's mother arrived). Amanda, afraid to remain alone because of concern about there being a killer loose, accompanied Raffaele back to the police station. Raffaele was taken into an interrogation room at about 10 or 10:30 pm. Amanda waited in a hallway waiting area doing, or trying to do, schoolwork. After some time she got up to stretch to relieve tension. While she was stretching an older male police officer came by to keep her company. He arrived as she was stretching, sat down, and remarked to her how agile she is. He may in fact have asked her what else she can do, or perhaps given the language difficulties Amanda may have thought he was asking her to show him what else she can do. Amanda says she did the splits. At that moment a policewoman came out of the elevator, saw some part of Amanda's movement, and took offense at it, regarding it as inappropriate to be doing that in the police station. The Policewoman also glared at the policeman.

The police leaked a story about it to the newspapers and a story ran saying that Amanda was doing "cartwheels" in the police station. Media, especially in Italy and the UK, ran with the "doing cartwheels in the police station" story and the police and prosecutor benefitted from the sensational and disapproving media coverage. It was in their interest to present Amanda as weird, spontaneous, disrespectful, un-ladylike, physical, et al. Amanda says she did the splits. The police and persecutor named it a "cartwheel".

It was at about that moment, perhaps 11 or 11:30 pm, that the policewoman took Amanda into a separate interrogation room to commence the late night interrogation.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
No court ruled they matched and I don't think that the prosecution even contended they matched.

They are compatible, meanigful for negative comparison, which in the context means a conclusion of "probable identity".
This is wht I meant. Nobody ever ruled they "did not match" either, so it's just wrong to say "they do not match".

Are you listing all those that didn't use their minds when investigating the case?

Actually I include the defence, because also the defence had a power to investigate things like the semen stain, or to request it to be investigated.
They decided to not request it, because, by Sollecito's own admission, they fered about the result. The request was delayed until by the end of the first instance trial, when the evidence discussion phase was already closed.

Ridiculous. They can order the testimony of a nut case but not the testing of a stain found under the victim. No one was suggesting that the judge run a test themselves but assign it to the police or independent experts.

Two things.
First, it is not that they "can" order the testimony of a nutcase, but rather they must order it, because the previous Hallmann-Zanetti court made the dreadful choice of leaving a job unfinished, they had called Aviello but they listened to just pieces of his testimony, and then cut away the rest of it, based on illogical arguments. This thing had to be closed, as well as the Vecchiotti-Conti window, and in order to close it, you need to accomplish it.

You can't seem to bring yourself to actually understand that the test could shed light on this crime and that system needs to allow it.

Maybe it would shed light to you. Because you don't think there is sufficient evidence. Not to me, as for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, and I think not for the judge, since I see already evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their involvement.
I see the evidence as solid, undisputable, I fail to see how a test on the stain could change that. It won't change if it's Guede's semen, nor if it's Sollecito, nor if it's SIlenzi's, and it won't change if it is a fourth unknown profile, it won't change if it's vaseline. I don't see how any result could affect the evidence. No result among those could make the evidence against Sollecito go away, so from my point of view I can't see how the test could change the conclusion.

 

[AmyStrange]

I see the evidence as solid, undisputable, I fail to see how a test on the stain could change that. It won't change if it's Guede's semen, nor if it's Sollecito, nor if it's SIlenzi's, and it won't change if it is a fourth unknown profile, it won't change if it's vaseline. I don't see how any result could affect the evidence. No result among those could make the evidence against Sollecito go away, so from my point of view I can't see how the test could change the conclusion.

-

Of course you do. Are you Harry Rag?

-

 

[Strozzi]

Actually I include the defence, because also the defence had a power to investigate things like the semen stain, or to request it to be investigated.
They decided to not request it, because, by Sollecito's own admission, they fered about the result. .

Machiavelli, I wonder if Raffaele's defense feared testing the putative semen stain because they suspected the police or police lab would accidentally or deliberately falsify the test. Not because they feared the stain was contributed by Raffaele. As I recall, Raffaele's attorney and family early on after the arrests realized the police were prepared to produce incorrect or false evidence in their desperation to solve this sensational crime and protect the police and prosecutor from further embarrassment. I do recall that the police chief immediately went in front of the media microphones and loudly announced "Case closed!" to the cheers of the audience. What crap that was!

 

[RoseMontague]

They are compatible, meanigful for negative comparison, which in the context means a conclusion of "probable identity".
This is wht I meant. Nobody ever ruled they "did not match" either, so it's just wrong to say "they do not match".

