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

[Diocletus]

The 5th doesn't apply when abroad. There used to be a warning in passports about not having US protections and needing to follow local laws when abroad.

Yes, I know. But she's not abroad.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is so disappointing. After a case that has gone on for more than six years where much of the discussion is on the DNA, Machiavelli still does not know what alleles or DNA are. This is an extreme example of the 'two cultures'. That Machiavelli is well educated and intelligent one cannot doubt. I do not know where he received his education, but I would hope that modern secondary education would result in some knowledge of what genes are and how inheritance works. Poor Crick must be rolling in his grave. (...)

I stated more than once that I don't know much on molecular biology, albeit I do know a bit more about science than most people on this forum; I do know about physics and statystics, and have some deep albeit non systematic knowledge about some medicine branches.
I have always considered DNA as a protein but I believe you are right, so I re-formulize: there is no thing such as a Y-allele, neither a specific allele to attribute to Sollecito, there is a Y haplotype, a sequence. And attribution is a statystical property of that sequence - not of single alleles.
Yes I do know an allele is a variant of a gene, that is portion of code that is varied (I do know that most of DNA sequences are repetitive). Theoretically rare alleles could increase the probability of attribution.

By the way I note that you attempt to exploit my ignorance in molecular biology as strain, to make an argument about me not being reliable in "any technical matter". There is no such thing like "technical matter" and there is no expert in "technical matter", there are technicalities in each of the various subjects and branches of human knowledge. All technical experts are actually people with an area of expertise on some very limited subject. People who complain about one Y-allele being attributed to Sollecito have sure a bigger problem. There is no need to go forward. I think that your strain attempting to call me "unreliable" is a kind of desperate denial.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes. It's an indication of guilt.

Why?

Just to help you out, it's actually a Corax. Look it up.

 

[Dan O.]

