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

[Planigale]

The reason Planigale was murdered was because she rang me early Sunday morning wittering on about carrying out an experiment involving mobile phones. No court will dispute that this was unendurable provocation.

Planigale's Sister.

 

[Grinder]

I would suggest that the Y-haplotype mistakes made by Nonsecini would be best used by the defense to emphasize how difficult it is for lay people, even judges, to understand the various sciences now used in forensics. It is clear he doesn't understand. He clearly doesn't believe that the traces, which can be from women only 1/30,000 of time, are there twice - he doesn't understand the science.

This should be used to emphasize how important independent science analysis like C&V is and that it should be used by courts worldwide.

I would suggest the defense should make this a part of the appeal pointing out if the judges don't understand something as simple as male/female determinants how can they understand the vagaries of LCN/DNA?

 

[Bill Williams]

I would suggest that the Y-haplotype mistakes made by Nonsecini would be best used by the defense to emphasize how difficult it is for lay people, even judges, to understand the various sciences now used in forensics. It is clear he doesn't understand. He clearly doesn't believe that the traces, which can be from women only 1/30,000 of time, are there twice - he doesn't understand the science.

This should be used to emphasize how important independent science analysis like C&V is and that it should be used by courts worldwide.

I would suggest the defense should make this a part of the appeal pointing out if the judges don't understand something as simple as male/female determinants how can they understand the vagaries of LCN/DNA?

The irony is rich.

Massei only makes passing reference to the existence of other Y-samples in the 165 trace, apart from the major donor (Meredith and the trace from a group of men which excludes Rudy but includes (potentially) Raffaele.

So Even Massei does not really understand the science, and perhaps Patrizia Stefanoni doesn't either, the Police Scientist who testified as Massei's sole source.

Nencini on one page relies on Conti & Vecchiotti to set the stage for him, which is perhaps at least a nod to their expert status....

..... and the proceeds to make a mistake which would get one a failing grade in a High School biology class. The question: does Nencini invalidate C&V or doesn't he? He perhaps is too stupid, and forgot to comment.

And he convicts them on this basis.

Welcome to Wonderland, Alice.

ETA: but griffinmill is solving this on the basis of two lovers who misremember when a sink was leaking. Now THAT"S forensic reasoning!

 

[kwill]

On memory not being a tape recorder:

I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

That's W, speaking at a town hall on CNN in December 2001. None of it happened.

There was no TV on in the corridor outside the classroom.
There was no footage broadcast of the first plane hitting the tower until after the 2nd one had hit.

So, the president gets a pass for not remembering what he saw, heard, and said in the hour before a massive crisis . . . but two college students are required to remember what they did and in what order they did it 18 hours before what became the tragedy of their lives.

Spare me.

 

[kwill]

delete dup

 

[Skind]

Here's a quick and easy competition that anyone can join in - even griffinmill : name any group of people associated with the Kercher case who have given a detailed public account, with no contradictions with the rest of their group, about what they were doing the night of the murder and the timings.

Note: Sophie (I only know when I got home because my TV show was on) Purton and the rest of the 'dinner was half an hour early and half an hour late at the same time' gang don't count.

 

[Desert Fox]

Who was it that said Frank Sfarzo has been muzzled?

Here's something from May 7 of this year, in which Sfarzo says that the coming Cassazione hearing of the Nencni conviction will overturn the conviction!

FAULTY REPORT FAVORS FUTURE ACQUITTAL OF AMANDA KNOX AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO – Part 2​

Sfarzo's reasoning? The main element of the Nencini trial was to finally get Sample 36i tested. Sfarzo says that if it had come back as Meredtih's DNA, then that would have confirmed that something about Meredith was on that knife, and therefore a conviction could have been justified - in Sfarzo's view it would still be wrong, but at least justifiable.

But 36i came back as Amanda's, and there remains nothing really tying that knife to a crime. And Nencini convicted anyway....

So, ergo, Cassazione will simple reverse Nencini....

It is logical but we shall see

 

[AmyStrange]

Absense of Malice...

-

Watching this movie right now on Antenna TV here in Seattle, and although the title doesn't really make it relatable to this case on some levels (in my opinion), it does relate on at least one of them as one of the reviewers at imdb.com explained very well indeed:

FROM: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

" ...the importance of this film lies (as so many others pointed out) in its expose of the inner workings of our justice and journalistic systems and their ability to wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary defenseless citizens... "

I'd also like to add that in my opinion, this movie is a very thought provoking one (and not dated in anyway, considering it was released in 1981) that ask really tough questions like how far a justice system (ours or any others) should go to get what they consider justice and just how far a newspaper should go in the pursuit of making a buck off the backs of others.

