Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Getting back to the Sollecito/Knox case - the case for guilt has always been the convoluted argument to make. Just one the grounds of which side one might wish to argue on the basis of "the easier argument", it is obvious - one would want to argue innocence every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I' looking for it as I type - but someone on Ground Report (I think) argued about the illogically of the Chieffi ISC reversal of Hellmann's acquittals - arguing that Chieffi was simply illogical to cite the "osmotic" evaluation of ALL the evidence as some reason to reverse Hellmann.

If it was ALL the evidence Chieffi was looking for (before that other thorny issue of actually weighting each individual item), what followed in the Ground Report piece was as a listing of ALL the other evidence that Chieffi simply had to ignore; the criticism being that while insisting on the "ALL", Chieffi was ignoring a large portion.

For instance, "ALL" the evidence should have included the missing data from Stefanoni; raw-electronic data that would have shown Stefanoni's work. Rather than criticise the lower courts for not insisting on full disclosure, Chieffi turned everything further onto its head by insisting that the defence cannot just claim contamination, the defence actually had to propose a plausible route of contamination - either at the scene or in the lab.

We've been around THAT block 1000 times. In the supposedly stalled transition in Italy from the Inquisatorial to Adversarial system of criminal law, what first should have happened was the prosecution making full disclosure; so that the only reasonable outcome of that disclosure was to show that contamination was unlikely. Absent that, the defence (in an adversarial BARD system) has no obligation to show a route.

It just went to demonstrate that to argue a guilter position, there are flaws in key areas that have to be ignored - or one simply has to appeal to authority or judicial truths, the thing that probably threw the case off-whack - appeals to authority with no, real evidence undergirding it.

It's always been easier to argue for innocence. To argue for guilt, jurists like Nencini had to believe Rudy Guede on one part of his own story, while ignoring the implications of believing Rudy on anything.

Yes! That was my point in the comparison. When you are presented with the requirement to argue something that is weak or unsupported you find yourself presenting weak sophist even inane arguments out of desperation. I see the same type of circular reasoning, absurdities and appeals to authority practiced by Vixen in her arguments for guilt as I do with theists arguing the validity of their religion.

For example, Vixen insistence that Stefanoni is more believable than the countless DNA experts of higher repute. Vixen is appealing to authority. She constantly ignores the evidence replacing her own faith. The rational doe snot matter.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Planigale]

The script for the trial was to not mention it, to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from. Stefanoni was certainly adamant it was from blood in the case of the sink and that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point.

Initially, she was convinced by the blood drips, pure at the cotton bud box and getting more diluted at the sink, that this was the knife dripping blood before it was rinsed.

So when Steffanoni testified in court that the source of the DNA could be from blood, sweat, tears, epithelials; she is wrong? That when she said it was not possible to know the source she was wrong? Perhaps you think Steffanoni lied to the court? Perhaps someone bribed her to deny that it was mixed blood to the court?

Or just possibly you might be wrong?


Difficult choice who is more believable on the interpretation of the forensic evidence? Vixen or Steffanoni?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

menstrual blood

p. 331 in Darkness Descending there is a passage where an unidentified someone brings up the possibility of menstrual blood in the small bathroom [start quote]
'Not the same kind of blood,' Stefanoni rebutted. 'There's a difference, I promise. Looks different, for a start. [end quote]

Someone should compare this passage with her testimony. I am unaware of any difference in menstrual blood that a standard forensic DNA analysis could determine. It strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. RNA is another matter, but that opens up a different can of worms.

 

[Samson]

Getting back to the Sollecito/Knox case - the case for guilt has always been the convoluted argument to make. Just one the grounds of which side one might wish to argue on the basis of "the easier argument", it is obvious - one would want to argue innocence every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I' looking for it as I type - but someone on Ground Report (I think) argued about the illogically of the Chieffi ISC reversal of Hellmann's acquittals - arguing that Chieffi was simply illogical to cite the "osmotic" evaluation of ALL the evidence as some reason to reverse Hellmann.

