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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trolling has always been an issue in this case.... witness the three hate sites:

Survey: Online trolls are 'everyday sadists'

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/tech/web/online-trolls-sadists/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

An online survey by a group of Canadian researchers suggests that Internet trolls are more likely than others to show signs of sadism, psychopathy and "Machiavellianism": a disregard for morality and tendency to manipulate or exploit others.

"It was sadism, however, that had the most robust associations with trolling of any of the personality measures," says an article by psychologists from the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia. "In fact, the associations between sadism and ... scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists."

Sadism is a tendency to take pleasure in other people's pain or discomfort.
Click to expand...
 
Desert Fox said:
While I think that is possible, even if its true, no court likes suggesting planting evidence. Far better to take the neutral road and suggest that it was accidental. Gives a chance to save a little face as well.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually suggest this in court unless I had concrete evidence. There is enough evidence of the possibility of innocent contamination.

Never the less, everything these cops did seem suspicious as hell and the bra clasp seems the most suspicious.
 
ITALY, I'll make a deal with you...

-

acbytesla said:
Don't you think that is a little harsh? I know he is doing less than 8 years for murder...but still.. :eek:
Click to expand...
-

Do they have medical? I could sure use it right now? I'll even do Amanda and Raffaele's time, doesn't look like you need to be guilty of the crime to do the time anyway.

Leave them alone and take me instead. How about it Italy?

d

-
 
Strozzi said:
Then you get a refund of the $10 you paid for legal insurance. :p
Click to expand...

I have a different plan: if you get called to the police station more than once, or at night . . . RUN AWAY! You can mail your wallet card to them.
 
An 80 year old quote from the Andrew Gumbel article nicely sums up Italian justice:


"It may be that half of the sentences handed down are unjust […] and therefore half of those in prison are innocent; but by the same reasoning half of those acquitted and set free are in fact guilty and should be in prison. Instead of worrying about individual cases, it's important to look at the bigger picture and understand that every error is compensated by another in the opposite direction. So the scales of justice are in balance and we judges can sleep easy at night."

- Piero Calamandrei "In Praise of Judges"

http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/tr...htmare-italian-justice/#.UvpNvbs45zR.facebook
 
AmyStrange said:
-

Do they have medical? I could sure use it right now? I'll even do Amanda and Raffaele's time, doesn't look like you need to be guilty of the crime to do the time anyway.

Leave them alone and take me instead. How about it Italy?

d

-
Click to expand...

Having spent 4 days in jail twenty years ago, which still are the worst 4 days of my life. I don't think you know what you are getting yourself into.
 
RandyN said:
The size is just one problem. The fact that the knife was tested for blood and human matter and found to be negative for both is telling IMHO. That starch was found on the blade plus Knox DNA on the handle indicates that it was not cleaned well. That the DNA lab tech said she found a sample on the blade which she noted as too small but then illogically tests it anyway in a one off UN-certified and incorrect and impossible test and claims to have found a "trace" she calls as belonging to MK is suspiciously corrupt and scientifically invalid and yet no one has filed charges against this "scientist" or even disciplined her AFAIK. Likely because doing correct scientific procedures in Italy is not something the Italian courts require apparently.
Click to expand...


Ok. I feel this needs to be explained a bit more. Because I don't quite get what that means... and I feel many others, especially those that believe in AK's and RS's guilt.

Let me try to explain myself with an example. There was a guy, a drug dealer from back home, that was busted with 10's of thousands of dollars in ecstasy pills. But the police only found the pills after he was in an accident... and for some reason (I can't remember) the looked in his trunk and found the pills. Anyway, the judge threw the case out because of the illegal search... they didn't follow protocol... without being able to present this as evidence... they had no case..... but everyone with a brain can figure out he was still a drug dealer.

