Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[otto]

YAY! I MISSED YOU!
I could never quite get over the title of that blog, because it just sounds so incredibly tabloidish. SHOCK!

I've been quietly following most of the recent updates, but this one is really something. I think that Frank needs to be very careful at this time to avoid serious legal problems. These problems have been coming down the pipe for a few weeks, but I think that what Frank does at this time will impact what happens to him in the courts. I can understand that well meaning people are trying to be helpful by reposting the information for which he is now facing legal troubles, but I don't think it's helpful. The mere fact that Frank has copyright on the information means that if it's reposted anywhere, it is done with his approval.

 

[wasnt_me]

That's not true. the reposting of copyrighted information does not mean it was done with the copyright holder's approval. I would copy anyone's blog right now and repost it somewhere without their knowledge. If they find out, then that's where copyright infringement lawsuits come in.

 

[wasnt_me]

From Savive's corner, Fred has asked what I agreed and disagreed with:

I will do a couple things here and there. First I disagree with this about the bra clasp.

1. And, as for the bra clasp: there is absolutely no question whether Sollecito’s DNA was or was not on it—it was! There is less than one chance in a trillion that this was not Sollecito’s DNA. This is a mathematical fact, as plenty of his cells were present to provide a reliable test! The only thing that can be contested was contamination from the machine [not the machine on this message board], which is virtually impossible to prove—and would almost have to be performed by monkeys to occur, because of the large amount of cells present. Or, due to some type of physical transfer, prior to removal or testing, that would involve an incalculable improbability, considering that Sollecito’s DNA was not found in the cottage anywhere else (other than Kercher’s door handle) even close to the amount found on the bra (1.4 nanogram or 1400 picograms—which contains approximately 160 cells).

It is my understanding that they did not find a complete DNA profile on this clasp. They also, in fact said they believe the profile was mixed with the victims. In addition, other DNA profiles were found on this clasp. RS's DNA was found on a cigarette butt in the kitchen. I did not ever read that it was actually on the door. So if he actually left DNA in just those two places, then what of the others who's DNA is on the clasp?

Y-chromosomal DNA corresponding to Raffaele’s haplotype was found on the clasp as well as many alleles corresponding to his autosomal DNA. Dr. Tagliabracci’s critique of Dr. Stefanoni’s analysis, that it was suspect-centered, is probably valid but is tangential to the more important questions surrounding the collection of the clasp. The reanalysis of the clasp in the appeal will likely conclude that a partial profile corresponding to Raffaele’s autosomal DNA (but possibly not a full profile) is present. However, there are one or more other contributors as well, apart from Meredith, and the more salient question is how this DNA was deposited on the clasp.


Raffaele's putative DNA on the clasp is very weak, less than 200 pg according to his appeal.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/03/analysis-of-bra-clasp-dna.html

This page will also explain how they think the alleged DNA profile from the clasp was a possibly a half profile, mixed with MK's, how the stutter peaks were misinterpreted, etc. I cannot explain it without reposting it all here. you may have read it and already know it, but I post it so you know where I got my information from.

From RS's appeal papers:

The defense argues that proper analysis the DNA on the clasp shows that Raffaele’s DNA is not abundant at all. With proper testing, Raffaele’s alleged DNA is only 1/6 of the total sample. The prosecution agreed with this analysis. That calculation is a best case scenario. In actuality, it could easily be less than 1/6. This lowers the genetic material that is attributed to Raffaele to well under 200 picograms, the standard minimum to be used for normal DNA analysis. In order for the sample to be tested properly, LCN analysis would have been necessary. LCN testing was not done by the prosecution’s experts on the clasp. The defense argues that proper testing shows that some strands do not match Raffaele’s DNA. The defense expert was only able to test a few strands. The court did not understand that if any strands did not match then it wasn’t Raffaele’s DNA. The defense argues that additional testing will prove that the DNA does not belong to Raffaele. This additional testing should be granted on appeal.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

The whole appeal of RS and AK are at this link. If you want more things I disagree with from Savive, then let me know. I agree with him that the CNN case was one-sided. I agree with him that AK had an interpretor for the interrogation, allbeit, that person, according to testimony, worked for the police, not for the benefit of full communication.

2. I also disagree with this:

At 14:57, after explaining Knox’s confession and fingering Lumumba as the murderer, Griffin says, “Police didn’t bother to check the facts about Lumumba.”

So, Griffin is actually putting this responsibility on police and not on Knox. I don’t care what country you are in, if a woman was murdered and her female roommate says that she was there and “so and so” was the murderer, police are going to arrest that person and sort things out later.

I do not understand what is wrong with putting the responsibility on the police instead of visiting citizen (?) knox. And I disagree that you get arrested immediately in america just because someone fingered you in a crime or a murder. If that were true, do you know how many people who wanted to get rid of someone would just lie on them and turn them in for murders or turn them in for Missing persons? the police can detain and question you, but they'd be fools facing lawsuits to just outright arrest you upon anyone's accusation--as we saw was the case in italy.

Like I said, I'll add more, if you actually want to read more long responses of how i disagree with this blogger.

 

[otto]

That's not true. the reposting of copyrighted information does not mean it was done with the copyright holder's approval. I would copy anyone's blog right now and repost it somewhere without their knowledge. If they find out, then that's where copyright infringement lawsuits come in.

The copyright violation occurs as soon as someone takes someone else's information and uses it without permission. If Frank's information is being posted on another website, it is done with or without permission. If it's done with permission, it will most likely compound Frank's legal troubles. If it is done without permission, then it is copyright violation. Either way, I think it will compound Frank's troubles.

 

[wasnt_me]

I respectfully submit that i don't know why you're trying to educate me on copyright and copyright infringement. I know what it is. That is why when you said:

The mere fact that Frank has copyright on the information means that if it's reposted anywhere, it is done with his approval.

I said to you that just because someone else posted it anywhere, does NOT mean it was necessarily done with Frank's approval. I'm not sure where I was unclear that made you have to outline to me what copyright and infringement are. I was also pointing out in that post by example that if no one discovers the infringement, no negative recourse happens. In reality, it also depends on the length of the sniped material. In this case, it seems 100% of articles are being reproduced, but we don't know know by whom yet.

The fact is, we don't know right now if Frank reposted it, if someone else did it for him or if he has no idea someone else did it.

If someone else did it without his permission and he can prove that, and also prove that he took every action necessary to shut that person down, he most likely won't be in further legal trouble. That IS if the Italian court systems accepts proof that he tried to make the copyright infringer stop.

To me, it doesn't seem like facts mean anything in Italy, so he might be just as screwed as AK and RS.

I also submitted that they are wrong to take down ANY articles that are no under suspicion. If the articles do not contain what is in question, then they should be left there. Only the articles under suspicion should be removed--possibly. I don't even really agree with that, but I'll give it to them. This is possibly what Frank is fighting about, but you have to have money to fight the italian court.

 

[otto]

I respectfully submit that i don't know why you're trying to educate me on copyright and copyright infringement. I know what it is. That is why when you said:



I said to you that just because someone else posted it anywhere, does NOT mean it was necessarily done with Frank's approval. The fact is, we don't know right now if Frank reposted it, if someone else did it for him or if he has no idea someone else did it.

If someone else did it without his permission and he can prove that, and also prove that he took every action necessary to shut that person down, he most likely won't be in further legal trouble. That IS if the Italian court systems accepts proof that he tried to make the copyright infringer stop.

To me, it doesn't seem like facts mean anything in Italy, so he might be just as screwed as AK and RS.

I've already seen two links to copies of his work. Do you think he is unaware of what's going on?

 

[wasnt_me]

What is there about "we don't know IF..." that's confusing?

I don't mean to be rude, but you ask this question as if what I think or believe about it matters. It's just possibilities, and if you dismiss the possibility, that's your right. my thoughts need not enter into it at all. just say you don't agree with that and leave it at that, because "what i think or believe" isn't on trial here.

 

[wasnt_me]

Nova,

We'd been talking about RG's skype call. I don't know if you saw this, but it was part of RS's appeal doc translated on http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_169

Rudy’s Skype Conversation

During Rudy's skype conversation with Giacomo, Rudy is heard saying:



“They say there was a broken window, but when I was there, there wasn't any broken window; it's a window that's on the left when you're facing the house, the wooden shutters were open so I could see the window, it wasn't broken, and also when I left.”



The defense would like to know how Rudy could have known which of the windows was supposed to be broken. The defense confirms that this precise information was never printed in any newspaper at that time, In fact, it was mistakenly reported that Meredith's bedroom window was broken. The defense believes that there is a very logical reason why Rudy knew which window was broken.



The defense also points out that Amanda and Raffaele would not have chosen Filomena’s window to stage a break in. They could have simply broken the lock on the front door to stage a break in. Why would they go through all that trouble with Filomena’s window? The defense argues that Rudy knew what window was broken during his skype conversation because he broke it to gain entrance to the cottage.

I don't know what was reported in the beginning, but I guess if the police purposely didn't leak the info about the window, then RG wouldn't know. I can't help but think I read an article in dailyukmail or something where RS talks about it, but I don't know if it was before the skype call date.

 

[OldSteve]

The copyright violation occurs as soon as someone takes someone else's information and uses it without permission. If Frank's information is being posted on another website, it is done with or without permission. If it's done with permission, it will most likely compound Frank's legal troubles. If it is done without permission, then it is copyright violation. Either way, I think it will compound Frank's troubles.

There's something called "Fair Use" whereby something that's copyrighted can be used under certain conditions mentioned in the law...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Unfortunately, the distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

 

[miley]

I was watching a program called "Solved" yesterday that dealt with a murder in Edmond, OK, that was only solved after 20 years because the killer left a very clear footprint in blood at the crime scene, a print that was matched to him decades later.

What struck me was the testimony from the forensic techs on how rare footprint evidence is. The scientist who broke the case talked about how he hadn't seen a case that hinged on bare footprints in his 15 years in his profession.

He said shoeprints were common, bare footprints practically unheard of.

He even had to invent a methodology in order to compare the bloody footprint with one taken from the killer 20 years later.

All of which made me wonder how reliable are the testimonies re footprints in the Perugia case? If bare footprints are as unusual in Italy as they are here, did the "experts" really even have the knowledge necessary to make the matches they made?

considering the shoeprints... at this point, I'm not sure I'd trust them to match a pair of socks

 

[Malkmus]

considering the shoeprints... at this point, I'm not sure I'd trust them to match a pair of socks

So true! :floorlaugh:

 

[Allusonz]

So are you thinking that even though there is a court order requiring that the information be taken off the net, it's okay to violate the court order if the information is on a private website?

I am assuming that there is an out of control prosecutor in Perugia by the name of Mignini, whom has a long history of bringing suits against numerous individuals which is well documented. This same prosecutor has been charged with abuse of office and convicted of it even though he is appealing it. Just for the Amanda Knox trial there was at least 14 slander charges to date against lawyers, various media which tells me that this particular individual is not executing his oath of office and appears to continue to abuse these powers. This was more than just wire tapping thus let me refresh your memory

The bench ruled that he and Michele Giuttari, a detective-turned-thriller writer, had used their powers to persecute people they regarded as their enemies: tapping their phones, interrogating them, putting them under investigation without any evidence against them and even getting them jailed, for personal reasons

the court said, were guilty of "almost unheard of" criminal activity, carrying out investigations "in no way related ... to their proper competence", launching criminal cases with no evidence, ordering phone taps with "quite different ends" from those cited when the taps were authorised, taps that were made "for reasons of retaliation ... against people towards whom they had reasons for hostility".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1992485.html

Even though all the Monster's victims were shot with the same gun, Mignini told a court that it wasn't the work of a single serial killer. Rather, Mignini described an elaborate conspiracy of 20 people, including government officials and law enforcement officers, who made up a secret society behind the Monster killings.

Mignini indicted the 20 people and charged them with the concealment of Narducci's murder, and laid out a hard-to-follow plot that included body doubles and featured Narducci's body being swapped - not once, but twice!

According to the Italian newsmagazine Panorama, investigators discovered that Mignini maintained computer lists entitled "Attacks to Remember" and "Orgy of Attacks." The lists contained names of journalists, government officials, and members of the Italian Parliament.

Mignini was convicted of launching investigations into his critics in the media, the police, and the government. The prosecutor illegally wiretapped phones and cell phones in his ambition to end the "orgy of attacks."

Because he violated the public trust, the Florence court banned Mignini from holding public office for the rest of his life. But, during his appeal, the prosecutor gets to remain in office. Mignini has not been called on to resign either

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ag=mncol;lst;4

 

[Allusonz]

There's something called "Fair Use" whereby something that's copyrighted can be used under certain conditions mentioned in the law...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Unfortunately, the distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

Also difficult to enforce when you are dealing with different countries

 

[Allusonz]

I've already seen two links to copies of his work. Do you think he is unaware of what's going on?

Seems that you might be forgetting another option. He has the right to turn his copyright material over to another individual/corporation while still being able to post information until his legal issues have been resolved.

If I were Frank that is exactly what I would do thus there would be no copyright issue involved as long as a legal document is in place

 

[SMK]

I think what is bothersome about Perugia Shock being pulled down is that the only thing Frank said was that Mignini maintained "friendships" with some drug dealers in return for their advice and info. He never said Mignini used or sold drugs.

Mignini seems to be pulling his usual "sue for defamation" as he was doing even as he stood indicted and then convicted of criminal conduct. He was sentenced to nearly 2 years in prison, which is where he would be now under the American system. His appeal has him in a strange position of power. He should not , technically, have even been involved with the Kercher case, but due to his appeal he still holds his office.

It is true that this business with Perugia Shock was a court order that the blog be seized as evidence, and Google had no choice but to comply with the Italian courts. I think Frank should turn to the international community for help, which is what he is doing with IIP I am sure.

 

[SMK]

Google slammed the door yesterday on Perugia Shock, Frank Sfarzo’s popular Amanda Knox blog, caving to pressure from prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Convicted of abuse of office in 2009, Mignini is famous for harassing and wiretapping journalists who get too close to his investigations. The obsession we need to do our jobs he regards as madness. He doesn’t appreciate Frank’s acid critiques of the international spectacle known as “The Amanda Show.”

Mignini has filed a lawsuit against Perugia Shock for “defamation, carried out by means of a website,” reports the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). “The court order, which stemmed from Mignini’s claim, was issued on February 23 by Florentine Judge Paola Belsino. ”

Many case observers thought Perugia Shock was bulletproof since it was hosted by Google, a U.S. company. Does this look like freedom of expression? Couldn’t Google wait for an investigation or, like, a trial? Why is a lion pretending to be a lamb?

Smart, enigmatic, fond of hand-rolled cigarettes, Frank is the only reporter to cover every single hearing, the one Italian who writes in English for a global audience. Still, he lives in a land where the press slipped into “partly free” in 2009, according to Freedom House.

When I spoke to Frank about Google shutting down his site, he said he wasn’t sure how he’d defamed the prosecutor.

“What did you say to anger Mignini?” I asked.

“The truth!”

“Google did it and did not tell me why, but that it was a judge order. I learned by email,” he’d told West Seattle Herald by phone from Perugia yesterday. “The lawsuit went to the court in Florence, and the judge in Florence made a decree of seizure of the blog.”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/05/11/google-silences-blog-critical-of-amanda-knox-prosecutor/

 

[otto]

There's something called "Fair Use" whereby something that's copyrighted can be used under certain conditions mentioned in the law...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Unfortunately, the distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

I'm pretty sure that, unless Frank has given permission, it is a copyright violation to grab Frank's writings and repost them on a different web url. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether Frank gives permission, reposting the information in a new location after the court ordered that it be taken down will most likely add to Frank's legal troubles.

 

[dgfred]

I'm pretty sure that, unless Frank has given permission, it is a copyright violation to grab Frank's writings and repost them on a different web url. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether Frank gives permission, reposting the information in a new location after the court ordered that it be taken down will most likely add to Frank's legal troubles.

Good to see you back otto :rocker: . The Cooper case was very interesting for me too. Wonder what would have happened to AK/RS if tried in N.Carolina?
Just possibly could have been LWOP with the chance of the DP being on the table.

So is another host taking it's chances with the court 'order' by having the new site up?
Could it possibly just be a host change?
Why has Frank not made a 'public' statement to clear up the matter some?
Is the mainstream ITALIAN media picking this up at all for verification, or just pro-AK US media outlets/supporters?

 

[otto]

I am assuming that there is an out of control prosecutor in Perugia by the name of Mignini, whom has a long history of bringing suits against numerous individuals which is well documented. This same prosecutor has been charged with abuse of office and convicted of it even though he is appealing it. Just for the Amanda Knox trial there was at least 14 slander charges to date against lawyers, various media which tells me that this particular individual is not executing his oath of office and appears to continue to abuse these powers. This was more than just wire tapping thus let me refresh your memory

The bench ruled that he and Michele Giuttari, a detective-turned-thriller writer, had used their powers to persecute people they regarded as their enemies: tapping their phones, interrogating them, putting them under investigation without any evidence against them and even getting them jailed, for personal reasons

the court said, were guilty of "almost unheard of" criminal activity, carrying out investigations "in no way related ... to their proper competence", launching criminal cases with no evidence, ordering phone taps with "quite different ends" from those cited when the taps were authorised, taps that were made "for reasons of retaliation ... against people towards whom they had reasons for hostility".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1992485.html

Even though all the Monster's victims were shot with the same gun, Mignini told a court that it wasn't the work of a single serial killer. Rather, Mignini described an elaborate conspiracy of 20 people, including government officials and law enforcement officers, who made up a secret society behind the Monster killings.

Mignini indicted the 20 people and charged them with the concealment of Narducci's murder, and laid out a hard-to-follow plot that included body doubles and featured Narducci's body being swapped - not once, but twice!

According to the Italian newsmagazine Panorama, investigators discovered that Mignini maintained computer lists entitled "Attacks to Remember" and "Orgy of Attacks." The lists contained names of journalists, government officials, and members of the Italian Parliament.

Mignini was convicted of launching investigations into his critics in the media, the police, and the government. The prosecutor illegally wiretapped phones and cell phones in his ambition to end the "orgy of attacks."

Because he violated the public trust, the Florence court banned Mignini from holding public office for the rest of his life. But, during his appeal, the prosecutor gets to remain in office. Mignini has not been called on to resign either

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ag=mncol;lst;4

You do realize that Mignini did not convict Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy. Those convictions were handed down by a jury. There were two prosecutors involved in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, and Mignini was only half of the team. Why so much venom for Mignini?

Additional lawsuits have been brought against Dr Sollecito for attempting to influence the trial process, against Amanda for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, against Amanda for falsely accusing police of beating statements out of her, against Amanda's parents for making false statements against Italian police in British media, and now against Frank for publishing false statements about the prosecutor.

If people would stop lying, or attempting to influence the judicial process, none of these lawsuits would exist. I've read claims about how "free speech" doesn't exist in Italy, and this is why these lawsuits exist. Is it really okay in the US to publicly accuse specific individiuals in public office, police and prosecutors, of things that are not true?

It's my opinion that too many people perceive Perugia as some backwards little medieval town, and the thinking is that the laws in Italy don't have to be respected. I think this same attitude had something to do with Amanda's troubles as well. Is there any reason why the general consensus, from what appears to be US based opinion, is that it's okay to violate the laws of Italy rather than respect them?

 

[otto]

Seems that you might be forgetting another option. He has the right to turn his copyright material over to another individual/corporation while still being able to post information until his legal issues have been resolved.

If I were Frank that is exactly what I would do thus there would be no copyright issue involved as long as a legal document is in place

So you're thinking that even though Frank is now involved in a court case for making false statements against the prosecutor, that it would be wise for him to circumvent the court order because he can?