If it was ALL the evidence Chieffi was looking for (before that other thorny issue of actually weighting each individual item), what followed in the Ground Report piece was as a listing of ALL the other evidence that Chieffi simply had to ignore; the criticism being that while insisting on the "ALL", Chieffi was ignoring a large portion.

For instance, "ALL" the evidence should have included the missing data from Stefanoni; raw-electronic data that would have shown Stefanoni's work. Rather than criticise the lower courts for not insisting on full disclosure, Chieffi turned everything further onto its head by insisting that the defence cannot just claim contamination, the defence actually had to propose a plausible route of contamination - either at the scene or in the lab.

We've been around THAT block 1000 times. In the supposedly stalled transition in Italy from the Inquisatorial to Adversarial system of criminal law, what first should have happened was the prosecution making full disclosure; so that the only reasonable outcome of that disclosure was to show that contamination was unlikely. Absent that, the defence (in an adversarial BARD system) has no obligation to show a route.

It just went to demonstrate that to argue a guilter position, there are flaws in key areas that have to be ignored - or one simply has to appeal to authority or judicial truths, the thing that probably threw the case off-whack - appeals to authority with no, real evidence undergirding it.

It's always been easier to argue for innocence. To argue for guilt, jurists like Nencini had to believe Rudy Guede on one part of his own story, while ignoring the implications of believing Rudy on anything.

Bill, if you haven't seen it yet, Jim Lovering crafted a great article dealing with the subtleties of authority and the reactions of the people.

http://freebrendan.org/index.php/2016/04/06/brendan-dassey-chris-tapp-agentic-state/

In the bleak annals of wrongful conviction, the agentic state looms as a real and pervasive phenomenon. We see it again and again. Once the criminal justice system takes the position that someone is guilty of a crime, especially in a high profile case where public credibility is at stake, individuals within the system will usually do whatever it takes to sustain that position. They refuse to admit the possibility of error. They embrace any ploy or strategy that serves their purpose. They treat exculpatory facts, no matter how compelling, as a problem to be overcome.

 

[Stacyhs]

The PIP are a foul-mouthed bunch, for sure.

Speaking of "foul-mouthed", you wrote
"I think she knows rather better than the FOA, the paid - and unpaid - shills of Gogerty-Marriott advertising agency and the mealy-mouthed defense sharks, er, blood-sucking vultures who'd sell their own granny down the river, ah, erm, lawyers whose only aim in life is to get their clients off the hook, whilst bleeding them dry in order to line their pockets.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Not the same kind of blood," Stefanoni rebutted. "There's a difference, I promise. Looks different, for a start."

There is another quote.

Exactly how does menstrual blood "look different"? Dried blood looks the same no matter where it came from and all the blood in the bathroom was dried. Tests have to be run looking for mucous and endometrial cells. Stefanoni never mentions having run any tests to determine menstrual from circulatory blood.

 

[Planigale]

p. 331 in Darkness Descending there is a passage where an unidentified someone brings up the possibility of menstrual blood in the small bathroom [start quote]
'Not the same kind of blood,' Stefanoni rebutted. 'There's a difference, I promise. Looks different, for a start. [end quote]

Someone should compare this passage with her testimony. I am unaware of any difference in menstrual blood that a standard forensic DNA analysis could determine. It strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. RNA is another matter, but that opens up a different can of worms.

She is both right and wrong. Obviously if it was that easy there wouldn't be the need for tests. But a simple low tech test is to look under a microscope for endometrial cells. Most tests are specific for menses. That means for practical purposes a positive result means menses. The sensitivity is less clear particularly on a 'washed' stain. this would be hugely dependant on the type of test. Steffanoni does not actually say she tested, nor is there any record of a test in the SAl I can find.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I know why we should ignore Vixen. I haven't put her on ignore as I find her illogicality to be funny. I have no interest in engaging her arguments as I find them silly, dishonest and a total waste of time. They are a guilty pleasure of mine. As is iistening to religious people debate with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al. BTW, if you haven't watched on YouTube Christopher Hitchens debate religion you've missed a great experience.