Now I think this is how some people view the DNA on the knife..... yeah, maybe it was a small sample... yeah maybe it didn't follow protocol.... but to the lay observer... it still sounds like a tiny bit of Meridith was on that knife.... and if it was... how the hell did it get there? Sometimes when I'm arguing against the DNA evidence...... I'm almost saying... "there is no proof he was a drug dealer... the judge threw that evidence out".


I know I have that wrong.... but I don't really know why I'm wrong. I'd like to have this area more clear in my head.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
There's a YouTube video making the rounds of a fellow, being a talking =-head, posing with all the books at his side.

He makes the argument for "Amanda's guilt".

First and foremost, he leads with "mixed blood." He misstates that the police found 5 instances of Knox's blood mixed with Meredith's in five places in the cottage, all the while correctly conceding that no forensics of Knox's was found in the murder room.

Judge Massei himself put this factoid in its place, saying that it was Knox's "Biological material" found mixed with Meredith's blood, That is a very different thing. It leads one to wonder - why is it even forensicly interesting that Knox's "biological material" is in her own home, particularly in the bathroom she shared with the murdered woman?

Further to this is the point Gumbel raises above about the Nencini trial. What did Nencini find which was new, so as to overturn the Hellmann acquitals? Did Nencini simply go back to Massei's reasoning?

How does one spell "w-r-o-n-g-f-u-l c-o-n-v-i-c-t-i-o-n"?

Rudy will soon be running the streets, a YouTube video of some nutcase is spreading lies, and Italy bases its judgements on whether a prosecutors' assertions are "logical", not if they are based on evidence.
Click to expand...

If he is going to argue that she is guilty, the most he could do is get the facts straight. I was on another board where another poster, first, stated that Massei's opinion was "fact" and then continued to state that the findings of mixed DNA was "mixed blood" several times even after they were told that they were confusing the two.
 
Last edited:
Caper said:
Ok. I feel this needs to be explained a bit more. Because I don't quite get what that means... and I feel many others, especially those that believe in AK's and RS's guilt.

Let me try to explain myself with an example. There was a guy, a drug dealer from back home, that was busted with 10's of thousands of ecstasy pills. But the police only found the pills after he was in an accident... and for some reason (I can't remember) the looked in his trunk and found the pills. Anyway, the judge threw the case out because of the illegal search... they didn't follow protocol... without being able to present this as evidence... they had no case..... but everyone with a brain can figure out he was still a drug dealer.

Now I think this is how some people view the DNA on the knife..... yeah, maybe it was a small sample... yeah maybe it didn't follow protocol.... but to the lay observer... it still sounds like a tiny bit of Meridith was on that knife.... and if it was... how the hell did it get there?


I'd like to have this area more clear in my head.
Click to expand...

There are people here who can give you very detailed & expert explanations, (and have done so repeatedly) but I like the simple one, which goes like this:

That knife tested negative for blood, negative for human cells. The test that the prosecution claims was positive for Meredith's DNA could not be repeated (because it used up 100% of the sample) and was not done according to standard protocols (because it ignored very specific procedures required for extremely tiny samples).

What's the logical conclusion? Worst case for the prosecution: that there never was any of Meredith's DNA on that knife. The machine probably picked up a stray trace from the examiner, the testing room, or its own parts. Best case for the prosecution: there is very reasonable doubt as to the validity of the test, which means that nothing whatsoever connects Amanda Knox to the crime.
 
kcoh said:
If he is going to argue that she is guilty, the most he could do is get the facts straight. I was on another board where another poster, first, stated that Massei's opinion was "fact" and then continued to state that the findings of mixed DNA was "mixed blood" several times even after they were told that were confusing the two.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a few days ago I read an opinion piece written by a pro-innocent commentator who got major facts wrong. He did a disservice. Some people from both sides get it very wrong. What may differentiate them, besides from their view of guilt or innocence, is that some are deliberately pushing information that has been discredited and they know is wrong but they still deliberately do it to gain a sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others.