Guess you were wrong with what you said and not what you meant to say then. They do not match, btw.

 

[Bill Williams]

They are compatible, meanigful for negative comparison, which in the context means a conclusion of "probable identity".
This is wht I meant. Nobody ever ruled they "did not match" either, so it's just wrong to say "they do not match".

This is what you mean when you find a "probable identity'?

A while ago you were saying that Rudy cannot be found guilty of theft because there is no proof he'd commited theft. Yet you pull out this "probable identity" to condemn others?

You are engaging in double speak and confirmation bias.

I see the evidence as solid, undisputable, I fail to see how a test on the stain could change that. It won't change if it's Guede's semen, nor if it's Sollecito, nor if it's SIlenzi's, and it won't change if it is a fourth unknown profile, it won't change if it's vaseline. I don't see how any result could affect the evidence. No result among those could make the evidence against Sollecito go away, so from my point of view I can't see how the test could change the conclusion.

For someone who sees the evidence against them as solid, you disdain putting together a comprehensive timeline of this crime....

If the evidence was solid and undisputable, you could do that in your sleep. Yet, months' ago you said that a timeline simply wasn't needed, nor was motive.

All those things are true... however, what is it that is undisputed?

Again, you are engaging in dietrology, all the while avoiding that you, yourself, have more than likely committed a crime against Hellmann. Read upthread for your words.

 

[AmyStrange]

They are compatible, meanigful for negative comparison, which in the context means a conclusion of "probable identity".
This is wht I meant. Nobody ever ruled they "did not match" either, so it's just wrong to say "they do not match".

-

You mean "compatible" like everything you write is compatible with you being Harry Rag? That kind of compatible?

 

[toto]

Interesting comment on TJMK site:
Even if Knox was cuffed around the head , I think that other people have had to endure far worse police action than that !
Patrick Lumumba ,for instance.

Posted by aethelred23 on 12/27/13 at 04:14 PM

 

[Machiavelli]

This is what you mean when you find a "probable identity'?

A while ago you were saying that Rudy cannot be found guilty of theft because there is no proof he'd commited theft. Yet you pull out this "probable identity" to condemn others?

Probable identity is a legal concept used by investogators, employed by Lorenzo Rinaldi.

You are engaging in double speak and confirmation bias.

It's precise language not double speak.

For someone who sees the evidence against them as solid, you disdain putting together a comprehensive timeline of this crime....

If the evidence was solid and undisputable, you could do that in your sleep. Yet, months' ago you said that a timeline simply wasn't needed, nor was motive.

That's just your opinion. You think that having evidence beyond doubt is the same of presenting one single "timeline of events" and discuss that on a forum. But it's yours, personal, arbitrary assumption.

All those things are true... however, what is it that is undisputed?

The evidence set, which I summarized many times.

Again, you are engaging in dietrology, all the while avoiding that you, yourself, have more than likely committed a crime against Hellmann.

You dare attempt to lecture me about the law? You are not in a legitimate position of talking about things allegedly said or "committed" somewhere else by some other poster.

 

[AmyStrange]

Maybe it would shed light to you. Because you don't think there is sufficient evidence. Not to me, as for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, and I think not for the judge, since I see already evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their involvement.

-

What if the stain turned out to be from Aviello's brother?

 

[Machiavelli]

Guess you were wrong with what you said and not what you meant to say then. They do not match, btw.

The court agreed with Rinaldi finding a probable identity (which I call a type of match btw). Grinder stated "they do not match". The court never stated what Grinder states, so you should say: as for the court finding, what Grinder says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

 

[AmyStrange]

The court agreed with Rinaldi finding a probable identity (which I call a type of match btw). Grinder stated "they do not match". The court never stated what Grinder states, so you should say: as for the court finding, what Grinder says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

-

So are you saying because your writings are compatible with Harry Rag's that makes it a "kinda match" also?

 

[Grinder]

The court agreed with Rinaldi finding a probable identity (which I call a type of match btw). Grinder stated "they do not match". The court never stated what Grinder states, so you should say: as for the court finding, what Grinder says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

The court ruled they were compatible which is by any measure a lesser standard than matching. No expert claimed they matched. There is nothing in the record that indicates they match.

a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.

What percentage of college age women have shoe sizes from 36 to 38?