I give it a four and a half rating out of five,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

On memory not being a tape recorder:



That's W, speaking at a town hall on CNN in December 2001. None of it happened.

There was no TV on in the corridor outside the classroom.
There was no footage broadcast of the first plane hitting the tower until after the 2nd one had hit.

So, the president gets a pass for not remembering what he saw, heard, and said in the hour before a massive crisis . . . but two college students are required to remember what they did and in what order they did it 18 hours before what became the tragedy of their lives.

Spare me.

Did W actually say this? I thought he was told of the first plane hitting the tower while he was speaking to the class and mesmerized and not sure exactly what to do continued speaking to the class and he never actually saw video of the plane hitting the tower until after he left the classroom.

Memory is a very tricky thing. People can easily have their memories distorted. This is one reason that eye witness testimony are considered some of the least reliable type of witness there are. Not only are Amanda and Raffaele unlikely to remember everything in precisely the same way but other witnesses as well. This is one reason I don't trust Curatolo or Quintavalle. Curatolo and Quintavalle never came forward until much later. Their memories were very likely tainted by all the media exposure. It is just the kind of thing that can be trusted.

I think I have a great memory for facts, but I'm very likely to forget your name 15 seconds after you tell me it. I try to battle that social faux pas by repeating the name over and over. It's all about association for me and I suggest it is for a great many people. The problem with that is it is easy to start associating facts with the wrong events and vice versa.

It really amazes me that Griffin THINKS her memory is so good that she KNOWS that after a horrible event her recall would be perfect. Or even more mystifying, expecting other people's memories to be perfect also.

 

[AmyStrange]

Hypocrisy and the confirmation bias it reveals...

-

Raffaele's alibi is, was, and always will be his computer. He does not, has not, and never will depend on convicted liar Amanda Knox to supply him with an excuse.

Raffaele's family has deployed their own formidable resources to explain to Americans why he cannot have been the murderer. Knox has carefully explained to Chris Cuomo, as of late, that she cannot be guilty since her DNA wasn't found in Meredith's room.

Guess whose DNA was found there and on Meredith's underwear? Why do you suppose that Raffaele has decided to turn on his accomplice?

-

...but who's the real liar here? Amanda or the one who made the statement afterwards that she had finally told them what they knew to be true? If you give one side a pass for lying, you have to give the other side one also. I consider it the height of hypocrisy, or at the least, some form of confirmation bias not to do otherwise.

On a side note, what evidence does anyone have that this twitterer is really a member of Raffaele's family, and if he or she isn't, what kind of liar does that make them or the person who passes these lies on as truth?

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

-

Watching this movie right now on Antenna TV here in Seattle, and although the title doesn't really make it relatable to this case on some levels (in my opinion), it does relate on at least one of them as one of the reviewers at imdb.com explained very well indeed:

FROM: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

" ...the importance of this film lies (as so many others pointed out) in its expose of the inner workings of our justice and journalistic systems and their ability to wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary defenseless citizens... "

I'd also like to add that in my opinion, this movie is a very thought provoking one (and not dated in anyway, considering it was released in 1981) that ask really tough questions like how far a justice system (ours or any others) should go to get what they consider justice and just how far a newspaper should go in the pursuit of making a buck off the backs of others.

I give it a four and a half rating out of five,

d

-

It's a great movie Amy. I have it on DVD and have watched it a few times. Paul Newman, Sally Field, Bob Balaban and in a few minutes near the end of the movie Wilford Brimley kind of steals the show. It really shows that the press is often a puppet of the authorities and how that can have a devastating effect on their targets Bob Balaban uses the press to put pressure on Paul Newman's character Gallagher by leaking misinformation to a reporter (Sally Field). This leads to the loss of Gallagher's business and Newman orchestrating a way to clear his name as well as get revenge on the authorities. The title "Absence of Malice" comes from a ruling the New York Times v Sullivan case where the Supreme Court said the paper is not responsible for telling the truth about a public figure as long as their is an "absence of malice"...or in other words that they didn't do it deliberately to damage someone.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm innocent I tell ya...

-

So your friend, and roomate, has just been murdered, violently. In your house. 3 days ago. And you would express dismay that you're going to lose next month's rent because of the murder investigation of your friend?

-

Go to a funeral and watch how everyone there acts. Does any of it prove those people were somehow involved in that person's death?