I think some of the police must realize that they colleagues erred terribly, especially once Hellman's verdict showed it. But they are not the ones driving the prosecution's case.

I want to salute Grinder for his never-ceasing pursuit of accuracy. He has added discipline to the statements presented here.
 
Last edited:
kwill said:
There are people here who can give you very detailed & expert explanations, (and have done so repeatedly) but I like the simple one, which goes like this:

That knife tested negative for blood, negative for human cells. The test that the prosecution claims was positive for Meredith's DNA could not be repeated (because it used up 100% of the sample) and was not done according to standard protocols (because it ignored very specific procedures required for extremely tiny samples).

What's the logical conclusion? Worst case for the prosecution: that there never was any of Meredith's DNA on that knife. The machine probably picked up a stray trace from the examiner, the testing room, or its own parts. Best case for the prosecution: there is very reasonable doubt as to the validity of the test, which means that nothing whatsoever connects Amanda Knox to the crime.
Click to expand...

I wish I had the time to prepare an essay arguing that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty. I would, first, debunk the improbable conclusions made by the prosecution in the Massei report. I would then discuss the time of death and how it is not possible, barring an extreme pathology, for Meredith to have died even after 9:30 p.m. I would then discuss the knife, bra clasp, and footprints (that were never a match for Knox and Sollecito in the first place and were more blobs than they were "footprints"). I would bring it home by pointing out the incompetency of the prosecution and how the false witness statement is not "proof" of guilt.

When finished with it, I would post it on every single message board where there are people who argue that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, I wish I had the time. I would even begin by making an outline so that I would not miss a step.
 
Last edited:
kwill said:
There are people here who can give you very detailed & expert explanations, (and have done so repeatedly) but I like the simple one, which goes like this:

That knife tested negative for blood, negative for human cells. The test that the prosecution claims was positive for Meredith's DNA could not be repeated (because it used up 100% of the sample) and was not done according to standard protocols (because it ignored very specific procedures required for extremely tiny samples).

What's the logical conclusion? Worst case for the prosecution: that there never was any of Meredith's DNA on that knife. The machine probably picked up a stray trace from the examiner, the testing room, or its own parts. Best case for the prosecution: there is very reasonable doubt as to the validity of the test, which means that nothing whatsoever connects Amanda Knox to the crime.
Click to expand...

One aspect of Stefanoni's test can be repeated. That is verification that there is a scratch on the side of the blade where she claims to have found the DNA that tested positive as Kercher's DNA. Her claim is that it must have survived any washing as it was sheltered in the scratch grove. Put the blade under a very high-powered microscope and look for the scratch where she claims it sheltered the DNA. If a high-powered microscope can't see the scratch, then it isn't there and is proof positive that she is a liar and fabricator of evidence.
 
Caper said:
Ok. I feel this needs to be explained a bit more. Because I don't quite get what that means... and I feel many others, especially those that believe in AK's and RS's guilt.

Let me try to explain myself with an example. There was a guy, a drug dealer from back home, that was busted with 10's of thousands of dollars in ecstasy pills. But the police only found the pills after he was in an accident... and for some reason (I can't remember) the looked in his trunk and found the pills. Anyway, the judge threw the case out because of the illegal search... they didn't follow protocol... without being able to present this as evidence... they had no case..... but everyone with a brain can figure out he was still a drug dealer.

Now I think this is how some people view the DNA on the knife..... yeah, maybe it was a small sample... yeah maybe it didn't follow protocol.... but to the lay observer... it still sounds like a tiny bit of Meridith was on that knife.... and if it was... how the hell did it get there? Sometimes when I'm arguing against the DNA evidence...... I'm almost saying... "there is no proof he was a drug dealer... the judge threw that evidence out".


I know I have that wrong.... but I don't really know why I'm wrong. I'd like to have this area more clear in my head.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are wrong. In fact, I think you nailed it. But today, they would probably be able to search the trunk. The question is...did they have "probable cause" to conduct a search.