There was no match found even if the court doesn't specifically state that. The court also doesn't say there was no match of a bloody fingerprint to Amanda. I assume that means there was a match.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, I wonder if Raffaele's defense feared testing the putative semen stain because they suspected the police or police lab would accidentally or deliberately falsify the test. Not because they feared the stain was contributed by Raffaele. As I recall, Raffaele's attorney and family early on after the arrests realized the police were prepared to produce incorrect or false evidence in their desperation to solve this sensational crime and protect the police and prosecutor from further embarrassment. I do recall that the police chief immediately went in front of the media microphones and loudly announced "Case closed!" to the cheers of the audience. What crap that was!

By the way, it seems to me you are completely confusing the police offices and departments. The "police" is not a single unitarian indistinct entity; there isn't anything like that, and there is no such person as the "chief of police"; there was the Questore of Perugia (De Felice) who said case closed in a press conference, but then shortly after the very same Police office had no problem in investigating Rudy Guede, then publicly change their mind and declare Lumumba was innocent.
You should take in account the openness by which they corrected their previous conclusion, and admit they nad no problem doing so.

But when you talk about testing the putative semen stain, you should know that you are talking about a completely different office, that is the Scientific Police directed from the UACV of Rome. Why should the Scientific Police care soe much about a prosecutor (a member of the judiciary - they couldn't care less) and possibly members of the mobile squad team of a small provincial city. The idea that the Rome offices togeher with technicians of the Scineitfic Police (Stefanoni) they concoct a sophisticated conspiracy just to protect unknown insignificant officers is quite ludicrous.
Whoever thinks the police would be prepared to follow such a malicious criminal conduct, shall prove what he says.

Anyway the testing of the semen stain was to be done under the rules of "incidente probatorio", which means defence consultants would take part to it, including the genetic tests. Which would make the fraud extremely dificult and extremely dangerous.
Raffaele's attorney (who? Tedeschi? Maori? Bongiorno?) never uttered any words/suspicions like the one he attributes to them in his book.

 

[Bill Williams]

The court agreed with Rinaldi finding a probable identity (which I call a type of match btw). Grinder stated "they do not match". The court never stated what Grinder states, so you should say: as for the court finding, what Grinder says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

The court also never found psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito....

so you should say: as for the court finding, what Machiavelli says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway the testing of the semen stain was to be done under the rules of "incidente probatorio", which means defence consultants would take part to it, including the genetic tests. Which would make the fraud extremely dificult and extremely dangerous.
Raffaele's attorney (who? Tedeschi? Maori? Bongiorno?) never uttered any words/suspicions like the one he attributes to them in his book.

And you know this.... how?

BTW - do you acknowledge authorship of those 12 defamatory claims against Hellmann upthread? I will repost it if you like.

 

[Mary_H]

I have little doubt that a PR effort was made. But what was that PR effort? It would be impossible for Marriott to control the story. At best they could only just offer a different narrative than the one the prosecution put forward.

The truth is that one of those narratives would fail and fall under the facts that were available.

It is pretty clear which one hasn't been holding up to scrutiny.

<snip>Well clearly there are others that disagree and feel that the US media has caused you to have the wrong idea about guilt and innocence.<snip>

Who cares how those others feel? Their viewpoints are invalid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When did the story about cartwheels first appear

The police leaked a story about it to the newspapers and a story ran saying that Amanda was doing "cartwheels" in the police station. Media, especially in Italy and the UK, ran with the "doing cartwheels in the police station" story and the police and prosecutor benefitted from the sensational and disapproving media coverage. It was in their interest to present Amanda as weird, spontaneous, disrespectful, un-ladylike, physical, et al. Amanda says she did the splits. The police and persecutor named it a "cartwheel".

Do you have a date for the leaked story? I was unaware that there was a story to this effect early on, in the investigation.

 

[Machiavelli]

The court ruled they were compatible which is by any measure a lesser standard than matching. No expert claimed they matched. There is nothing in the record that indicates they match.

a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.

What percentage of college age women have shoe sizes from 36 to 38?

But I was tlking about the luminol footprints.
The luminol bare footprints contain a set of identifying information beyond a single size.
The footprints match as for what a footprint can match, when there are no digital crests visible but only the outer shape can be measured.

There was no match found even if the court doesn't specifically state that.

But there was compatibility, which means a lot in a context where there is further information (like the fact that the prints belong to two different indivduals). You cannot logically equate all this with "not matching". The attribution does not derive lineary just from a "match", just like the determination about substance is not decided by a chemical test.

The court also doesn't say there was no match of a bloody fingerprint to Amanda. I assume that means there was a match.

The Scientific Police doesn't find any probable identity between Knox's finger and a bloody fingerprint, but founds a probable identity between the luminol footprints and Knox and Sollecito's feet.