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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
Raymond Chandler was of course educated in Britain (at the same school as me!).
Click to expand...

Good point. And as AC will agree, what elevates him even higher is he was a chess player, as was Philip Marlowe, who would get home after a hard day's detecting and play over a game Capablanca's. No surprise such a cultivated fellow turns out to be one of ours :D
 
Samson said:
But no not off topic, as I laboriously reverted to thread, with an eta, these kids are a microcosm of this cultural debate, this transatlantic thing is a proper use of the forum.
Click to expand...

That really is true. A Limey, a Yank and a ...hell, both slang terms I know for an Italian are probably a little too derogatory. Not that they mean anything to me. (Now, you got me wondering the roots of the term Limey? hmmmm)

Some times, I think the divides aren't really there. People are people everywhere and sometimes that crap is just a crutch. But then there is no denying that what we see and read effect our perspective and opinions .

I mean seriously. Every time I get into a discussion with Machiavelli, I see him as the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. A reference, that I doubt he could ever understand and relate to.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
The BBC 4 radio programme was 28:40 minutes in duration the first 13 to 15 minutes it presents the prosecutions’ case the remaining time is the defence case along with Pete Gill comments then a summary.

This radio programme is what I would expect from the BBC, it is impartial presents both sides of the case and leaves the listener to decide. BBC Radio 4 - Who Killed Meredith Kercher
Click to expand...



Umm no. It does examine both sides of the case, but it ends by drawing conclusions (whether you agree with those conclusions or not).

And what is the headline conclusion? It's this:

"It all seems to add up to one certainty: that the case against Knox and Sollecito isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt."


If you missed this declaration at the end of the programme, it starts at 22:37 in. Have another listen........
 
acbytesla said:
The only problem with that anglo is that you will never get any where calling anyone stupid. Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER ONE. And calling their argument stupid is Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER TWO.

I'm in favor or pointing out that NO ONE has come forward with a logical time frame that accounts for the evidence. I'm even in favor of calling Machiavelli's arguments stupid. (I'll never win him over anyway)

That said I refrain from actually posting that term. I can see how some people might say that is bullying. But this is coming from a salesman Anglo, not a lawyer. I can see how in your profession, you might get use to demolishing people.
Click to expand...

As someone who has frequently interacted with lionking in the past, I very much doubt that lionking feels bullied at all. The same is probably true of those he purports to be concerned about.
 
anglolawyer said:
Good point. And as AC will agree, what elevates him even higher is he was a chess player, as was Philip Marlowe, who would get home after a hard day's detecting and play over a game Capablanca's. No surprise such a cultivated fellow turns out to be one of ours :D
Click to expand...

He was born in the US fellas. He probably went to school over there because he couldn't make it in a US College... Nothing like a little Kings Gambit, my favorite opening.
 
acbytesla said:
He was born in the US fellas. He probably went to school over there because he couldn't make it in a US College... Nothing like a little Kings Gambit, my favorite opening.
Click to expand...
It seems you are half right, but not about the education thing:

wikipedia said:
After Chandler's family was abandoned by his father, an alcoholic civil engineer who worked for the railway, and to obtain the best possible education for Ray, his mother moved them to London, England in 1900
Click to expand...
I wonder where he got that talent for writing from … ? :D
Try playing the KG against my French and see where it gets you.
 
acbytesla said:
That really is true. A Limey, a Yank and a ...hell, both slang terms I know for an Italian are probably a little too derogatory. Not that they mean anything to me. (Now, you got me wondering the roots of the term Limey? hmmmm)

Some times, I think the divides aren't really there. People are people everywhere and sometimes that crap is just a crutch. But then there is no denying that what we see and read effect our perspective and opinions .

I mean seriously. Every time I get into a discussion with Machiavelli, I see him as the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. A reference, that I doubt he could ever understand and relate to.
Click to expand...
Is that no arms, no legs, but give me your worst or something like that. I don't like to traverse off piste, but I can say that my father laughed out loud when reading catch 22 and my mother adored WKRP in Cincinatti.
I think Meredith and Amanda were like this, loving the mild cultural difference...
 
LondonJohn said:
Umm no. It does examine both sides of the case, but it ends by drawing conclusions (whether you agree with those conclusions or not).