And it matters not if they found a dead body in the trunk if they didn't have probable cause to search the trunk. The US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.

So to protect that right, there must be a reason or probable cause to conduct a search. Anything found from a search that didn't have probable cause to conduct such a search is considered the "fruit of the poisonous tree". And therefor inedible or not useful in a trial.

I also think your logic about what people tend to think about evidence being inadmissible also is right on. That is exactly what many people think.

But that really isn't why some of the evidence in this case has been or should be thrown out.

Much of the evidence in this case should be inadmissible, not becasue something like PC, but because it is NOT credible. Either because potential contamination has polluted the DNA or statements made from duress or coercion.
 
kwill said:
There are people here who can give you very detailed & expert explanations, (and have done so repeatedly) but I like the simple one, which goes like this:

That knife tested negative for blood, negative for human cells. The test that the prosecution claims was positive for Meredith's DNA could not be repeated (because it used up 100% of the sample) and was not done according to standard protocols (because it ignored very specific procedures required for extremely tiny samples).

What's the logical conclusion? Worst case for the prosecution: that there never was any of Meredith's DNA on that knife. The machine probably picked up a stray trace from the examiner, the testing room, or its own parts. Best case for the prosecution: there is very reasonable doubt as to the validity of the test, which means that nothing whatsoever connects Amanda Knox to the crime.
Click to expand...

And in Caper's example there is not the slightest doubt that drugs were in the trunk. Policy reasons governing fairness and admissibility precluded the evidence being given to the court. With the knife DNA it's not just a question of legal technicalities (it is partly that, but still important ones) but scientific validity. I refer to my post fifty pages ago in which I announced I had calculated pi to a 100 places (the odds against my doing that by chance are astronomically higher than a random DNA match). Why can't I point to the result itself as proof of the validity of my method? The answer to that is the answer to why Stef's work is not acceptable.
 
kcoh said:
I wish I had the time to prepare an essay arguing that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty. I would, first, debunk the improbable conclusions made by the prosecution in the Massei report. I would then discuss the time of death and how it is not possible, barring an extreme pathology, for Meredith to have died even after 9:30 p.m. I would then discuss the knife, bra clasp, and footprints (that were never a match for Knox and Sollecito in the first place and were more blobs than they were "footprints"). I would bring it home by pointing out the incompetency of the prosecution and how the false witness statement is not "proof" of guilt.

When finished with it, I would post it on every single message board where there are people who argue that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, I wish I had the time. I would even begin by making an outline so that I would not miss a step.
Click to expand...


The defense should have done this with a powerpoint and given it in electonic and paper form to the Nencini judges. And then shown it in a re-running loop projected against the side of a large building in the town square across the street from Nencini's courthouse.
 
acbytesla said:
And it matters not if they found a dead body in the trunk if they didn't have probable cause to search the trunk. The US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

Just to get slightly off topic. I don't think that would ever play out that way. If the police found 3 missing kids in the trunk, instead of ecstasy pills.... he never would have got off... In theory in might seem that way... but I can't see that playing out in reality. I judge that made that decision would find himself hung from a tree.
 
Strozzi said:
Yes, but a few days ago I read an opinion piece written by a pro-innocent commentator who got major facts wrong. He did a disservice. Some people from both sides get it very wrong. What may differentiate them, besides from their view of guilt or innocence, is that some are deliberately pushing information that has been discredited and they know is wrong but they still deliberately do it to gain a sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others.

I think some of the police must realize that they colleagues erred terribly, especially once Hellman's verdict showed it. But they are not the ones driving the prosecution's case.

I want to salute Grinder for his never-ceasing pursuit of accuracy. He has added discipline to the statements presented here.
Click to expand...

RoseMontague said:
Jeepers. Another new poster I missed. Welcome to the forum, Grinder!
Click to expand...

Thanks Strozzi. Rose what can I say? Wow. Just. Wow. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom