Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Skind]

This is your imagination. Curatolo did not appear "inebriated"; in order to be reliable a witness is not required to show any particular health condition, capability, intelligence or education. In common life any person has a "right" to speak the way Curatolo speaks without being considered mentally impaired (and btw, even mentally deficient witnesses can testify).
If a theory is advanced about a witness being impaired to the point of being barred from testimony, this is something that should be proven, and the burden is on those who advance the theory. The witness does not need to pass a "smart-looking" test. And a judge does not "take as an argument" an unproven speculation. If an expert exam is requested (like, by the defence) and the witness is examined and ruled unreliable due to mental issues, that would be an argument; on the other hand, your guesses are based on zero evidence.

I didn't say I thought he appeared inebriated.

I was directly challenging your unsupported and illogical contention that a witness presentation can never be used as a gauge of the witness.

I never declared that the witness is required to show anything. I did point out (and as you confirmed inadvertantly) the defence can argue that characteristics of the witness can be used to question their reliability. As another example, the defence can rightfully point out that a witness with a known medical condition cannot possibly have witnessed a crime whilst out jogging if their known medical condition prevents jogging.

In Curotalos case, we have a knowable, self-admitted, and entirely compatible cause for his speech and motor patterns evident in his presentation - profound and long term addiction, with - as an actual addiction clinician pointed out earlier - enough concordant evidence to make a reasonable statement that Curotalo had, or was, still using at least up to a point immediately prior to his known video interview.

If a person known to have been a user of a substance demonstrates symptoms concordant with being a current user of a substance, that's not 'zero evidence', it's called 'observational evidence' - you know like Knox's supposed 'la Mossa' and lack of emotional effect is also observational evidence.

Oh wait, I get it now - you only want to dismiss observational evidence when you disagree with the conclusions, otherwise you're just fine with it.

 

[Bill Williams]

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

What demonstrates that this case is not about the evidence (save for the Hellmann trial) is precisely this. There simply is no way around it.

The Italian courts do not allow PMs and court "experts" like Stefanoni to be called a liar, or even incompetent. Judge Nencini at the Florence trial continually warned defence attorney's to watch it, with the allegations they were making.

Be that as it may, Stefanoni herself, according to the Massei report of 2010, described four methods, count 'em - four - of possible contamination, even before getting into the lab.

I get criticized for continually repeating these, but if posters are continually going to repeat things like you do, it bears another mention.

Stefanoni at the 2009 trial, according to the 2010 Massei motivations report:

1) can neither confirm nor deny that she herself touched the hasps of the bra-clasp with obviously dirty gloves.
2) relates that another Scientific Police person who was with her at the bra-clasp collection in December also handled it before it was securely bagged.
3) concedes that the mere act of picking up a piece of evidence, and then replacing it onto the floor in a different spot from which it was picked up is also a potential route for contamination (albeit she said that it would be preferable for the floor to be wet to have ideal contamination conditions)
4) that the 118 Medical staff came into the murder room without anticontamination protocols (suits, gloves, booties) on Nov 2 to examine the corpse.​

These sorts of thing are proof that the courts (save for Hellmann's) have not ruled on the evidence, but have always ruled as-if this was a referendum on the power of the PMs like Mignini.

Sheesh, even Machiavelli concedes that this is a judicial war behind the scenes where this is what is at stake.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - why have you never called Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

 

[Samson]

delete

 

[Samson]

Supercalifragilistic,

Even if one thinks that the pair are guilty, bad technique will convict innocent persons eventually. It is only a matter of time.

Chris, a simple sounding statement, but it is happening here. I spend hours wondering if this is accidental or intentional.
In fact I see this is not a statement but a logical construct that guarantees delivery of a miscarriage of justice sooner or later.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, a simple sounding statement, but it is happening here. I spend hours wondering if this is accidental or intentional.
In fact I see this is not a statement but a logical construct that guarantees delivery of a miscarriage of justice sooner or later.

Sampson,

It could be that ILE knows its technique is poor yet believes the pair to be guilty. It is easy to rationalize bad technique under those circumstances.

 

[kwill]

. . . in the real world contamination has not been shown to have occurred to the satisfaction of the Italian courts.

What you don't seem to be able to grasp, sadly, is that this is a reflection on the Italian courts and not on two innocent students.

From Chris, typed real slow for the benefit of anybody from the Italian courts who might happen to be reading:

. . . the bra clasp egrams are available for anyone to see. There is no reference profile for Giacomo; therefore, anyone who says that his DNA is present is engaging in pure conjecture.

I looked at locus DYS390 again yesterday. Guede is at 21 repeats, but the two largest additional peaks are at 23 and 24 repeats, and both are above 50 RFU in height.

In other words, Guede is not a contributor at this DNA location in the Y chromosomal results.

Even if the other one were Giacomo (and there is no reason to conclude that it was), it still leaves a minimum of one unknown male.

How many men contributed to the YSTR egram depends on ones choice of threshold for peak heights. The presence of DNA that is unrelated to the crime is Van Oorshot's definition of contamination.

This is what the Italian courts have failed to understand, as, apparently, have you. The route of contamination is speculation, but the fact of it is indisputably demonstrated by the the presence of that DNA of an unknown male.

 

[carbonjam72]

If Amanda and Meredith weren't close, Meredith would never have called Amanda back at noon before anything happened.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AK_Phone_Traffic.pdf

02.11.2007|12:07:12|3484673590|447841131571|outgoing call|Meredith Kercher (E)|0 : 16
02.11.2007|12:08:44|3484673590|3471073006|outgoing call|Filomena Romanelli|1 : 08
02.11.2007|12:11:02|3484673590|3484673711|incoming call|Meredith Kercher (I)|0 : 03

I don't think this is a call from Meredith, I think its from Amanda to Meredith, going by the list of phone calls at the link you provided. Am I wrong? (On Nov 2, 2007, Meredith was already dead and about to be discovered.

 

[carbonjam72]

I was refering to the command of Italian language expressed by 23 year old Sollecito, at the time of the murder. And I was not talking specifically about diction. I was talking above all about syntax and grammar.
The poor expression abilities in Italian language on the part of young Sollecito are obvious not just from his talking but from his writings from the time of murder. Sollecito has also a frequent odd choice of words.
Sollecito has improved his oral expression through time (and was also coached), yet he is still less effective and less clear than the average person.

Who would consider these statements as expressed in good Italian?

Mess between main coordinate and subordinate phrases:



Poor expression and inappropriate use of gerundio, incoherent and ugly use of tenses:



Tenses: trapassato prossimo to indicate subsequent action instead of previous:



Tenses: imperfetto indicativo dependng from relative pronoun in subjunctive statement:



Statements like these one:



Incoherent verb structure (detto/fatto):



Unclear time sequence, poor use of tenses:



Inaproppriate choice of both words and chaotic tenses:



I won't go on, the statements picked above were just to the purpose of making examples.

A point to make though is that the whole topic is a diversion on something irrelevant. In fact, for example criminologist Francesco Bruno is certainly more slurring thant Curatolo, yet he is higly educated; on the other hand, the whole question of whether Curatolo is smart or well educated or whether he expresses himself appropriately should be irrelevant: these are not arguments. A witness is not required to show abilities or education. It's not something that makes a witness become unreliable or unable to testify. Even a 5yo can be a reliable witness. A concept like "insufficient mental faculties" with the potntial to hamper the reliability of a testimony is something totally different.

Do you think Curatolo was equally credible in all three murder cases in which he was a witness?

 

[Samson]

Sampson,

It could be that ILE knows its technique is poor yet believes the pair to be guilty. It is easy to rationalize bad technique under those circumstances.

After 44 years, I had not realised that there is a farmer X who was never fingerprinted in the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe. He apparently had a grudge against the two. It is a case where there is no plausible solution, partly because a baby was fed before being discovered five days after the murders, yet there are facts that must eventually tell the story in a logical sense.
Arthur Thomas, it is now fashionable to drop the middle name Allan, because in New Zealand murderers traditionally are denoted by all given names, and he has for an eternity been Arthur Allan Thomas, was a neighbour that once dated Jeanette.
He is regarded as slightly simple, though he was a functioning farmer, so even this is probably a scurrilous misrepresentation to retrofit the conviction.

In fact the dual murder was so ruthless and efficient that a simple man would have been discovered quickly.
Arthur was a keen bystander and local who wished to help the police, and suggested places in the Waikato River where the bodies could be found.
Three months after the murder Inspector Bruce Hutton found a cartridge case that was sufficient to convict Arthur. It was planted beyond any doubt. Bruce Hutton genuinely believed Arthur Thomas guilty.
I can't get this out of my mind, but the Kercher case is far more complicated, forensically, politically, culturally, psychologically. The solution is a given, but how can the true beliefs of Mignini and the panoply of Italian police prosecutors and judges be uncovered?
Raffaele was on his computer when Meredith was dead or lay dying. The dna on the bra clasp is contamination or was planted. That is quite certain, and I can only get to 50/50 in terms of likelihood.
As the case draws nearer to an inflexion point, and Amanda is to be exonerated or branded a killer, I sure hope there is a concerted effort to make a straightforward case to the American public that galvanises latent anger.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

What you don't seem to be able to grasp, sadly, is that this is a reflection on the Italian courts and not on two innocent students.

From Chris, typed real slow for the benefit of anybody from the Italian courts who might happen to be reading:




This is what the Italian courts have failed to understand, as, apparently, have you. The route of contamination is speculation, but the fact of it is indisputably demonstrated by the the presence of that DNA of an unknown male.

What you can't or won't grasp, sadly, is that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of the courts . The two "students" (ahem) are not as innocent as you would like to believe and the courts, taking all in all, have concluded they are guilty as charged. You can get your knickers in a twist about it for eternity but that's where it's at I'm afraid.

 

[Vibio]

In Curotalos case, we have a knowable, self-admitted, and entirely compatible cause for his speech and motor patterns evident in his presentation - profound and long term addiction, with - as an actual addiction clinician pointed out earlier - enough concordant evidence to make a reasonable statement that Curotalo had, or was, still using at least up to a point immediately prior to his known video interview.

That video was long after his original court testimony.

When Curatolo testified at the first trial, his drug use and ability to testify was not an issue for anyone (post 5266)

I can find no evidence of affected "speech and motor patterns evident in his presentation" at his original testimony.


---

 

[NancyS]

That video was long after his original court testimony.

When Curatolo testified at the first trial, his drug use and ability to testify was not an issue for anyone (post 5266)

I can find no evidence of affected "speech and motor patterns evident in his presentation" at his original testimony.

---

So were the prosecution suppressing information regarding his drug use at the original trial? Heroin addiction is always an issue

 

[Desert Fox]

What you can't or won't grasp, sadly, is that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of the courts . The two "students" (ahem) are not as innocent as you would like to believe and the courts, taking all in all, have concluded they are guilty as charged. You can get your knickers in a twist about it for eternity but that's where it's at I'm afraid.

I had to stop and think on how to answer you here. . . .
What you are in effect arguing is that the court cannot be wrong because the court cannot be wrong.

The same argument can be used to excused any activity of a court.

What we are arguing though is that the court is wrong, to be blunt. The court are not scientists and are not experts in the field.

Those who are forensic scientists and experts in the field argue that the DNA trace are due to contamination. The also argue that while plausible pathways can be presented and show experimentally that they can occur, there will never be exact proof of what the most likely pathway is.

In effect, the Italian have created an impossible burden of proof and gone against the sceince.

 

[Skind]

That video was long after his original court testimony.

Which, as he admitted to long term use dating from before his court testimony, means we can reasonably hold to the belief that he was still a current user at the time of his testimony - or would have been if his substance had been available. As others have pointed out, the effects of withdrawal of addiction last longer than just the gustatory or 'cold turkey' withdrawal symptoms do, and would not have been much better in terms of his reliability.

When Curatolo testified at the first trial, his drug use and ability to testify was not an issue for anyone (post 5266)

Aaaand this has what relevance to subsequent analysis of the issue?

I can find no evidence of affected "speech and motor patterns evident in his presentation" at his original testimony.

Great! So, where did you do your health profession training? Have you worked with addicts? What assessments have you performed in your clinical work? Where can I get a video of his testimony to double check for myself?

 

[Bill Williams]

What you can't or won't grasp, sadly, is that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of the courts . The two "students" (ahem) are not as innocent as you would like to believe and the courts, taking all in all, have concluded they are guilty as charged. You can get your knickers in a twist about it for eternity but that's where it's at I'm afraid.

It is partly correct what you say... that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of all but one of the Italian courts. But where it sits is that the courts are demanding something other than the fact of contamination.

They are also demanding the route of contamination be shown. .. which all independent experts say is not part of any meaningful judicial standard. This, then, is the very definition of a wrongful conviction.

And furthermore, the ISC in 2013 said that unless it is this way, perhaps all DNA convictions since 1986 could similarly be called into question.

That's why many of us say that this case is now not about the evidence. They now have to be convicted or other things come into question.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is partly correct what you say... that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of all but one of the Italian courts. But where it sits is that the courts are demanding something other than the fact of contamination.

They are also demanding the route of contamination be shown. .. which all independent experts say is not part of any meaningful judicial standard. This, then, is the very definition of a wrongful conviction.

And furthermore, the ISC in 2013 said that unless it is this way, perhaps all DNA convictions since 1986 could similarly be called into question.
That's why many of us say that this case is now not about the evidence. They now have to be convicted or other things come into question.

We would hope that the DNA evidence used in most of other cases is not trace levels. That is why I think it is a silly argument.

 

[acbytesla]

I was really surprised this morning when I saw no one commented on my post about the text messages sent between Amanda and Meredith ended with XX. Is there a disagreement that this is a sign of affection between the two women?

 

[Desert Fox]

I was really surprised this morning when I saw no one commented on my post about the text messages sent between Amanda and Meredith ended with XX. Is there a disagreement that this is a sign of affection between the two women?

Sometimes it is just habit . . . .I don't think we can say for sure.
Not a sign of a bad relationship though

 

[lonepinealex]

Sometimes it is just habit . . . .I don't think we can say for sure.
Not a sign of a bad relationship though

We can't say for sure, but we could compare with all of Amanda and Meredith's text messages to see whether it is habit or not.