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

[proudfootz]

I am going to pretend you are being honest here. . . .

Have either read anything or watched any programs on false confessions.

Yes.

You are presented with a piece of "evidence" and you try to look for some reason why it might be.

That certainly could sometimes happen.

At the level of the evidence, it could as easily have been that a few dna strands of Meredeth stuck on Amanda.

I suppose there is some possibility of that.

You do understand that we are effectively swimming in DNA floating through the air?

Which would explain why so many random 'hits' of DNA were found everywhere they looked in this case.

Which is why no one in forensics uses LCN DNA.

 

[Desert Fox]

The most recent change in Italian law came with the introduction of a new code of criminal procedure in 1988. This not only swept away the fascist-influenced criminal procedure code of 1930, it also changed the entire approach of Italian criminal procedure law. Hitherto Italian criminal procedure has been modeled on the French Code d’instruction criminelle based on an inquisitorial system followed in most of the countries of Europe, both western and eastern. The new code, in a revolutionary stroke, adopts the adversarial approach found in the Anglo-American system.

From what I read, it seems to be a hybrid and I think because of that it likely is worse than either as it is done in most of Europe or as it is done in England.

 

[acbytesla]

"Some countries, such as Italy, use a blend of adversarial and inquisitorial elements in their court system...

...prosecutors in the inquisitorial system do not have a personal incentive to win convictions for political gain, which can motivate prosecutors in an adversarial system. Most scholars agree that the two systems generally reach the same results by different means."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inquisitorial+System

I merely mean to point out that both sides are represented by counsel.

This is silly proudfootz. The prosecutor always has an incentive to win his cases even in an inquisitorial system. The large problem with the inquisitorial system is the fiction that there is no incentive. In either system the prosecutor in fact represents the state. In theory it is his responsibility to get at the truth as opposed to "winning the case" However in practice it plays out very differently. The fact that dictionary takes a neutral position isn't surprising.

Take Mignini for example in this case. Had he no incentive to win, he would have made sure Amanda had a legal representation during her interrogations. He wouldn't have played that silly game with the second memorial that Amanda signed which says that Amanda spontaneously makes her statement. Precisely the language that Mignini thought he needed to make the interrogation legal. A situation that the Supreme Court said was unacceptable. Mignini also wouldn't have back doored the statements into the trial.

Just as in the idea of professional juries, they are supposed to be unbiased when in fact they are paid by and end up representing the state.

 

[proudfootz]

That is the scary part. Truly, would you want a case against you adjudicated by the standards of the Stefanoni lab and the Massei/Nencini courts?

Once again, I beg you to at least read the Massei report. He at least is honest enough to outline the criticisms you claim are not there, and he is honest enough to reveal his method of judgement. He believes Stefanoni, "just because."

Are you willing to risk 28 years of your life on such reasoning?

As an innocent person I'd be happy to face as fair a trial as Guede, Sollecito, and Knox received.

If I were guilty, not so much.

On what page of the Massei report does Massei use the phrase 'just because' - I didn't notice that when I read it.

 

[Bill Williams]

So... the scientists who found Knox's DNA on the knife planted that, too?

Please assuage my ignorance by telling me how many conspirators are in on this.

You are engaging in "flooding" of this thread with repetition of points with no attempt to engage in dialogue.

This is the third or fourth time you've simply repeated the conspiracy theory claim, as if wrongful convictions like this never happen.

You have also said "scientists" a number of times without ever acknowledging that only one scientist ever made the claim you mentipn - Stefanoni.

Please refrain from flooding this thread.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are engaging in "flooding" of this thread with repetition of points with no attempt to engage in dialogue.

This is the third or fourth time you've simply repeated the conspiracy theory claim, as if wrongful convictions like this never happen.

You have also said "scientists" a number of times without ever acknowledging that only one scientist ever made the claim you mentipn - Stefanoni.
Please refrain from flooding this thread.

Isn't that "Lab Tech?"
This is an important distinction here

 

[Planigale]

The most recent change in Italian law came with the introduction of a new code of criminal procedure in 1988. This not only swept away the fascist-influenced criminal procedure code of 1930, it also changed the entire approach of Italian criminal procedure law. Hitherto Italian criminal procedure has been modeled on the French Code d’instruction criminelle based on an inquisitorial system followed in most of the countries of Europe, both western and eastern. The new code, in a revolutionary stroke, adopts the adversarial approach found in the Anglo-American system.