Crime scene camera flashes

December 18 part 2

video index|Photo |Time stamp |Content
00:00:00.00| |15:18:06.16|——start of video part 2——
00:00:50.04|029.jpg|15:18:56.20|Display back side of mattress
00:00:59.12|030.jpg|15:19:05.30|Flipping mattress
00:01:44.68|031.jpg|15:19:50.80|Front of holly mattress
00:04:06.72| | |Opening Forensics case flat
00:04:16.40| | |Case open
00:04:31.36| | |Accessing case
00:04:38.72|032.jpg|15:22:54.70|opening second case
00:04:47.48| | |<indirect>
00:04:48.56| | |<direct towards cases from Amanda’s room>
00:06:25.92|033.jpg|15:23:36.70|Meredith - pictures on wall
00:06:33.36|034.jpg|15:24:39.50|Meredith - pictures and blood streaks on wall
00:08:17.92| | |Meredith - blood streaks on wall with “W”
00:08:28.64|035.jpg|15:26:34.70|Meredith - blood streaks on wall with “W” again
00:08:46.04| | |sampling with swab at bottom
00:08:50.12|036.jpg|15.26.56.30|sampling with swab near bottom
00:08:55.12| | |sampling with swab (just missed grabbing swab with fingers)
00:09:10.16|037.jpg|15.27.16.30|sampling with swab
00:09:11.32|038.jpg|15.27.17.50|sampling with swab (dropped swab at 09:32)
00:09:52.16|039.jpg|15.27.58.20|sample W in container with lid open
00:09:56.68|040.jpg|15.28.02.80|sample W closing lid
00:10:09.36|041.jpg|15.28.07.50|displaying W sample (after adjusting mask with gloved hand)
00:11:26.22| | |scraping with knife
00:11:29.28| | |scraping with knife
00:11:42.00| | |scraping with knife
00:11:47.52|042.jpg|15.29.53.70|scraping with knife
00:11:50.20|043.jpg|15.29.56.40|scraping with knife
00:12:00.36| | |scraping with knife
00:12:06.72| | |scraping with knife
00:12:14.20|044.jpg|15.30.20.30|lid on scraping sample
00:12:17.84| | |putting knife back in envelope
00:12:25 | | |meredith’s room
00:12:43.68| | |meredith’s room
00:13:08.08| | |meredith’s room
00:13:31.76| | |meredith’s room
00:13:46.48| | |meredith’s room floor under window (camera boy 2)
00:14:15.48| | |Meredith’s room (pre flash at -0.12)
00:14:43.12| | |boy 2 at W (pre flash at -0.12)
00:14:59.04| | |meredith’s room
00:15:35.70|045.jpg|15:33:40.80|shoe right (not on video)
00:15:46.30|046.jpg|15:33:52.40|shoe right inverted (not on video)
00:23:10.32| | |Photos on wall in Meredith’s room
00:23:13.32| | |Photos on wall in Meredith’s room
00:23:24.36| | |camera man in meredith’s room
00:23:27.64| | |camera man in meredith’s room
00:23:32.64| | |camera man in meredith’s room
00:25:13.96| | |camera man in meredith’s room
00:26:54.16|047.jpg|15:45:00.40|camera man in meredith’s room shoes pair
00:27:14.04|048.jpg|15:45:20.20|camera man in meredith’s room shoes pair inverted
00:27:37.28| | |camera boy in kitchen (has both cameras)
00:32:30.84|049.jpg|15:50:37.00|Purse on bed frame
00:32:33.80|050.jpg|15:50:40.00|Purse on bed frame
00:32:38.04| | |boy 2 takes picture of W stain
00:32:53.48| | |boy 2 takes picture of W stain (double flash)
00:33:10.04|051.jpg|15:51:16.20|picking up purse
00:33:14.44|052.jpg|15:51:20.60|bagging purse
00:33:09.24| | |boy 2 takes picture of stain under bed
00:34:26.64|053.jpg|15.52.32.80|clasp on floor
00.34.48.48|054.jpg|15.52.54.70|stef holding clasp, flashlight man pointing to it
00.34.51.08| | |stef holding clasp, pointing with pinkie
00.34.53.24|055.jpg|15.52.59.40|stef holding clasp
00.35.02.32| | |stef holding clasp in other hand
00.35.04.92| | |stef holding clasp
00.35.28.64|056.jpg|15.53.34.90|flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.34.68| | |flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.49 | | |<no flash> clasp illuminated by flashlight only?
00.36.27.88|057.jpg|15.54.34.10|Clasp on floor by Y
00.36.35.00| | |Clasp on floor by Y
00.37.20.44|058.jpg|15.55.26.70|Clasp in bag
00.39.06.52|059.jpg|15.56.12.70|Sock on mat
00.38.38.40| | |Sock reversed on mat
00.39.36.04|060.jpg|15.57.42.30|same Sock with Z
00.40.21.72|061.jpg|15.58.27.80|Sock in bag
00.41.35.40|062.jpg|15.59.41.60|stain on rug
00.41.46.44|063.jpg|16.00.22.40|stain on rug
00.42.10.12| | |Meredith’s room
00.42.16.16| | |stain on rug
00.43.33.56|064.jpg|16:01:39.70|blue jacket
00.43.38.76|065.jpg|16:01:45.00|Meredith’s room
00.44.55.36|066.jpg|16.03.01.50|Getting mop
00.44.58.68|067.jpg|16.03.04.90|Mop
00.45.08.80| | |
00.45.19.48| | |
00.45.48.20|068.jpg|16.03.54.40|Mop
00.45.53.28| | |
00.45.59.48| | |
00.46.01.80|069.jpg|16:04:08.00|
00.46.09.60| | |
00.46.15.24| | |
00.46.17.28| | |
00.47.22.08| | |
00.47.27.68| | |
00.47.33.24| | |closeup in broom closet
00.47.37.72|070.jpg|16:05:43.90|
00.47.50.12|071.jpg|16:05:56.30|
00.48.07.56| | |bookshelf in hall
00.48.47.20| | |mop facing Meredith’s room
00.49.11.20|072.jpg|16.07.17.40|Official pink bathroom photo
00.49.20.72|073.jpg|16.07.26.80|Shelf in small bathroom
00.49.29.60|075.jpg|16.07.35.70|Sink in small bathroom
00.49.41.12|076.jpg|16.07.47.30|Toilet in small bathroom
00.49.51.56|077.jpg|16.07.58.20|Shower in small bathroom
00.49.58.80|078.jpg|16.08.05.00|Base of shower in small bath
00.50.03.80| | |shelf in small bath
00.50.11.52|079.jpg|16.08.17.60|bag by sink in small bath
00.50.45.80| | |
00.50.58.00|080.jpg|16:09:04.10|
00.51.04.88|081.jpg|16:09:11.10|
00.54.12.60| | |Blue jacket
00.54.18.12|082.jpg|16.12.24.30|Blue Jacket in Meredith’s room
00.54.26.16|083.jpg|16:12:32.40|in Meredith’s room
00.54.35.32|084.jpg|16.12.41.40|Blue Jacket in Meredith’s room
00.55.06 | | |——cut—— 3:25.54
01.02.15.80| | |Stain under head of bed
01.02.34.68|085.jpg|16:24:07.30|Stain under head of bed
01.02.57.04| | |Stain under head of bed
01.03.29.96|086.jpg|16.25.02.50|Stain under head of bed
|087.jpg|16:27:43.60|fridge outside
01.07.58 | | |——cut——
|088.jpg|16:38:32.40|freezer contents
|089.jpg|16:38:54.00|fridge contents
|090.jpg|16:41:32.30|fridge door contents
|091.jpg|16:41:50.60|fridge contents
|092.jpg|16:42:04.60|fridge contents
|093.jpg|16:42:14.20|fridge contents
|094.jpg|16:46:46.90|Meredith’s wardrobe
|095.jpg|16:48:29.80|Meredith’s wardrobe
01.22.02.88| | |——pause——
01.23.27.28|096.jpg|16:52:51.70|Blood in front of Meredith’s wardrobe
01.24.20.48|097.jpg|16.53.45.90|from atop of chair
01.24.43.08|098.jpg|16.54.07.50|from atop of chair
01.26.17.00|099.jpg|16.55.41.50|front of wardrobe
01:26:33 | | |——cut——
01:37:03.48| | |Meredith’s room from door <by blue flashlight man>
01:37:26 | | |——cut——
01:38:30 | | |<no flash>Floor in front of wardrobe <stand camera>
01:58:22.68| | |——end of video part 2——
|103.jpg|17:46:17.60|Video camera still in use