To answer your question from my point of view and experience, a couple of decades ago, I was in a rooming house fire in which a friend of mine lost his life, and even though I was sorry for the loss of my friend, I was still concerned about the money I paid my landlord for the rest of the month's rent, and was it possible to get some of it back, and where was I going to live in the mean time and what about all my worldly possessions that I had lost because of the fire etc., etc., etc.

Does that psychologically prove I set the fire?

And by the way, I didn't start the fire although it did start in the room next to mine,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

Stay tuned for the latest opinion passing as the truth...

-

It's a great movie Amy. I have it on DVD and have watched it a few times. Paul Newman, Sally Field, Bob Balaban and in a few minutes near the end of the movie Wilford Brimley kind of steals the show. It really shows that the press is often a puppet of the authorities and how that can have a devastating effect on their targets Bob Balaban uses the press to put pressure on Paul Newman's character Gallagher by leaking misinformation to a reporter (Sally Field). This leads to the loss of Gallagher's business and Newman orchestrating a way to clear his name as well as get revenge on the authorities. The title "Absence of Malice" comes from a ruling the New York Times v Sullivan case where the Supreme Court said the paper is not responsible for telling the truth about a public figure as long as their is an "absence of malice"...or in other words that they didn't do it deliberately to damage someone.

-

Which brings up another question which is, how do you determine when an opinion is really the truth, and is it all right to pass them off as such so you can write provocative innuendos that damage someone's life and make your media outlet money?

Thanks for the reply AC,

d

-

 

[kwill]

Did W actually say this? I thought he was told of the first plane hitting the tower while he was speaking to the class and mesmerized and not sure exactly what to do continued speaking to the class and he never actually saw video of the plane hitting the tower until after he left the classroom.

Yes, he did say it, in front of a town hall full of people. The transcript of the event is here, and that completely false statement is toward the end.

Here's how Andy Card (W's chief of staff) described what happened:

He [W] went to his run and came back and we had our intelligence briefing and loaded into limousines and went over to the school. There was a buzz as we were getting to the school. Some people said, “Anybody hear about the plane crash in New York City?” but still not a lot of information. And the president, the principal of the school and I were standing at the door when one of the staffers for the National Security Council came up and said, “Sir, it appears there’s been a small twin-engine plane crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers in New York City.” And the reaction, kind of unspoken, was “Oh, it’s a horrible accident. The pilot must have had a heart attack or something.” And the principal then opened the door of the classroom and escorted the president in and the door shut.

source

Multiple people have confirmed that there was no television outside the classroom, and of course there was no footage of the first crash on any network anywhere until September 12th.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but there are at least 7 different versions of how exactly W learned about the first plane . . . which tells me (not a CT) that in trying to reconstruct events that happened just BEFORE a big crisis, you're likely to get a muddle of versions.

In this case are abundant examples of such muddles. The English women's recollections about their evening, AK & RS's recollections about theirs, the recollections of the postal police about their arrival at the cottage, and so on.

But only AK & RS are on trial for murder.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Actually, you probably could not. Human memory is not like a tape recorder.
It is this lossy thing where you are always recreating your memories, throwing stuff together and mixing things up.

Did a study where they asked people what they were doing on September 11 when the plane hits. A little while later, months I think, they asked and they often did not match.

-

So true. Everyone should try this themselves. Get two people together who partied together the night before or a couple days ago, put them in different rooms and get them to write a timeline of what happened the night before or two days ago.

I personally believe that 99.9% of them would be anywhere from wildly inaccurate to somewhat inconsistent.

As an aside, I'm not pretending I came up with this idea as someone else suggested this same idea earlier, before me; I'm just posting this because I agree with the idea and the test.

And also because, I'd be interested in reading the results of anyone's documented research on this subject,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele's alibi is, was, and always will be his computer. He does not, has not, and never will depend on convicted liar Amanda Knox to supply him with an excuse.

...but who's the real liar here? Amanda or the one who made the statement afterwards that she had finally told them what they knew to be true? If you give one side a pass for lying, you have to give the other side one also. I consider it the height of hypocrisy, or at the least, some form of confirmation bias not to do otherwise.

Speaking of "convicted" liars.... the problem in this case is who controls the "conviction" process.

For instance, Anna Donnino arrives at the interrogation an hour into it, at 12:30 am on the 6th of November. She says she found an interrogation in chaos, and decided to be helpful, rather than be a translator.

But her own admission, she decided to become a"mediator" between Amanda and Ficarra et al., when what Amanda needed was a lawyer.

