Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

You are dodging the question again. Do you think that Rinaldi's measurement of the big toe makes sense? Can you back up your unsubstantiated claims about photoshopping images?

The court did and they examined it in detail.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"Tracking material around the flat". Amazing material. Material that has never been identified, that does not display a path into the flat (which it would, were it 'tracked into it'...where are the tracks?) and just happens to make weird shapes on the floor that matches those of Amanda's and Raffaele's feet. <modsnip>.

Fulcanelli,

The hazmat suits that some of the police wore have booties that are just extensions of the leg material. Hard to see how those got changed as the police moved from one place to the next. There is also the luminol-positive material that was on one set of boots and the ruler, as seen in some recently posted pictures. Are you claiming that the blobs in Filomena's room are actually Amanda's or Raffaele's footprints? If so, please provide a link.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sorry to break this to you, but the Inquisitorial System went the way of the Dodo in Italy in 1992, in favor of a US based Adversarial System (although older Judges like Massai tend to stick with what they know and use the Inquisitorial, prosecution is always right approach).

Please read the link I provided. Here it is again (keep in mind, this is an overview written originally in Italian by Italians):

http://www.csm.it/documenti pdf/sistema giudiziario italiano/inglese.pdf

No. The Italian system has incorporated some adversarial elements, but it is still fundamentally inquisitorial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

The hazmat suits that some of the police wore have booties that are just extensions of the leg material. Hard to see how those got changed as the police moved from one place to the next. There is also the luminol-positive material that was on one set of boots and the ruler, as seen in some recently posted pictures. Are you claiming that the blobs in Filomena's room are actually Amanda's or Raffaele's footprints? If so, please provide a link.

Then it should be all over the flat, not limited to three or four prints in the hallway...ir Knox's bedroom. And they certainly would match Knox and Sollecitos feet.

Moreover, the CSI's are experts and have worked multiple cases. If the equipment they used reacted with luminol, don't you think this would have been siscovered a very long time ago? I'll also add, the defence lawyers aren't making arguments like this...there's a reason for that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Am I to understand that you agree with the experts: that the longer the time interval between crime and the luminol use, the better the results, or are you also inclined to disagree with the experts? Are you suggesting that iron in blood will be reduced and the luminol sample degraded over time?

By discrediting the use of luminol, without additional tests, to reveal blood, how many people could get out a "get out of jail free" card?

otto,

The distinction between presumptive and confirmatory tests is not without its subtleties. One starts with luminol or other presumptive tests, but one should back it up with confirmatory tests that are less prone to false positives. I suggest that you pay close attention to Dr Lednev's comments; he is one of the leading forensics experts in the country (link here).

I wish that you would not pretend that the sensitivity of a blood stain is the only factor in deciding when to use luminol. It clearly is not.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Have you factored in the temperature in the room through the night and again through the day, taken into consideration the lower metabolism after a night of heavy drinking ending less than 12 hours before the murder? All the little details make a difference.

otto,

Let's stick to the present case for now; the two cases are certainly different. Do you believe that a small to medium meal of pizza will remain in the stomach of someone with no known digestive abnormalities and none of it will travel to the duodenum after 5 to 6 hours?

 

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

The distinction between presumptive and confirmatory tests is not without its subtleties. One starts with luminol or other presumptive tests, but one should back it up with confirmatory tests that are less prone to false positives. I suggest that you pay close attention to Dr Lednev's comments; he is one of the leading forensics experts in the country (link here).

I wish that you would not pretend that the sensitivity of a blood stain is the only factor in deciding when to use luminol. It clearly is not.

'Should', if it's an option, but it isn't a requirement. In this case there wasn't enough material, since the traces were small to begin with and what was there was needed for DNA testing. Like I said, this isn't the lab, this is the real world.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Quite true. Court experts determined that the bloody print was compatble with Sollecito's footprint; qed. There are conspiracy theorists that think the courts got it all wrong and who use photoshopped images to argue the point. I thought it would be fun to use the same tool to demonstrate the court's conclusion.

otto,

Calling them court experts is misleading; they were prosecution witnesses or witnesses for a party in a civil suit. The defense experts contested the attribution of the print to Sollecito. Compatible? That word means nothing unless one explains what would be incompatible. Thanks for bringing up conspiracy theorists; now that I understand what your true position is, I won't waste any more time answering nonsensical questions from you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

Let's stick to the present case for now; the two cases are certainly different. Do you believe that a small to medium meal of pizza will remain in the stomach of someone with no known digestive abnormalities and none of it will travel to the duodenum after 5 to 6 hours?

It can remain there for up to 20 hours.

You're not still going on about this stomach content thing? Are you a scientist, or are you about faith? Stomach content is a pseudo science and is virtually useless in forensic pathology, doubly so in a court of law.

 

[SkewedView]

No. The Italian system has incorporated some adversarial elements, but it is still fundamentally inquisitorial.

No, officially it is adversarial, as the defense has the right to discovery, to present testimony, and to have an impartial judge to oversee the trial, who is not to function as the investigative director (that role having been fully transferred to the prosecution) - all the essentials of the Adversarial System. The sole official exception to this is with the so called 'fast track' trial, which functions in the old manner (essentially giving a defendant no chance at actually defending themselves). Yes, in practice many aging Judges have corruptly stuck with the old ways, but that is not how the system is supposed to function.

Italy has a long way to go yet, but it has made amazingly large steps towards giving up an evil, long outdated system of legal thought that a number of other European nations still cling to.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the tests (luminol) were performed long after other reactants (such as bleach) would have dissipated, neither were there luminol prints all over the place (as one would expect, if there was some reactant that wasn't blood commonly present in the cottage). Therefore, how high is the probability that they weren't in blood? Do you see the court's position?

Fulcanelli,

How long does it take rust to "dissipate?" You are trying to switch the burden of proof to the defense, when it is the prosecution's burden to demonstrate with confirmatory testing that a substance is blood. No sale.

 

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

Calling them court experts is misleading; they were prosecution witnesses or witnesses for a party in a civil suit. The defense experts contested the attribution of the print to Sollecito. Compatible? That word means nothing unless one explains what would be incompatible. Thanks for bringing up conspiracy theorists; now that I understand what your true position is, I won't waste any more time answering nonsensical questions from you.

Er...they were experts. They weren't joes pulled off the street.

I'm just wondering if any criminal would ever be convicted, were the bar set where you seem to want to put it...selectively I might add (it's only pit so high for Raffaele and Amanda).

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, officially it is adversarial, as the defense has the right to discovery, to present testimony, and to have an impartial judge to oversee the trial, who is not to function as the investigative director (that role having been fully transferred to the prosecution) - all the essentials of the Adversarial System. The sole official exception to this is with the so called 'fast track' trial, which functions in the old manner (essentially giving a defendant no chance at actually defending themselves). Yes, in practice many aging Judges have corruptly stuck with the old ways, but that is not how the system is supposed to function.

Italy has a long way to go yet, but it has made amazingly large steps towards giving up an evil, long outdated system of legal thought that a number of other European nations still cling to.

Listen, if you're determined to assume the system there is common law...adversarial...whatever, knock yourself out.

Adversarial is based a 'combat' between prosecution and defence *adverarires. Inquisitorial is based upon multiple parties (defence, prosecution, victims, judges 'debating' the case...it is 'collegial' hence inquisitorial, to question...rather then 'to fight'.

 

[Malkmus]

The court did and they examined it in detail.

So no explanation for how Amanda's second toe is significantly longer in her reference print than the Luminol ones, or how Rafaelle's big toe is mushroom-shaped in his reference print but not on the bathmat, other than "'cause the court said so"...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sure. Download and view the following powerpoint: DEAR MR MARRIOTT, I SHRUNK THE BLACK KID

Thanks for the laugh. I had forgotten how absurd this powerpoint was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It can remain there for up to 20 hours.

You're not still going on about this stomach content thing? Are you a scientist, or are you about faith? Stomach content is a pseudo science and is virtually useless in forensic pathology, doubly so in a court of law.

Under what conditions? Citation please!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Er...they were experts. They weren't joes pulled off the street.

I'm just wondering if any criminal would ever be convicted, were the bar set where you seem to want to put it...selectively I might add (it's only pit so high for Raffaele and Amanda).

I'm wondering why one should accept the prosecution's experts over the defense's. It seems as if every suspect would get convicted if you had your way.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

How long does it take rust to "dissipate?" You are trying to switch the burden of proof to the defense, when it is the prosecution's burden to demonstrate with confirmatory testing that a substance is blood. No sale.

I don't know, but I know it's not common for feet to get rusty. It's not a common ailment to flesh, I have to say.

The prosecution only have to provide reasonable evidence, not disprove every fruitloop-nutjob defence theory that someone puts out there. If I was a defence lawyer, I could argue Bigfoot did it, rather then my client. What then...is the prosecution supposed to go out there and prove to the world that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

'Should', if it's an option, but it isn't a requirement. In this case there wasn't enough material, since the traces were small to begin with and what was there was needed for DNA testing. Like I said, this isn't the lab, this is the real world.

Huh? These were the same prints that Garofano noted for their sheer luminosity. Citation please. If one cannot do a confirmatory test, then the presence of blood is not confirmed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't know, but I know it's not common for feet to get rusty. It's not a common ailment to flesh, I have to say.

The prosecution only have to provide reasonable evidence, not disprove every fruitloop-nutjob defence theory that someone puts out there. If I was a defence lawyer, I could argue Bigfoot did it, rather then my client. What then...is the prosecution supposed to go out there and prove to the world that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

You would have an easier time arguing Bigfoot that you would trying to relate three right feet that glow but don't even have DNA to this crime. I'll pop some popcorn now....