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks. I have kept that. Lots of useful references in there. This is cutting edge stuff isn't it? The paper mentions the 4th amendment:


At some point an officer of the government has to show up and arrest the individual. I guess this is where the rebuttable presumption of probable cause could kick in - if that's all there is it should not be insurmountable to rebut the presumption, assuming limitless funds of course.

Yes, right, the 4th and 5th amendments are the keys here.

Curiously, it doesn't seem that cutting edge to me. I think it's obvious that the government can't enter into a treaty that takes away someone's Constitutional rights. It's ultra vires. But I'm just some guy on the internet.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, right, the 4th and 5th amendments are the keys here.

Curiously, it doesn't seem that cutting edge to me. I think it's obvious that the government can't enter into a treaty that takes away someone's Constitutional rights. It's ultra vires. But I'm just some guy on the internet.

Well, it sure looks cutting edge. According to the paper, there has been a long standing line of authority, still not definitively overruled, that extradition subjects should be denied bail without reference to their 4th amendment rights. The 9th circuit has been developing some jurisprudence tending the other way but that's only as regards bail, so far. So both views remain arguable from which it follows that the analysis is not obvious to everybody.

 

[Dan O.]

After a lunch in Venice their car (actually her girlfriend's father's car) was seen at about 15:00 going north towards Austria. Later he said that they did leave Italy.
It seems that it was before the verdict. The announcement was delayed for 5 hours and they spent all this time in Austria. Then they came back.
Was it a night visit of a skiing resort?

So, you are saying that Italy is a police state that tracks the movement of every vehicle.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Andrea Vogt, conspiracy theorist

Andrea Vogt wrote, "Frankly, it makes a mockery of the Italian magistrates who professionally managed this appeal, and who regularly risk their lives prosecuting the mafia in that very same courtroom. Has American arrogance ever been so bold? Have the western media ever been so complicit in such an orchestrated public relations sham?"