Strangely this was a point I made in my first post on this thread. Although there was a move towards the adversarial system, there appears to have been a conservative component of the judiciary who were reluctant to move from the inquisitorial mode. Hellman I think represented the adversarial faction. He took the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case. The other courts adopted a more inquisitorial mode, they provided their own explanation for events that was not identical to that provided by the prosecution. The supreme court review of Hellman was I think also a rejection of the adversarial approach adopted by Hellman.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't read a lot of Creationist literature, either.

You cannot liken Conti-Vechiotti to creationist literature. The only thing they have in common is that you have read neither. C-V is full of facts. Nobody is disputing these facts. The facts include some striking things. The blade sample was not blood and was not human. It's cell type was not examined. It tested negative for quantification. In all these respects it was identical to a sample taken from the reverse side of the blade, a sample Stefanoni threw away. Stefanoni lied about quantification, failed to disclose these negative tests and still withholds electronic machine records relating to her work. If you haven't read the report you won't know this. So your opinion, evidently strongly-held, is based on ignorance. Telling us a judge has dismissed C-V does not cut it at this forum. It may not matter much what we say here but you are here discussing the case and so it must matter a little bit.

There may be a lot of heat, but what I'm looking for is a little light.

Stick around and you will get it. If you aren't willing to learn, you won't last long. Parroting arguments from authority will not wash. I hope you stay and show some humility and honesty. You would be the first.

 

[Mary_H]

proudfootz wrote: "They did have business looking for one of the murder weapons at the apartment of the suspect."

Of course they did.

And the reason they went for the knife in Raff's kitchen is beacause Knox blurted, out of the blue, in her note to the police,

"After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish."

(you know, the note where she couldn't clearly remember anything, except for this one curious fact)

Damn right they're going to go looking for a knife in Raffy's kitchen.

Amanda wrote about the fish blood after the police had already taken the knife from Raffaele's kitchen.

Again, from Claudia Matteini, on November 9th:

But when Miss Kercher refused to take part in having sex, Sollecito pulled out the 8.5cm flick knife he carried with him. They allegedly put a knife to her throat and forced her into having sex against her will, according to the report.

"She was then menaced with a knife, a knife which Sollecito usually had with him, and with which Meredith was struck in the throat," wrote the judge.

In addition, his three-inch flick knife, which he said he carried with him everywhere "as a habit since he was 13-years-old" has been taken in by police for forensic analysis.

This objective fact cannot but represent a grave indication of guilt on the part of Sollecito Raffaele which is deepened further if combined with the removal from his person of a flick knife with an 8.5cm blade, defined by the pathologist as compatible with the possible murder weapon.

Again, WHY were police looking for a knife in Raffaele's kitchen?

 

[proudfootz]

You are engaging in "flooding" of this thread with repetition of points with no attempt to engage in dialogue.

This is the third or fourth time you've simply repeated the conspiracy theory claim, as if wrongful convictions like this never happen.

You have also said "scientists" a number of times without ever acknowledging that only one scientist ever made the claim you mentipn - Stefanoni.

Please refrain from flooding this thread.

So, what's your solution? I shouldn't respond when multiple persons flood the thread with questions directed at me? Then I will be accused of 'not answering questions'. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Reading the thread I notice it is flooded with people making assertions about this being a case of conspiracy against Sollecito and Knox.

I have not claimed wrongful convictions don't happen.

It was Stephanoni who examined the evidence and ran the relevant tests. She has been supported by other forensic experts.

 

[Desert Fox]

It was Stephanoni who examined the evidence and ran the relevant tests. She has been supported by other forensic experts.

What others?

 

[yimyammer]

Has anyone heard the claim that Amanda destroyed pages in her diary that represented the days preceding the murder while in prison?

If so, can you provide a link to the source?

 

[Poppy1016]

Re DNA on knife... as Nadeau explains in her recent article:

"An earlier court heard testimony that a tiny smidgeon of DNA on the groove of the blade was Kercher’s, but the first appellate court agreed with witnesses who testified that the sample was too small to be considered a perfect match. The second appellate court not only considered the knife to be the murder weapon, it also ruled that Knox “plunged the knife into the left side of Kercher’s neck, causing the fatal wound.”

The Knoxians (hey, if I'm a "guilter"... can I call them Knoxians?) seem to forget that the Hellman court and C&V have been scathingly criticized as being corrupt and incompetent. Hellman's ruling was ANULLED dears.