And what is the headline conclusion? It's this:

"It all seems to add up to one certainty: that the case against Knox and Sollecito isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt."


If you missed this declaration at the end of the programme, it starts at 22:37 in. Have another listen........
Click to expand...
I disagree with your opinion.

One can take all kinds of inferences from the presenters comments and the programmes content, for example there was criticism of the BBC 3 TV programme for not asking or involving Raffaele, Amanda and or the counsel, yet in the BBC 4 radio programme Amanda’s lawyer didn’t want to speak on or off the record.

You can focus on any time slot of the programme and state a conclusion is pro innocence or pro guilt, overall for me I believe this programme was impartial.

I am content for anyone to click on the link and listen, it is not necessary for me to tell people what their conclusions should be they can make up their own minds.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
I disagree with your opinion.

One can take all kinds of inferences from the presenters comments and the programmes content, for example there was criticism of the BBC 3 TV programme for not asking or involving Raffaele, Amanda and or the counsel, yet in the BBC 4 radio programme Amanda’s lawyer didn’t want to speak on or off the record.

You can focus on any time slot of the programme and state a conclusion is pro innocence or pro guilt, overall for me I believe this programme was impartial.

I am content for anyone to click on the link and listen, it is not necessary for me to tell people what their conclusions should be they can make up their own minds.
Click to expand...
The Socratic method. Eventually someone concludes something.
 
LondonJohn said:
Umm no. It does examine both sides of the case, but it ends by drawing conclusions (whether you agree with those conclusions or not).

And what is the headline conclusion? It's this:

"It all seems to add up to one certainty: that the case against Knox and Sollecito isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt."


If you missed this declaration at the end of the programme, it starts at 22:37 in. Have another listen........
Click to expand...

And when you think about it in context - that Knox and Sollecito have just been convicted - that is actually a big statement, because what they're saying is that the court got it wrong.

The first 15 or so minutes of the program were infuriating, of course, but at the same time it was noticeable that the people supporting the pro-guilt case were the very people you would expect to be supporting that case: the prosecution, Maresca and Guede's lawyer. In contrast, the person who supported the defence case most strongly was an independent and world-renowned DNA expert, someone who had nothing to do with the defence. That difference is pretty telling.

The bit with Ghirga was rather odd, it seemed as if they were trying to excuse the fact they didn't speak to any defence lawyers. I wonder how many they actually contacted, or if it was only Ghirga - I'd be surprised if all four of them refused to give an interview...
 
Strozzi said:
Originally Posted by acbytesla
. . . We celebrate the 4th of July over here. I've heard it's not celebrated over there. I mean, what's up with that? (end of post)

The British Embassy in Washington celebrates U.S. Independence Day. Every year on the 4th of July the British Embassy hangs a humorous sign on their front door saying "Closed due to circumstances beyond our control".
Click to expand...

I like that. Very funny.

John Oliver, the British comic on American TV says that in Britain that they refer to the 4th of July as the Day of Strategic Retreat.
 
anglolawyer said:
It seems you are half right, but not about the education thing:

Originally Posted by wikipedia
After Chandler's family was abandoned by his father, an alcoholic civil engineer who worked for the railway, and to obtain the best possible education for Ray, his mother moved them to London, England in 1900
I wonder where he got that talent for writing from … ?
Try playing the KG against my French and see where it gets you.
Click to expand...

Who's ever heard of anyone moving from the US to London in 1900?

The boats must have been coming over full, and going back empty. Well, except for the Chandlers.
 
anglolawyer said:
It seems you are half right, but not about the education thing:

I wonder where he got that talent for writing from … ? :D

Do you really think he got it from school? That's like saying that Mark Twain learn to write from his English teacher....NOT. :D


Try playing the KG against my French and see where it gets you.
Click to expand...

???? How the hell can I offer you my F4 pawn if you play E-6 instead of E-5?
 
katy_did said:
And when you think about it in context - that Knox and Sollecito have just been convicted - that is actually a big statement, because what they're saying is that the court got it wrong.
Click to expand...


This goes back to an issue that I have seen recently. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," then the whole concept of acquitting someone and declaring them actually innocent, and then have a second trial and convicting them (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt) is absurd.