Ms. Vogt also wrote, "The question everyone is now asking is: what next? Will Knox ever serve the rest of her sentence?" This shows her true colors IMO. What about Raffaele? What about Rudy, who received no more than sixteen years for murder and sexual assault? They get mentioned about halfway through the article, but there is no outrage over Rudy's sentence.

 

[toto]

I cannot believe they really want her back. The closer they get to actually putting her in jeopardy, the more the media and the public will start to look at the facts of the case instead of the wild claims being spouted in court.

They will get a dose of that scrutiny if they even try to extradite her. Nencini ignored C&V's report and the problems with the DNA evidence during his proceeding, but it won't be ignored if and when she has to fight an extradition request. Nor will the craziness of the witness testimony be ignored. If a US district judge decides to review the quality of the police investigation, and whether the Italian courts weighed the evidence rationally, no amount of blather and intimidation will keep it from happening. Do they want that?

I would hope for Amanda's sake they do not push for extradition, but I am convinced that they will. In a way I think it would be reprehensible if they didn't follow through very hard. If they wholly believe she is guilty and that that the courts behaved responsibly and delivered a fair verdict then it would be shameful not to try and get justice properly served. (I would then hope that a lot of light would then be thrown on the matter and as many people as possible would get a balanced view on the whole tragedy). If the Italian Prosecution service did not try their very best to get her out it would highlight Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence and the shoddy prosecution.

 

[tsig]

I think a storm of enormous proportions will begin as a result of this insane verdict. Italy may have won the battle, but just ask Japan who won the war. Buckle your seatbelts Italy, you may have awakened the sleeping giant.

The guilty verdict was on page A14 of my local paper so it must be a storm in a teacup.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, it sure looks cutting edge. According to the paper, there has been a long standing line of authority, still not definitively overruled, that extradition subjects should be denied bail without reference to their 4th amendment rights. The 9th circuit has been developing some jurisprudence tending the other way but that's only as regards bail, so far. So both views remain arguable from which it follows that the analysis is not obvious to everybody.

I can't be held responsible for other people's obtuseness. See also Reid v. Covert (treaty cannot trump Bill of Rights).

 

[toto]

Did the Court examine the endless stomach arguments promulgated in prolific rambling diatribes here ??

Did the Court ever get a timeline that FOA fanatics incessantly whined about wanting from any poster who had dared dish up doubts about "the Angel's" innocence.

Did the Court overlook the absolute credibility of each of the many varied (and endlessly varying) explanations that Knox and Raffie proffered for their innocence ??

Did the Court pay any heed to the pricey public relations avalanche paid for by FOA ?

As I glance over recent posts here today, the significant silence from all the previously most verbose FOA fanatics seems to say all that needs to be said.

Finally, too bad Raffie's 'hiking trip' to the border of a Country he hope to escape to was interrupted by Police.
And his hope to have a quickie green card marriage was also foiled.
Those efforts also speak volumes, don't they?

We have to wait for the motivations report don't we? As long as you are happy to acknowledge that sometimes in all countries miscarriage of justice occurs, I will leave it there.

 

[Diocletus]

Andrea Vogt wrote, "Frankly, it makes a mockery of the Italian magistrates who professionally managed this appeal, and who regularly risk their lives prosecuting the mafia in that very same courtroom. Has American arrogance ever been so bold? Have the western media ever been so complicit in such an orchestrated public relations sham?"

LOL. Was she stomping her heals when she wrote that, and steam was shooting out of her ears. She has turned into a charicture.

 

[snook1]

Apparently they caught him last night trying to escape to Austria. That sounds like something a guilty person would do.

This is hopeless.

 

[Bill Williams]

Note to newbies:

Welcome to the way factoids are used to sustain wrongful convictions. Believe it or not, one of the prosecutors at trial, proposed some piece of evidence against AK and RS, and held up a copy of the Daily Mail tabloid as proof. In court. As evidence.