I see. It's OK to mock Christians, but not atheists or other religions, some of which deliberately set out to destroy and maim innocent civilians. I have met several fans of Christopher Hitchens, yet when I read his book, all I saw was sad cynicism. Anyone can take the piss out of the Bible and Moses wandering around the desert for 40 years, not to mention all the blood-thirsty slayings and incest. Yet once the joke is over, what is left? Nothing.

As an example, one can jest that coffee is just a brown liquid, which is to fail to enjoy its inherent qualities of taste, natural uplift and health benefits. This is why Hitchins, Dawkins and jeering atheists are sad in general. When I was a youth, I mocked and jeered everything, but then I grew up.

Here endeth today's lesson.

 

[Vixen]

I thought you were going to claim that it is impossible to argue "for" religion if supernaturalism is off the table. I find that debates are far more even-handed when all references to the concept, from either side, are simply identified, bracketed and put aside. To repeat, from both sides - it is up to the atheist side to point out that the religionist has lapsed back into supernaturalism; just as much as it is up to the religionist to point out to the atheist that he has lapsed back into a repudiation of supernaturalism - not religion per se.

Bracket it, put it aside, and get on to other issues.

But I also agree with you about Hitchens - he's such an accomplished debater to begin with that it was hard to tell if he'd bested Blair on the issues or simply because he was a better "parliamentarian".

It did Blair no good to undercut his own position, though. He was asked why he had been so silent about his devout Roman Catholicism during his years as PM in the UK. His answer: "I did not want people thinking me a nutter." At least John Kennedy never backed away from his own Roman Catholicism, although retreating to, "religion is a personal issue, not a public one" was a strategic move on Kennedy's part, to calm the fears in 1960 that he would take direction from the Vatican.

Indeed, most of the progressive, liberalized laws in my own country have come from Catholic politicians, and every once in a while a Bishop threatens to excommunicate one just to make an example. But that is one of the ironies..... Blair made a strategic mistake (for debating purposes) in conceding from the start that he might simply be dismissed as a nutter.

Hitchen's (IIRC) made mincemeat of him on that point alone.

What you need to understand about Tony Blair is that he is a pale facsimile of his wife, Cherie Blair. He got his 'socialism' from her and also his Roman Catholicism. Blair was a conservative and agnostic before he met Cherie.

Tony Bliar is widely despised by the great British public as a hypocrite and liar over his Weapons of Mass Destruction bollocks and for palling up with Dubya Bush to make us Brits US poodles in the Iraqi war to rid the world of Saddam, when the US put him there in the first place! Look what's happening there, now!

Tony Blair was a good statesman, I'll grant him that. When he kicked the Tories and Maggie Thatcher out into touch after years of misery, everybody in the streets was smiling broadly. I could not believe my eyes. This is London. We do not emote. However, Blair handled the Princess Diana affair with great aplomb and came over well on television.

 

[Vixen]

Yes! That was my point in the comparison. When you are presented with the requirement to argue something that is weak or unsupported you find yourself presenting weak sophist even inane arguments out of desperation. I see the same type of circular reasoning, absurdities and appeals to authority practiced by Vixen in her arguments for guilt as I do with theists arguing the validity of their religion.

For example, Vixen insistence that Stefanoni is more believable than the countless DNA experts of higher repute. Vixen is appealing to authority. She constantly ignores the evidence replacing her own faith. The rational doe snot matter.

Trust me. I am the biggest sceptic you could hope to meet. I vividly recall the first newspaper reports of this case and over the years I have wrestled to get to the truth of the matter. I have read the Van der Leek, the Follain, the Kercher, the Nadeau, the King and also, Burleigh, Douglas, Hendry, Waterbury and followed the media, all the time looking for a frame-up, falsification of evidence, police misdemeanour or any signs of innocence, and so far, the more and more apparent are the real facts.