Your "knifeboy" comments tells all that needs to be known about you.

 

[lane99]

Poor Karla

Like "Poor Rudy"?

Indeed, very much like that. Except John Douglas seems to have saved his laments for pretty blonde women. Diff'rent strokes, and all.
.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

As an innocent person I'd be happy to face as fair a trial as Guede, Sollecito, and Knox received.

If I were guilty, not so much.

On what page of the Massei report does Massei use the phrase 'just because' - I didn't notice that when I read it.

The question was, "Are you willing to risk 28 years on such reasoning?" It is telling that you base the method on the notion of guilt or innocence preceding the application of the process. This is the process by which guilt is supposed to be found, but only beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the reversal of the burden the process represents, it pretty much does not matter if you are guilty or innocent to begin with - it is now up to you to prove your innocence. Thanks for confirming this as your bias.

"Just because" is my own rendering. If you had really read Massei, you would have read run across this on page 277.......

In the first place, it must be stressed that it is not possible to discern any reason for
which Dr. Stefanoni would have had any bias in favour of or against those under
investigation and, on the basis of such bias, would have offered false interpretations
and readings.​

This, then, is Massei's bias in favour of Stefanoni, "just because". In this case, even when other scientists point out the demerits of her work, Massei simply defaults to, "I see now reason for bias in Stefanoni."

The issue is this. No one is saying she is "biased". They are saying she's wrong.

And until Stefanoni releases the raw data files of her work, such files repeatedly ordered from the courts, there is no way to verify her work....

.... which for the most part is the singular DNA work in question, in relation to the bra-clasp (collected under obvious circumstances of contamination - of which Massei himself discusses four possible routes).... Massei, incredibly, himself discusses four routes of contamination, but then says he doesn't see why people question Stefanoni's work!!!!!!!

..... and 36b, which is the presumed Meredith DNA, found solely by Stefanoni in a groove no other scientist saw. Peter Quennell's picture does not count, because the scientists in question had the knife in front of them.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Your "knifeboy" comments tells all that needs to be known about you.

How so? It is widely accepted that Sollecito's "hobby" was collecting knives (God help us). You may not like that but it is a fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was Stephanoni who examined the evidence and ran the relevant tests. She has been supported by other forensic experts.

What others?

Proudfootz will never answer this question. He/she will simply flood this thread with the same assertion again and again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Budowle

Which is an interesting claim. Was the haemoglogin entirely removed, or sufficient to be too low to be detected by ordinary tests? Isn't there a threshold?

I already quoted Professor Budowle's discussion of this point. The 2009 Johnson-Hampikian letter also discussed the unlikelihood of being about to clean a knife of blood but not of DNA.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, what's your solution? I shouldn't respond when multiple persons flood the thread with questions directed at me? Then I will be accused of 'not answering questions'. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Reading the thread I notice it is flooded with people making assertions about this being a case of conspiracy against Sollecito and Knox.

I have not claimed wrongful convictions don't happen.

It was Stephanoni who examined the evidence and ran the relevant tests. She has been supported by other forensic experts.

The solution would be to supply the names of the scientists who support Stefanoni's work. Otherwise, quit simply asserting that there are "scientists" (plural) who support it.

 

[codyjuneau]

Proudfootz represents well the guilters' dilemma.

Knox and Sollecito were obvious suspects right from Nov 2.

Yet at interrogation starting 11 pm Nov 5, the slate had been inexplicably wiped clean. Despite senior police saying that they had already solved this case with behavioural observation, before the interrogation and before the evidence came in pointing to Rudy.....

..... suddenly, Knox (particularly) had to be suddenly not a suspect any more. Because what they need is for Amanda to suddenly blurt out Lumumba's name, with NO pressure or even any inclination from the cops that she was involved.
And Nencini has booted this by saying in his motivations report that the confessions ruled inadmissible by the ISC are key to understanding this crime.

Proudfootz has caught the guilters' 'flu. Amanda has to be seen as suspicious except when she's conveniently not seen as suspicious. At stake is whether or not she required a lawyer and a competent translator (not the mediator Donnino said she was) at interrogation.

.
And as usual the judge disregards Mignini's two mutually exclusive explanations lies for why they did not record any of the three most important interrogations of the entire investigation (Lumumba, Raffaele, and Amanda).
.