It's not so much that Donnino ever "lied" to Amanda, per se, but as Amanda reports, this self-admitted mediation on Donnino's part meant she encouraged Amanda to remember things she was not remembering... meaning, imagine what could be true and then tell Ficarra.

What would be really helpful for Stilicho to do would be to put together a timeline of what Amanda was told and when she was told it. Instead, Stilicho jumps straight to the end of the process - one controled by those who themselves are immune from the process. For instance, Amanda gets hit, and then gets charged with a crime for reporting it!

And no less than Anna Donnino gets in on that prosecution!!!! Must be nice to have some pull with the people who have the charging authority!

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

Which brings up another question which is, how do you determine when an opinion is really the truth, and is it all right to pass them off as such so you can write provocative innuendos that damage someone's life and make your media outlet money?

Thanks for the reply AC,

d

-

That's a tough question Amy. It's not that cut and dried. People can "express their opinion" regardless how damaging it might be even if the opinion is factually wrong. You're entitled to being wrong. So Nancy Grace for example legally can say things that are false as long as it can be said that she his expressing her opinion. This is how so much of the press gets away with saying pretty much anything they like. Opinions are pretty much a sacred right of freedom of speech. That said, I don't think the right is totally absolute. My guess is there is a point where it might be obvious what the person is doing and their recklessness may be viewed as a wanton and deliberate attempt to libel someone. Say, you can prove that Nancy Grace ABSOLUTELY knew what she was saying was false, then we are walking into a gray area.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, he did say it, in front of a town hall full of people. The transcript of the event is here, and that completely false statement is toward the end.

Here's how Andy Card (W's chief of staff) described what happened:

source

Multiple people have confirmed that there was no television outside the classroom, and of course there was no footage of the first crash on any network anywhere until September 12th.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but there are at least 7 different versions of how exactly W learned about the first plane . . . which tells me (not a CT) that in trying to reconstruct events that happened just BEFORE a big crisis, you're likely to get a muddle of versions.

In this case are abundant examples of such muddles. The English women's recollections about their evening, AK & RS's recollections about theirs, the recollections of the postal police about their arrival at the cottage, and so on.

But only AK & RS are on trial for murder.

I really laugh at Griffin's arrogance about Amanda and Raffaele's not having perfect memories of the night before. I'm also not sure that Griffin is repeating their tales perfectly either about the events. But that doesn't matter to me. He thinks they should be able to confirm that they had sex that night. Apparently Griffin has never been stoned or intoxicated and "went through the motions". And Amanda and Raffaele were probably at that point in their relationships where they were having sex very very often. It isn't always that memorable.

 

[platonov]

Oh ye of little faith

You are not denying the computer evidence. Do you believe Raffaele opened that cartoon or not?

Or would you like to make the case that Amanda left to commit a murder and then convinced Raffaele to help clean up?

Raffaele has not turned on Amanda. A couple of his family members are posting misguided information. You really should read Raffaele's book. He has said nothing publicly to show that his position has changed. If he ever does, it will just show that he has been broken by the system. Nothing will ever surface to show that Raffaele was involved in the murder because he wasn't. Same goes for Amanda. As we both know, they are linked together.

Amanda's defense has stated from the beginning that her DNA was not in the murder room. Your suggestion that similar statements all of the sudden caused Raffaele to turn on Amanda is absurd.

Nothing said on Twitter will change the truth. Of course you latch onto every Tweet that you hope will harm Amanda and Raffaele, regardless of the truth. No surprise there.

Bruce, Bruce Bruce.

Whats all this - why would the steadfast [ ! ] Raffy ever turn on Manders just because he is unjustly imprisoned while she remains at large.
After all they are both innocent victims of the greatest conspiracy ever.

Unless Italian prisons are more brutal than we have been led to believe.
Perhaps they will show him the 'instruments of torture' to make him crack - or take away his shoes or something

Or is it something else that leads you to this gloomy prediction ?????

 

[Desert Fox]

Bruce, Bruce Bruce.

Whats all this - why would the steadfast [ ! ] Raffy ever turn on Manders just because he is unjustly imprisoned while she remains at large.
After all they are both innocent victims of the greatest conspiracy ever.

Unless Italian prisons are more brutal than we have been led to believe.
Perhaps they will show him the 'instruments of torture' to make him crack - or take away his shoes or something

Or is it something else that leads you to this gloomy prediction ?????

Just being imprisoned in solitary can break many people.
As well, just the idea of being imprisoned for something you did not commit just will get to a person.