I have noticed the deliberate lies peddled by Amanda herself and the PR machine that she was tortured and interrogated for 53 hours, as well as starved and beaten by the police, who would not even let her go to the toilet.

Why the need for such lies, if innocent?

Why did Amanda and Raff refuse to take the witness box over what they did the night of the murder?

 

[Vixen]

Bill, if you haven't seen it yet, Jim Lovering crafted a great article dealing with the subtleties of authority and the reactions of the people.

http://freebrendan.org/index.php/2016/04/06/brendan-dassey-chris-tapp-agentic-state/

In the bleak annals of wrongful conviction, the agentic state looms as a real and pervasive phenomenon. We see it again and again. Once the criminal justice system takes the position that someone is guilty of a crime, especially in a high profile case where public credibility is at stake, individuals within the system will usually do whatever it takes to sustain that position. They refuse to admit the possibility of error. They embrace any ploy or strategy that serves their purpose. They treat exculpatory facts, no matter how compelling, as a problem to be overcome.

Er, I was awarded my honours degree in psychology at the award ceremony by Stan Milgram. You now, the one-in-ten social psychologist, who set out to understand why ordinary Germans sent his people to gas chambers with the excuse, "I was only following orders"?

Social psychology was one of my year two options and so, yes, I probably know more about "appeals to authority" than you do from reading some half-baked "article" on the net.

 

[Vixen]

Speaking of "foul-mouthed", you wrote
"I think she knows rather better than the FOA, the paid - and unpaid - shills of Gogerty-Marriott advertising agency and the mealy-mouthed defense sharks, er, blood-sucking vultures who'd sell their own granny down the river, ah, erm, lawyers whose only aim in life is to get their clients off the hook, whilst bleeding them dry in order to line their pockets.

I can't see any swearing there.

 

[TruthCalls]

Trust me. I am the biggest sceptic you could hope to meet. I vividly recall the first newspaper reports of this case and over the years I have wrestled to get to the truth of the matter. I have read the Van der Leek, the Follain, the Kercher, the Nadeau, the King and also, Burleigh, Douglas, Hendry, Waterbury and followed the media, all the time looking for a frame-up, falsification of evidence, police misdemeanour or any signs of innocence, and so far, the more and more apparent are the real facts.

I have noticed the deliberate lies peddled by Amanda herself and the PR machine that she was tortured and interrogated for 53 hours, as well as starved and beaten by the police, who would not even let her go to the toilet.

Why the need for such lies, if innocent?

Why did Amanda and Raff refuse to take the witness box over what they did the night of the murder?

You a skeptic? That's laughable. You have never viewed this case from any other perspective than guilt - at least publicly.

No need to look for some conspiracy... this case was a rush to judgement by an incompetent investigation team - period. However, I'd be curious to know what you call NOT turning over the raw data files, or not testifying to using TMB on the Luminol traces, or claiming the use of Real Time PCR for quantification of all 36x samples when a Qubit Fluorometer was used, or recording 36B as positive for DNA despite two "Two Low" results and having exactly the same lab results as 36C, which Stefanoni correctly recorded as Negative. I could go on but why bother... you've read this stuff a thousand times and yet you make one excuse after another and then claim you're a skeptic.'

Amanda did not claim torture and beatings.. geez, can you get more ridiculous? She said she was pressured, she was stressed, she was called a liar, she was told she would spend 30 years in prison if she didn't tell them what they wanted to hear, they told her a lawyer would only make things worse for her and they cuffed her in the head a couple of times. On what basis do you claim such things as lies? You must be one of those unbiased skeptics who only believes one side.

Surely you understand that it is ALWAYS considered foolish to testify. Do you find their deciding not to take the stand somehow incriminating? Only a guilt bias person would think so.

 

[TruthCalls]

I can't see any swearing there.

