ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 14th August 2013, 05:07 AM   #9441
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by halides1 View Post
You missed my point. The evidence against Rudy Guede is very different from the evidence against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in multiple ways. Different techniques are involved, and there is no innocent explanation for any trace of Guede in the flat. You are trying to set up an equivalence between the evidence against Guede versus Knox and Sollecito, but that dog won't hunt.
Apologies, thanks for the additional comments.
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 05:09 AM   #9442
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Gosh! Don't guys across the pond sleep!
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 05:22 AM   #9443
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
Gosh! Don't guys across the pond sleep!
The massive Gogerty-Marriott PR campaign pays double for our misleading posts posted at odd hours. A guy has to eat you know!
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 05:25 AM   #9444
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
I don’t think the Supreme Court care either way, why should they.
We can only speculate as to why the SC acted as they did, but the fact remains that they made a partisan judgement in favour of the prosecution that has no legal basis.
Quote:
Their concern is judges writing motivations that are consistent with court procedure and their criminal penal codes, that my impression.
If you believe that the SC motivation addressed court procedure and criminal penal codes, then please quote the parts that do so. What they have done instead is to rake over the evidence - even inventing their own facts - without any attempt to pretend otherwise.

Indeed, if they had stayed "consistent with procedure and penal codes", then they could never have endorsed Amanda's blatantly illegal conviction for callunia.
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 05:33 AM   #9445
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
Ok as we all know Meredith was murdered in Italy not the US, therefore as I have said before it would be really helpful to have some kind of context (Italian) about this case. Is it setting some kind of evidentiary and judicial precedent based on other cases in Italy? The way some of these posts are written every aspect of this case is remarkable, everyone in Italy should be discussing it for the numerous reasons raised here and elsewhere, but they’re not.

Please refresh my memory the EDF thing, so this got past Massei and H & Z?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that Massei said that the defense did not need them. I do believe that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to produce the EDFs at least to Conti and Vechiotti and she did not.

I'm not a DNA expert Coulsdon, Diocletus, Halkides, Charles Wilkes and other understand this far better than I. And while you are right that this case is taking place in Italy and not the US or the UK, there still is no excuse for not providing the EDFs. This is plain old discovery. More than watching the tests or the collection, this provides a window to how the tests were administered.

What we do know is that Stefanoni used a very different testing methodology to 36B than she did with any other piece of evidence. Why? Don't you find this extremely odd. Why was only this kitchen knife subjected to this?

No other kitchen knife from the cottage, from Patrick's bar or home was tested and yet not only was this knife was tested for DNA, Stefanoni chose this particular knife to perform not standard PCR testing but low template DNA methodology that she didn't use during the other DNA tests.

So no, the same methods of collection and testing were NOT used for the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as they were against Rudy.

Certainly you can concede this point.

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th August 2013 at 06:17 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:11 AM   #9446
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
Their concern is judges writing motivations that are consistent with court procedure and their criminal penal codes, that my impression.
Living in a country where our legal traditions were foisted upon us by cruel Anglo-Saxon overlords with bad teeth, I have a hard time getting my head around this thought that a person's guilt or innocence should stand or fall on how good the judge is at writing his report.

Look, we have a jury composed of jurors (in the case of Italy, two professional judges and some number of lay judges). They hear evidence. They deliberate for some period of time. They issue a verdict. Then, post facto, the two professional judges have to write some kind of report that gives detailed reasoning for the verdict (even if the defendant is innocent). The report comes out several months after the verdict. We don't even know if the report fully or accrately addresses the issues that were discussed by the jury--it could be just a bunch of rationalizations (senseless crap, like: "she carried the kitchen knife in her purse for protection"). The interested parties have no right to review and contribute to the report to make sure that it will stand up to appeal. The report gets parsed by some prosecutor and he appeals if it's not good enough? What if the verdict is right and the report just sucks--we have a whole new trial? This is a very wasteful system, and frankly, I question whether there is a denial of fair trial here, since the outcome is a function of the judge's skill in drafting a report as opposed to the actual evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:30 AM   #9447
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by Mary_H View Post
It is not necessarily a fact that the evidence for all suspects was processed by the same people, in the same place or in the same way. Police had evidence of a fourth suspect as early as the 7th or 8th of November: http://metro.co.uk/2007/11/08/meredi...uspect-468784/
I believe that the lab knew on 11/6 or maybe 11/7, based on the vaginal swab and feces samples, that the intruder/rapist was a person other than Sollecito or Lumumba. They probably did not know his identity--he was just designated "Uomo No. 2." Perhaps they were able to determine from the DNA that he was of African origin, but the reason that they were searching for a "fourth man" was because they had DNA results that told them that the "fourth" guy was the actual rapist.

It is possible that they eventually came up with Guede's name/identity based on fingerprint evidence, however, they clearly knew as of the arraignment on 11/9 that Sollecito and Lumumba were not the rapists.

The entire story-line about how they identified Guede based on fingerprints is a smokescreen for the fact that by probably 11/6 they were in possession of DNA evidence that was exculpatory to Sollecito and Lumumba.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:31 AM   #9448
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,596
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Living in a country where our legal traditions were foisted upon us by cruel Anglo-Saxon overlords with bad teeth, I have a hard time getting my head around this thought that a person's guilt or innocence should stand or fall on how good the judge is at writing his report.


Quote:
Look, we have a jury composed of jurors (in the case of Italy, two professional judges and some number of lay judges). They hear evidence. They deliberate for some period of time. They issue a verdict. Then, post facto, the two professional judges have to write some kind of report that gives detailed reasoning for the verdict (even if the defendant is innocent). The report comes out several months after the verdict. We don't even know if the report fully or accrately addresses the issues that were discussed by the jury--it could be just a bunch of rationalizations (senseless crap, like: "she carried the kitchen knife in her purse for protection"). The interested parties have no right to review and contribute to the report to make sure that it will stand up to appeal. The report gets parsed by some prosecutor and he appeals if it's not good enough? What if the verdict is right and the report just sucks--we have a whole new trial? This is a very wasteful system, and frankly, I question whether there is a denial of fair trial here, since the outcome is a function of the judge's skill in drafting a report as opposed to the actual evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict.
I agree. It doesn't seem to be allowed for the ISC to say:

'Hellman was insufficiently osmotic for our taste but, nonetheless, justice is justice and it's clear that he got the right result. Next case.'
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:43 AM   #9449
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
But going back to the EDFs there is no excuse for not providing them. It is routine in the US to provide them. Couldsdon, Why? There is only one reason, and that is they don't want the world to see how this particularly sausage was made.
The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.

Last edited by Diocletus; 14th August 2013 at 06:47 AM.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 07:04 AM   #9450
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.
What you are describing is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Which of course to a certain degree the refusal of the EDFs are also, but the difference is the selectivity that Stefanoni failed to produce only specific records is not only suspicious it really should be criminal.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 07:58 AM   #9451
cuki777
Critical Thinker
 
cuki777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 264
cuki pbs #34

Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.
"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"
cuki777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 08:24 AM   #9452
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by cuki777 View Post
"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"
I don't know anything about this. Sounds like more bull. But let's propose a straight-up trade: diary pages and bleach receipts, if any, for the complete forensics records.

Since we obviously would have heard about suspciciously missing diary pages at trial, if true, and since the prosecution has been very deceitful concerning the forensics records, my money is on a definite "no thanks" from the prosecution.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 08:35 AM   #9453
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by cuki777 View Post
"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"
Are you suggesting that Amanda was planning to kill Meredith and she may have wrote this in her diary? What could she possibly have written during those last two weeks that was incriminating? And was this the last week after she met Raffaele? Or in the previous week before she met him?

I seriously doubt that there is anything in her diary from October 14 to October 31st that could shed light on this crime.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 08:55 AM   #9454
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,596
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Are you suggesting that Amanda was planning to kill Meredith and she may have wrote this in her diary? What could she possibly have written during those last two weeks that was incriminating? And was this the last week after she met Raffaele? Or in the previous week before she met him?

I seriously doubt that there is anything in her diary from October 14 to October 31st that could shed light on this crime.
It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 09:15 AM   #9455
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.
Sure it could and I could have slept with Morgan Fairchild last night. Yea, that's the ticket. I slept with Morgan Fairchild.

10 points if you guess who I am.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 09:25 AM   #9456
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.
Could say "I am guilty of murdering Meredith five days from now."

Also, there is the possibility that the diary pages are the real murder weapon. They are definitely compatible with at least one of the wounds.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 09:45 AM   #9457
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,596
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Sure it could and I could have slept with Morgan Fairchild last night. Yea, that's the ticket. I slept with Morgan Fairchild.

10 points if you guess who I am.
Since Grinder isn't here I am left to accuse you of conflating. Distinguish the questions whether:

1 in principle there could have been anything incriminating in the diary, regardless of likelihood, and

2 whether, having regard to Amanda's character background etc there was or was likely to have been anything incriminating.

I was addressing the first point and you are answering it by reference to the second.

Last edited by anglolawyer; 14th August 2013 at 10:51 AM.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 09:58 AM   #9458
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Since Grinder isn't here I am left to accuse you of conflating. Distinguish the questions whether:

1 in principle there could have been anything incriminating in the diary, regardless of likelihood, and

2 whether, having regard to Amanda's character background etc there was or was likely to have been anything incriminating.

I was addressing the second point and you are answering it by reference to the second.
Actually, I'm just joking. Something that Grinder wouldn't pick up on. But thanks for filling in for Grinder. Wonder what happened to him? Missing diary pages could mean anything. I'm not sure the same could be said about missing DNA documentation.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:27 AM   #9459
Sherlock Holmes
Muse
 
Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Actually, I'm just joking. Something that Grinder wouldn't pick up on. But thanks for filling in for Grinder. Wonder what happened to him? Missing diary pages could mean anything. I'm not sure the same could be said about missing DNA documentation.
Depends on who you are talking to, PIP or PGP...........
__________________
the best truth that I have been able to think.
Sherlock Holmes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:31 AM   #9460
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes View Post
Depends on who you are talking to, PIP or PGP...........
Not really. Stefanoni has a responsibility to provide FULL DISCLOSURE. The same can not be said about someone writing in their own diary.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:36 AM   #9461
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes View Post
Depends on who you are talking to, PIP or PGP...........
I think you should give PGP more credit. Everyone knows that there is a problem when the police disclose the prosecution-friendly part of records but conceal the remainder of them. Also, I'm sure that PGP would want all of the records produced so that there can be no questions. What bad can come of transparency?
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:44 AM   #9462
Sherlock Holmes
Muse
 
Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Not really. Stefanoni has a responsibility to provide FULL DISCLOSURE. The same can not be said about someone writing in their own diary.
Quote:
Missing diary pages could mean anything. I'm not sure the same could be said about missing DNA documentation.
Um, those two sentences do not mean the same, I was replying to the second one.
__________________
the best truth that I have been able to think.
Sherlock Holmes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:59 AM   #9463
acbytesla
Illuminator
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,991
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes View Post
Um, those two sentences do not mean the same, I was replying to the second one.
I'm sorry I guess I don't see your point.

In truth, yes, missing diary pages could mean anything. Not that their absence is evidence of anything. Neither is it significant in assigning or dismissing guilt.

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th August 2013 at 11:27 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:03 AM   #9464
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Living in a country where our legal traditions were foisted upon us by cruel Anglo-Saxon overlords with bad teeth, I have a hard time getting my head around this thought that a person's guilt or innocence should stand or fall on how good the judge is at writing his report.

Look, we have a jury composed of jurors (in the case of Italy, two professional judges and some number of lay judges). They hear evidence. They deliberate for some period of time. They issue a verdict. Then, post facto, the two professional judges have to write some kind of report that gives detailed reasoning for the verdict (even if the defendant is innocent). The report comes out several months after the verdict. We don't even know if the report fully or accrately addresses the issues that were discussed by the jury--it could be just a bunch of rationalizations (senseless crap, like: "she carried the kitchen knife in her purse for protection"). The interested parties have no right to review and contribute to the report to make sure that it will stand up to appeal. The report gets parsed by some prosecutor and he appeals if it's not good enough? What if the verdict is right and the report just sucks--we have a whole new trial? This is a very wasteful system, and frankly, I question whether there is a denial of fair trial here, since the outcome is a function of the judge's skill in drafting a report as opposed to the actual evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict.
If H & Z were not able to support their verdict with legal reasoning to an expected standard then verdict is unsafe. Their motivations were written to such a poor legal standard that the prosecution won every single point of appeal.
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:04 AM   #9465
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes, I'm pretty sure that Massei said that the defense did not need them. I do believe that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to produce the EDFs at least to Conti and Vechiotti and she did not.

I'm not a DNA expert Coulsdon, Diocletus, Halkides, Charles Wilkes and other understand this far better than I. And while you are right that this case is taking place in Italy and not the US or the UK, there still is no excuse for not providing the EDFs. This is plain old discovery. More than watching the tests or the collection, this provides a window to how the tests were administered.

What we do know is that Stefanoni used a very different testing methodology to 36B than she did with any other piece of evidence. Why? Don't you find this extremely odd. Why was only this kitchen knife subjected to this?

No other kitchen knife from the cottage, from Patrick's bar or home was tested and yet not only was this knife was tested for DNA, Stefanoni chose this particular knife to perform not standard PCR testing but low template DNA methodology that she didn't use during the other DNA tests.

So no, the same methods of collection and testing were NOT used for the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as they were against Rudy.

Certainly you can concede this point.
Yes I accept your point.
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:29 AM   #9466
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
If H & Z were not able to support their verdict with legal reasoning to an expected standard then verdict is unsafe. Their motivations were written to such a poor legal standard that the prosecution won every single point of appeal.
Yes, my point exactly. The (alleged) insufficiency of the report is the (alleged) cause of the reversal. But, what does H&Z's skill or lack thereof in writing a report have to do with guilt or innocence? The jury verdict is the product of fact-finding and deliberation, it exists prior to and outside of the report, and the verdict is not unsound simply because some judge couldn't write a report. If I have a right to a jury trial, I think that my fate should be determined by the jury and not by the grade some appellate gives a judge on his term paper.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:39 AM   #9467
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
If H & Z were not able to support their verdict with legal reasoning to an expected standard then verdict is unsafe. Their motivations were written to such a poor legal standard that the prosecution won every single point of appeal.
Please explain what legal deficiencies were identified in the H-Z report, by the SC hearing.

ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.

Last edited by Antony; 14th August 2013 at 11:43 AM. Reason: second para
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:46 AM   #9468
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,304
bingo

Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Please explain what legal deficiencies were identified in the H-Z report, by the SC hearing.

ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.
Good point.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:51 AM   #9469
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.
The judge writed real good about callunia.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:56 AM   #9470
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by halides1 View Post
Good point.
Thanks. I asked the same previously of Coulsdon, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...92#post9426992. I also put this question to Machiavelli, but he has not posted since.

Coulsdon, are we to think that the H-Z report must have been to a poor legal standard, otherwise the SC would not have overturned it? I think in a sceptics' forum, that will be recognised as the appeal to authority fallacy.
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:07 PM   #9471
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK
If H & Z were not able to support their verdict with legal reasoning to an expected standard then verdict is unsafe. Their motivations were written to such a poor legal standard that the prosecution won every single point of appeal.
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Please explain what legal deficiencies were identified in the H-Z report, by the SC hearing.

ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.
I second Anthony's request.

This is the elephant in the room, in Italy right now. It's up to the Florence court to unravel - either that or actually make new rulings of fact about Curatolo, Nara, the "sex-game gone wrong" theory, etc. as marching orders (so it seems) from the Morch 2013 ISC ruling.

If the ISC limited itself to showing how the H&Z report of Dec 2011 had been written to such a poor legal standard, someone, maybe CoulsdonUK, should be able to point to the points of law or procedure which the H&Z court violated - which in turn caused the ISC to rule in favour of the prosecution on every point?

Anthony's claim, so far unanswered, is the request to actually show from the ISC motivations report the legal or procedural reasoning that the ISC used. It's simple, really. The claim is that it cannot be done because it's not there. The rebuttal to this is easy - <CTRL>-C then <CTRL>-P.

As for legal stuff, it is incredible to conceive that the ISC signed off on a calunnia conviction when the law (at least according to Wikipedia) says:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia about calunnia
Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty shall be increased if the accused blames someone of a crime for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty. The imprisonment shall be from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence.
Did Amanda Knox fabricate evidence? She was being pressured to give evidence about Lumumba on the basis of the SMS-text which attracted the cops' attention (Ficarra). It attracted the cops' attention so much that they gave their own paraphrase of that SMS text in the 1:45 am confession... "I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately", which is not the rendering which should have been made.... at that point it is obvious it is the cops (Ficarra or Napoleoni) who is imposing a meaning on to a harmless Americanism.

So who was it who fabricated evidence about Lumumba? The letter of Italian law, in my limited mind at least, suggests that it was the cops - either Ficarra or Napoleoni.

And with the manner in which the cops apporached Knox about Lumumba, she had every reason to believe the cops thought they had the goods on him. She could reasonably assume he WAS guilty based on the cops' reaction to the SMS message.

But again.... if the H&Z report was written to such a poor legal standard, then it would be easy to point to the references in the ISC motivations report. Unfortunately, what is there are mentions of findings of fact - not poor legal reasoning.

For instance, when the ISC says that H&Z erred by not relying on Nara for T.O.D. information - ie. the screams suggest a late T.O.D. - the ISC is trumping a lower court on a finding of fact - not on the law. It is the lower courts' job to find as factual (or non-factual) people's testimony.

The ISC seems more interested in the harmonization of two court findings - Rudy's fast-trach vs. RS's and AK's normal trials, than it is about the facts as found in both the Massei and Hellmann courts.

Can someone point to something that says that THIS is the ISC's job?
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:08 PM   #9472
GreyFox
Thinker
 
GreyFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Yes, my point exactly. The (alleged) insufficiency of the report is the (alleged) cause of the reversal. But, what does H&Z's skill or lack thereof in writing a report have to do with guilt or innocence? The jury verdict is the product of fact-finding and deliberation, it exists prior to and outside of the report, and the verdict is not unsound simply because some judge couldn't write a report. If I have a right to a jury trial, I think that my fate should be determined by the jury and not by the grade some appellate gives a judge on his term paper.
Right. If the ISC don't like the report then they can have H&Z rewrite their report and submit again until they get approval. Keep it a problem within the courts themselves. Not ..change the verdict and screw the defendants ?
GreyFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:09 PM   #9473
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Please explain what legal deficiencies were identified in the H-Z report, by the SC hearing.

ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.
I can’t, can you?

Does anyone posting here have first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Italian criminal penal codes? Of course if you do have such experience I would be interested to learn where you believe the Supreme Court set some kind of legal precedent in this particular case.
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:19 PM   #9474
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
I can’t, can you?

Does anyone posting here have first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Italian criminal penal codes? Of course if you do have such experience I would be interested to learn where you believe the Supreme Court set some kind of legal precedent in this particular case.
Let's face it: the SC decision doesn't have anything to do with the penal code. It's about disagreement with the weight and credibility that jury assessed to particular pieces of evidence, as was the jury's obligation and perogative. The Supreme Court disagreed with the jury, and usurped the role of the jury by vacating the verdict.

Thus, my impression of the system in Italy is that there is a right to jury trial only if the Supreme Court says so.
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:28 PM   #9475
Mary_H
Philosopher
 
Mary_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,151
Originally Posted by cuki777 View Post
"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"
What diary?
Mary_H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:33 PM   #9476
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
I can’t, can you?
In your previous post, you asserted:

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
Their motivations were written to such a poor legal standard that the prosecution won every single point of appeal.
Why did you make this assertion if you can't justify it?

The point is that the SC also issued a motivations report, which set out the "reasons" behind their decisions. Contrary to your assertions, it does not contain any legal criticism of H-Z, but instead engages in challenging their interpretation of the evidence and findings of fact. This is not their role to do - and indeed, it makes a mockery of the trial process as the SC hearing cannot possibly establish facts (in contradiction of an actual fact-finding trial), in a hearing lasting a single day and without hearing any witnesses.

Last edited by Antony; 14th August 2013 at 12:33 PM. Reason: formatting
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 12:43 PM   #9477
GreyFox
Thinker
 
GreyFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
Post #9415, #9418 and #9420 refer.

(Snip)
#9418
Guede actions; imagine a black man walking through the woods in Southern US in the 1950’s; he comes across a white woman brutally murdered, would he
A: Run to the nearest police station and inform them of what he found
B: Run like hell and hope no one saw him.



African Italians face far more discrimination, racial prejudice and the strong hand of the law than say southern Italians like Raffaele, two or three weeks ago an African Italian member of parliament had banana’s thrown at her whilst speaking at a rally. Indeed, this is something that still bugs me, given the racial bias against African Italians when the Perugian police found Guede’s finger print and issued an arrest warrant they had their man, none of us would have batted an eyelid.
So no I am not surprised Guede ran. Having said that given the evidence found and processed by the same people in the same laboratory, I assume using the same procedures as Raffaele and Amanda, not to mention his conflicting shifting statements to police, I think his sentence was indeed lenient.
Run home maybe, but too Germany ? If the racist Italian police are so bad then you agree with us that they grabbed the (foreign American) girl and bullied her until she coughed up a black man of their choosing. Likewise when the DM printed PL's story about being called a "dirty black" and being mistreated you were outraged and with us all along. Right?

On the TV show Cops...Why are all those innocent people running from the police? Are those cops racist too? They (criminals) will run over and kill any man, woman, and child that gets in their way to avoid jail time for something as petty as a traffic ticket. So what do you suppose Rudy would do if MK walked in on his panty Raid???

No batting eyelids here. Bloody fingerprints on the dead womans purse. Money to go to Germany......better be a good explanation !!!
GreyFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:45 PM   #9478
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
 
CoulsdonUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
In your previous post, you asserted:



Why did you make this assertion if you can't justify it?

The point is that the SC also issued a motivations report, which set out the "reasons" behind their decisions. Contrary to your assertions, it does not contain any legal criticism of H-Z, but instead engages in challenging their interpretation of the evidence and findings of fact. This is not their role to do - and indeed, it makes a mockery of the trial process as the SC hearing cannot possibly establish facts (in contradiction of an actual fact-finding trial), in a hearing lasting a single day and without hearing any witnesses.
The context for me is the ruling of the Supreme Court, there will be a new trial so it is not a personal opinion or assertion as you put it but a simple fact of events.

Clearly the Supreme Court had a different interpretation of its role than the one you posted.

As many have said if there were a guilty verdict and the Supreme Court signed off on the motivations the next stage I assume from Raffaele and Amanda’s point of view would be to appeal to the ECHR and maybe then points you are making now would be used in such an appeal, but all this assumes a guilty verdict in the next trial.

I do not believe the Supreme Court are saying the next verdict must be guilty, I believe they are saying review all evidence provide meaningful legal arguments in the form of a motivation for any verdict.
CoulsdonUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 02:11 PM   #9479
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by Antony
Please explain what legal deficiencies were identified in the H-Z report, by the SC hearing.

ETA: please include an explanation of how the SC were able to uphold the callunia conviction, but not the acquittals.
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
I can’t, can you?

Does anyone posting here have first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Italian criminal penal codes? Of course if you do have such experience I would be interested to learn where you believe the Supreme Court set some kind of legal precedent in this particular case.
I'm not saying this to be rude or provocative, CoulsdonUK, it is out of genuine perplexity...

Why then in heaven's name did you claim that the H&Z verdict was reversed on issues of law? Do you have any idea how silly this sounds if someone goes back and reads how this thread started?
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 02:11 PM   #9480
Ampulla of Vater
Graduate Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 1,606
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Sure it could and I could have slept with Morgan Fairchild last night. Yea, that's the ticket. I slept with Morgan Fairchild.

10 points if you guess who I am.
Oh, oh, oh - I know!
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.