Please, then, remember your very first factoid as you delve into this. "Raffaele tried to flee to Austria." Don't let the fact that he went there.... and returned. ... get in the way of a good story.

My newbie initiation was in Oct 2011 when Knox dressed as a Seattle Sounder soccer player for her first Halloween of freedom. Sure enough paparazzi stalked her on that one.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sure enough, purveyors of factoids accused her of iinsensitivity to the victim. Why? Well her fave soccer player in Seattle was a Frenchman with a curly mustache.....

But wait.

Purveyors of factoids said she was insensitive for dressing as a *cat burglar*......

..... on the anniversary of her friend's horrible death.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story. One of them was, it was not the anniversary!

Innocent enough mistake for guilters, I guess. But.... if I had a nickel for every time this "AK as a cat burglar" factoid was pulled out as proof of guilt.

So it goes. As newbies you can now track for yourselves how many times this flight-to-Austria factoid is used as proof of guilt.

You see the crime itself was horribly simple. Rudy did it.

For some reason that injustice towards a loved daughter and sister is not lurid enough for some.

Keep track of the factoids. See how they wormed there way into a wrongful conviction.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hardly, annul means to make null. You can say that it doesn't mean what it means. But in effect your courts said that the romantic relationship was a "mitigating factor". As if an 11 year old can give an informed consent.

You can try and act like that this ruling wasn't shameful and moronic but the rest of the civilized world knows that it was.

Yes. And you prove your grasp of logical points.
Annull means to make null, and reversal means to make reverse.

That is two completely different things.
In mathematics, logic and common sense.

If it's say, a building, the 'reverse' of projecting or making a building would be digging a pit, maybe having the building's volume or that of its materials.
While, annulling a building would be, knock it to the ground to make a new project, of another building with some different specifications.

You try to deny what every person accustomed with this law just knows. You seem to be unaware about what the SC actually does when annulls verdicts, because you ignore the annulment of a verdict normally is restricted on only some specific reasons of recourse, the SC instructs the appeal court about how only some aspect of the design of the building must be changed, and the following appeal will deal only with re-designing that limited specification.

The SC annullment of Hellmann-Zanetti was rather exceptional because that sentence was annulled on 16 reasons, it was destroyed completely, the very basics of the building settings were rejected not just some specific aspects, and the SC attacked the pervading qualities of the whole thing.

But the paedophilia annullment is a normal ruling. Most reasons of defence recourse were rejected. Only the mitigation factor was ackwnowledged to be a valid defence argument.

So the man will be re-tried on a new appeal, the appeal will be a very short mini-trial focused only on this limited point, the defendant's entitlement to mitigating factors. As by the law.
The law says the romantic relation was a mitigating factor, not the Court.
The Court says judges cannot cancel a mitigating factor that is provided in favor of the defendant by the law and by jurisprudence just because they don't like it, on illogical and unlawful grounds.

 

[Sonia]

Andrew Gumbel in The Guardian

"Knox and Sollecito case delivers harsh verdict on Italian justice"

"Meredith Kercher murder trial has shown Italian justice system to be more concerned in saving face than looking at the evidence"

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sollecito-case-harsh-verdict-italian-justice

"The Italian justice system has pulled off an astonishing and unenviable feat: finding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of murder – for the second time – without a shred of evidence to substantiate the verdict."

 

[Matthew Best]

The law says the romantic relation was a mitigating factor

There's really nothing more that needs to be said about how much respect should be granted to Italian law after that.

 

[Diocletus]

So the man will be re-tried on a new appeal, the appeal will be a very short mini-trial focused only on this limited point, the defendant's entitlement to mitigating factors. As by the law.

Laugh my ass off. They're going to have a trial on the issue
of whether the pedophile-rapist's professed love was a "true love"? I've gotta see this.

 

[toto]

Pilot, I don't engage this in discussion much, but one thing about the case really puzzles me and I'm hoping you can clear up. If Knox and Sollecito "horrendously murdered Meredith Kercher" why was none of their DNA found in Kercher's room, yet a lot of Guede's was?

I think we need to wait for the motivations report which should clear this point up for us. (Maybe).