You think it necessary to use curse words to be foul mouthed?

 

[acbytesla]

I see. It's OK to mock Christians, but not atheists or other religions, some of which deliberately set out to destroy and maim innocent civilians. I have met several fans of Christopher Hitchens, yet when I read his book, all I saw was sad cynicism. Anyone can take the piss out of the Bible and Moses wandering around the desert for 40 years, not to mention all the blood-thirsty slayings and incest. Yet once the joke is over, what is left? Nothing.

As an example, one can jest that coffee is just a brown liquid, which is to fail to enjoy its inherent qualities of taste, natural uplift and health benefits. This is why Hitchins, Dawkins and jeering atheists are sad in general. When I was a youth, I mocked and jeered everything, but then I grew up.

Here endeth today's lesson.

I want to thank you for proving my point. It doesn't surprise me at all that you find Hitchens and Dawkins as sad. I have no problem mocking thiest ideology and the elevation of faith over reason, silliness over science and authority over evidence. Where the Pope says AIDS may be bad, but condoms are worse. Where creationism is believed and evolution is denied.

I value truth, science, intellect, logic, reason and evidence. I admire Dawkins, Hitchens and atheists. It takes courage to be an atheist in the onslaught of religion. I love that they stand up to Theistic bullies, blackmailers and charlatans. It's about time that people did. It is only in pointing out how absurd theology is that mankind can put this scourge behind us.

 

[andreajo]

Trust me. I am the biggest sceptic you could hope to meet. I vividly recall the first newspaper reports of this case and over the years I have wrestled to get to the truth of the matter. I have read the Van der Leek, the Follain, the Kercher, the Nadeau, the King and also, Burleigh, Douglas, Hendry, Waterbury and followed the media, all the time looking for a frame-up, falsification of evidence, police misdemeanour or any signs of innocence, and so far, the more and more apparent are the real facts.

I have noticed the deliberate lies peddled by Amanda herself and the PR machine that she was tortured and interrogated for 53 hours, as well as starved and beaten by the police, who would not even let her go to the toilet.

Why the need for such lies, if innocent?

Why did Amanda and Raff refuse to take the witness box over what they did the night of the murder?

I am curious to know what value you think Van der Leek could bring to a reasonably well-informed student of this case. He came late to the party, had no access to information that was not already publicly available, and has no expertise that would allow him to provide any new insight into the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am curious to know what value you think Van der Leek could bring to a reasonably well-informed student of this case. He came late to the party, had no access to information that was not already publicly available, and has no expertise that would allow him to provide any new insight into the case.

VDL's two main skills were cutting and pasting other people's work, and pushing out e-books with a minimum of turn around. He also secured the cooperation of some very gullible people.

 

[andreajo]

VDL's two main skills were cutting and pasting other people's work, and pushing out e-books with a minimum of turn around. He also secured the cooperation of some very gullible people.

I recall the same sort of last minute "look I wrote a book (or six)!" in the Jodi Arias case. The books were proudly announced on the Jodi Arias hashtag on Twitter, where many posters knew wayyyy more about the murder of Travis Alexander and the trials of Jodi Arias than he did. These people had closely followed and posted on the case from the beginning.

I just can't imagine what he could write on Meredith Kercher/Knox/Sollecito/Guede or Travis Alexander/Arias that would enrich any moderately well-informed person's knowledge and understanding of either case.

 

[Samson]

Er, I was awarded my honours degree in psychology at the award ceremony by Stan Milgram. You now, the one-in-ten social psychologist, who set out to understand why ordinary Germans sent his people to gas chambers with the excuse, "I was only following orders"?

Social psychology was one of my year two options and so, yes, I probably know more about "appeals to authority" than you do from reading some half-baked "article" on the net.

I have spent some time puzzling over your writing on this case. Your literacy and academic achievements are at odds with your findings. Your volume of contributions would suggest you might believe what you write, yet what you write is irreconcilable with the facts that have been finalized both scientifically and legally.