In fact, one of the benefits of a true double jeopardy rule is that it protects the system from such embarrassment--there is no possibility of a conviction after a jury has already acquitted.
 
Selected publications of Peter Gill

CoulsdonUK said:
The BBC 4 radio programme was 28:40 minutes in duration the first 13 to 15 minutes it presents the prosecutions’ case the remaining time is the defence case along with Pete Gill comments then a summary.

This radio programme is what I would expect from the BBC, it is impartial presents both sides of the case and leaves the listener to decide.

BBC Radio 4 - Who Killed Meredith Kercher
Click to expand...
The early part of the programme leaves some misimpressions with respect to the window. Sgt. Pasquali's demonstration of how the rock was thrown remains definitive IMO. However, Peter Gill's comments are very helpful. Here are a few recent papers on which he is a coauthor:

Database extraction strategies for low-template evidence.
Bleka O, Dørum G, Haned H, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.11.006. Epub 2013 Dec 11.
PMID: 24528591 [PubMed - in process]

Exact computation of the distribution of likelihood ratios with forensic applications.
Dørum G, Bleka O, Gill P, Haned H, Snipen L, Sæbø S, Egeland T.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.11.008. Epub 2013 Dec 9.
PMID: 24528587 [PubMed - in process]

Euroforgen-NoE collaborative exercise on LRmix to demonstrate standardization of the interpretation of complex DNA profiles.
Prieto L, Haned H, Mosquera A, Crespillo M, Alemañ M, Aler M, Alvarez F, Baeza-Richer C, Dominguez A, Doutremepuich C, Farfán MJ, Fenger-Grøn M, García-Ganivet JM, González-Moya E, Hombreiro L, Lareu MV, Martínez-Jarreta B, Merigioli S, Milans Del Bosch P, Morling N, Muñoz-Nieto M, Ortega-González E, Pedrosa S, Pérez R, Solís C, Yurrebaso I, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.10.011. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
PMID: 24528579 [PubMed - in process]

A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios.
Gill P, Haned H.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Feb;7(2):251-63. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.002. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
PMID: 23245914 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Exploratory data analysis for the interpretation of low template DNA mixtures.
Haned H, Slooten K, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):762-74. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.08.008. Epub 2012 Sep 13.
PMID: 22981542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods.
Gill P, Gusmão L, Haned H, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parson W, Prieto L, Prinz M, Schneider H, Schneider PM, Weir BS.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):679-88. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.06.002. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
PMID: 22864188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

High-throughput analysis using AmpFlSTR® Identifiler® with the Applied Biosystems 3500xl Genetic Analyser.
Kirkham A, Haley J, Haile Y, Grout A, Kimpton C, Al-Marzouqi A, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Jan;7(1):92-7. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.07.003. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
PMID: 22835329 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI): Evaluation of new commercial STR multiplexes that include the European Standard Set (ESS) of markers.
Welch LA, Gill P, Phillips C, Ansell R, Morling N, Parson W, Palo JU, Bastisch I.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):819-26. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 May 31.
PMID: 22658771 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

An evaluation of potential allelic association between the STRs vWA and D12S391: implications in criminal casework and applications to short pedigrees.
Gill P, Phillips C, McGovern C, Bright JA, Buckleton J.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Jul;6(4):477-86. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.11.001. Epub 2011 Dec 8.
PMID: 22153980 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
This goes back to an issue that I have seen recently. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," then the whole concept of acquitting someone and declaring them actually innocent, and then have a second trial and convicting them (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt) is absurd.

In fact, one of the benefits of a true double jeopardy rule is that it protects the system from such embarrassment--there is no possibility of a conviction after a jury has already acquitted.
Click to expand...

What about finality? Also, what about the prosecution not getting two cracks at it? And what about money? Are the defendants and their families supposed to go bankrupt defending themselves endlessly?
 
anglolawyer said:
What about finality? Also, what about the prosecution not getting two cracks at it? And what about money? Are the defendants and their families supposed to go bankrupt defending themselves endlessly?
Click to expand...

I was looking at a wrongful conviction case and there was a $1.5 million in chargeable fees. Was done pro-bono but don't always have that happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom