Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

Jeez, are the misogynists still at it with the clothing obsession? Really, are we supposed to go around in hot weather pointing our fingers at women who dress to be cool, damning them for having their nipples poking through? Seriously, what kind of hypocritical perverts are those people?

Perhaps "pointing" isn't the best word to use, considering the context.

 

[SkewedView]

Perhaps "pointing" isn't the best word to use, considering the context.

:floorlaugh:

Good point (oops, I did it again!):crazy:

 

[Fulcanelli]

The outcome of these investigations had not been the subject of any particular or specific criticism. Dr. Sarah Gino observed that the quantity of DNA was compatible with what is known as low copy number, and it did not appear that the analysis had been repeated to validate the results. She underlined that the SAL [stato di avanzamento lavoro – work status report] reports which had been made available had shown that a generic diagnosis for blood had been performed and had given a negative result, and therefore it could not be said [n]with certainty[/b] that blood was present in the material revealed by Luminol. There were peaks which were not considered, which could indicate the presence of other contributors.

Here, the key phrase is "with certainty". Unfortunately, in most crimes there is little 'certainty' with evidence, it's a fact of life. Courts tend to go with 'probability'.

 

[SMK]

Jeez, are the misogynists still at it with the clothing obsession? Really, are we supposed to go around in hot weather pointing our fingers at women who dress to be cool, damning them for having their nipples poking through? Seriously, what kind of hypocritical perverts are those people?

Yes, I fully agree; it is pretty awful. It went from PMF, to JREF, (who defended here) and finally I posted the pics, and poor Amanda is vindicated. Horrid....

 

[SkewedView]

Yes, I fully agree; it is pretty awful. It went from PMF, to JREF, (who defended here) and finally I posted the pics, and poor Amanda is vindicated. Horrid....

Really, the small, rudely vocal, perverted lynch-mob contingent of those who believe in guilt make it sooo much harder for the much larger rational contingent to get their views taken seriously. I really feel bad for them, that they have to deal with that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I find it immensely worrisome that I do not know what Hellman and the jury

It is erroneous to use the term 'jury'. There is no such thing in the Italian system (civil law). In the Italian court, there are only judges. And in the civil law system, judges function differently to those in the common law system where they are restricted to being little more then legal referees and passing sentence. It is best to get away from thinking in terms of things like 'juries', as that will skew ones understanding of how the whole thing works.

 

[SkewedView]

Here, the key phrase is "with certainty". Unfortunately, in most crimes there is little 'certainty' with evidence, it's a fact of life. Courts tend to go with 'probability'.

Only one problem: without a confirmatory lab test, which PS could have and should have used but inexplicably didn't, there is no 'probability', only a vague 'possibility' that includes a huge number of other 'possibles'. Sorry, the good Doctor blew it, and lost the opportunity to truthfully state that it was 'probably' blood. That she said it was so anyway says much about her dedication to the ethics of her profession.

 

[SMK]

It is erroneous to use the term 'jury'. There is no such thing in the Italian system (civil law). In the Italian court, there are only judges. And in the civil law system, judges function differently to those in the common law system where they are restricted to being little more then legal referees and passing sentence. It is best to get away from thinking in terms of things like 'juries', as that will skew ones understanding of how the whole thing works.

I was misinformed by several articles, in which they clearly said ,"Hellman and the jury"....thanks for the clarification...

 

[SkewedView]

It is erroneous to use the term 'jury'. There is no such thing in the Italian system (civil law). In the Italian court, there are only judges. And in the civil law system, judges function differently to those in the common law system where they are restricted to being little more then legal referees and passing sentence. It is best to get away from thinking in terms of things like 'juries', as that will skew ones understanding of how the whole thing works.

Um, the Italian system, like the US and UK systems, has civil law and criminal law systems. Unlike the others, the Italians intertwine the two. Regardless, the 'lay judges' are in all functions identical to Jurists in the other systems, they just have a fancy name and share responsibility for the verdict with the pair of actual judges, who are the ones that give actual rulings etc.

Of course, the above is tempered by the reality that the Jurists, er, I mean Lay Judges (hard to hold back the smirk here), rarely contradict the opinions of the real Judges, and are essentially just decorations to supply the illusion that Italians will be judged by their peers, rather than authorities who answer only to themselves.

Here is a good reference to how the Italian System functions and how it got to this point (and how it keeps taking steps forward only to take them back):

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


ETA: A Jurist by any other name...is still just a normal schmuck chosen from the general population.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Experts in the field have said that the longer interval between crime and luminol use, the better. If you personally disagree with experts, that's fine ... neither here nor there. But if you disagree that the experts are correct, then please provide a link contradicting the information that has been provided

otto,

You are playing fast and loose with what I said, and I do not appreciate it. I provided you with something just a bit more up to date with respect to luminol, namely a 2007 review article. My point was that the sensitivity of luminol is not always a limiting factor, but potentially tracking material around the flat is an important consideration. We know that a great deal of activity went on in the flat during the six weeks between the first appearance of the forensic police and their subsequent work on 18 December. For example, there is a chance that the luminol-positive blobs in Filomena's room result from their tracking material around. Until now you have avoided discussing whether or not you acknowledge the potential for such problems...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Only one problem: without a confirmatory lab test, which PS could have and should have used but inexplicably didn't, there is no 'probability', only a vague 'possibility' that includes a huge number of other 'possibles'. Sorry, the good Doctor blew it, and lost the opportunity to truthfully state that it was 'probably' blood. That she said it was so anyway says much about her dedication to the ethics of her profession.

A trial is not a science lab. It has different requirements and scientific tests is not the be all and end all. For example, the witness that saw someone point the gun at someone and pull the trigger constitutes as just as good evidence as the ballistic test that showed the gun and path of the round and indeed, can be used in lieu of such a test. What I'm saying is, other contextual evidence that isn't scientific evidence, can help validate another piece of evidence that is.

It's not always possible to weigh everything up with a test tube, in fact it often isn't and courts tend to work with what they've got.

Just for example. You may argue, well...is it proven absolutely that the prints are in blood? A court will ask...how probable is it that they aren't in blood? And in asking that question, they will also factor in other contextual exidence, like the fact that the visible print on the bath mat is blood...the victim's blood was in abundance in the cottage...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]

Um, the Italian system, like the US and UK systems, has civil law and criminal law systems. Unlike the others, the Italians intertwine the two. Regardless, the 'lay judges' are in all functions identical to Jurists in the other systems, they just have a fancy name and share responsibility for the verdict with the pair of actual judges, who are the ones that give actual rulings etc.

Of course, the above is tempered by the reality that the Jurists, er, I mean Lay Judges (hard to hold back the smirk here), rarely contradict the opinions of the real Judges, and are essentially just decorations to supply the illusion that Italians will be judged by their peers, rather than authorities who answer only to themselves.

Here is a good reference to how the Italian System functions and how it got to this point (and how it keeps taking steps forward only to take them back):

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

Um...you misunderstand. The legal system in the US (and UK) is the 'common law' system, otherwise known as the adversarial system. In Italy, it is the 'civil law' system, otherwise known as the inquisitorial system. Do not confuse this with 'civil cases' and law pertaining to civil cases in the US.

Italy = Civil Law

US/UK = Common Law

 

[Fulcanelli]

And no, they are not identical to jurors...far from it. They perform some of the same roles, but that is not to confuse the two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are playing fast and loose with what I said, and I do not appreciate it. I provided you with something just a bit more up to date with respect to luminol, namely a 2007 review article. My point was that the sensitivity of luminol is not always a limiting factor, but potentially tracking material around the flat is an important consideration. We know that a great deal of activity went on in the flat during the six weeks between the first appearance of the forensic police and their subsequent work on 18 December. For example, there is a chance that the luminol-positive blobs in Filomena's room result from their tracking material around. Until now you have avoided discussing whether or not you acknowledge the potential for such problems...

"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. Are you really selling that? I think I liked it better when you were arguing it was fruit juice.

 

[SMK]

The Amanda Knox Case: The Hard Questions the Press Have Never Asked
by JosephBishop September 09, 2011


In just a few weeks an Italian court will reach a decision in the appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their December 2009 conviction in the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher. By all accounts the case against the two has collapsed.

The case has been marked by sensational tabloid coverage focused primarily on the photogenic Ms. Knox. Much of the information made available to journalists was leaked to the media by authorities and was heavily biased toward the prosecution’s position. European journalists covering the case have repeatedly accepted this information as gospel and have never asked the hard questions of the Italian authorities. Here are some of the questions they should have asked:

Cont. reading @http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-The-Hard-Questions-the-Press-/2941254

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thank you, nice to be here



Again?



Well, that's not actually true...all shoes and trainers were removed from the cottage and Raffaele's apartment for examination.
SNIP
You're not trying to argue the luminol prints aren't Amanda's...surely? Even Amanda and her lawyers aren't trying to argue that. They accept they are her prints.

Fulcanelli,

With respect to the luminol prints, please provide a link which shows that Amanda's lawyers accept that the prints are hers. RoseMontague showed one of the luminol prints in a side-by-side comparison to Amanda's and the second toe is not even close to being close.

RoseMontague quoted the charge given to Rinaldi in thread 17: ""Carry out all tests designed to compare the fingerprints found on footwear
in the survey with the imprints of shoes seizure, and to compare
plantar imprints taken to suspects, in the course of inspection personnel, Knox, Sollecito and Guede with fingerprints found on the plantar pad of the bathroom adjoining the room where it is was found the corpse of Meredith Kercher, and those highlighted by the Luminol. Find, finally, the compatibility or otherwise of fingerprints with those taken in plantar. At the inspection body, and anything else necessary in the interests of justice." Even Garofano noted the lack of reference footprints from the other flatmates.

No one who looked at the tread patterns of the two shoes should mistake Raffaele's for Rudi's or vice versa.

 

[SkewedView]

A trial is not a science lab. It has different requirements and scientific tests is not the be all and end all. For example, the witness that saw someone point the gun at someone and pull the trigger constitutes as just as good evidence as the ballistic test that showed the gun and path of the round and indeed, can be used in lieu of such a test. What I'm saying is, other contextual evidence that isn't scientific evidence, can help validate another piece of evidence that is.

It's not always possible to weigh everything up with a test tube, in fact it often isn't and courts tend to work with what they've got.

Just for example. You may argue, well...is it proven absolutely that the prints are in blood? A court will ask...how probable is it that they aren't in blood? And in asking that question, they will also factor in other contextual exidence, like the fact that the visible print on the bath mat is blood...the victim's blood was in abundance in the cottage...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?

The position that you present is not ethical or moral. You do not risk locking up innocents on a chain of 'possibilities'. The fact that this mentality is so common amongst Prosecutors, Judges and Jurists merely reflects the fact that we are still a long way from living up to the ideal of 'better a hundred guilty men go free, than a single innocent be imprisoned'.

By the way, there are a load of reactants that do stick around just as long as blood. Regardless, the fact that PS neglected to follow simple, straightforward, standard procedures (yes, it's standard procedure even in Italy to always confirm in the lab) with regards to the testing of potential blood evidence is troubling at the very least...especially given that it was accompanied by the withholding of evidence from the defense and the court until she was caught lying about it. Given the history of labs in other nations pulling the same stunts to imprison innocents, I see her findings as dubious at best, and legally inadmissible in most courts (fruit of the poisoned tree theory).

All JMO, of course.

 

[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,

<modsnip>. Do you think that Rinaldi's measurement of the big toe makes sense? Can you back up your unsubstantiated claims about photoshopping images?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was misinformed by several articles, in which they clearly said ,"Hellman and the jury"....thanks for the clarification...

Anglo articles uses the term 'jury' because using any other hits the 'does not compute' button and results un their readers doing a 'Robby the Robot' at his most manic <modsnip>, so to keep things simple for those who won't and can't get it, they use the term 'jury'. It's completely inaccurate, but it will do...for expediency.

 

[SkewedView]

Um...you misunderstand. The legal system in the US (and UK) is the 'common law' system, otherwise known as the adversarial system. In Italy, it is the 'civil law' system, otherwise known as the inquisitorial system. Do not confuse this with 'civil cases' and law pertaining to civil cases in the US.

Italy = Civil Law

US/UK = Common Law

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