Monday, April 27, 2020

Why Did Judge Marasca Parrot The CSI Effect In The Supreme Court’s Final Report?

Posted by The Machine

Judges Marasca and Bruno

1. This Post In Wider Context

Judge Marasca was the lead judge of a Fifth Chambers panel of five judges. Judge Bruno was the rapporteur and he drafted the report.

On 7 September 2015 they signed off on the final report published a full three months past the mandatory deadline. After the report came out no US or UK media either translated the report or summarized it. Knox and her PR characterised the conclusion as an exoneration. This was a lie.

No US or UK media reported that. 

Italian legal scholars and our own posters have voiced extensive criticisms. One is especially relevant here: that it is illegal for the Supreme Court to displace lower courts by getting into the evidence.  Claimed problems must be referred back down to the lower court - in this case, the 2013-2014 Nencini appeal court which in our view did an extremely good job.

No US or UK media reported that.

Judge Marasca and Judge Bruno were politically appointed judges who had not followed the demanding career path. Neither were “murder judges” and neither had handled a murder case before, and this lack of training and experience shows throughout the very amateurish report.

No US or UK media reported that.

The Fifth Chambers is not the “murder case chambers”, such cases are normally always handled by the First Chambers which had repeatedly visited the case before - for example: (1) in 2008 when Sollecito and Knox wanted to be out of prison and on house arrest; (2) in 2010 in declining Guede’s final appeal; (3) in 2012 in annulling the outcome of the Hellman appeal. 

No US or UK media reported that.

The CSI Effect had zero effect on the Massei trial jury or the Nencini appeal jury because (1) the DNA evidence was strong and backed up by two top-rate national labs; and (2) all the other evidece was strong too. But the CSI Effect was promoted to the maximum to the US and UK publics by the Sollecito and Knox PR and many have been misled.

No US or UK media reported that.

2. Calibrated Take On Significance Of DNA

DNA evidence is a relatively new phenomenon in the long history of criminal law. The first case where DNA evidence was used to convicted someone of murder was in 1988. Colin Pitchfork was given life sentences for the rapes and murders of 15-year-olds Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in Leicestershire.

The advantages of DNA evidence

The advantages of DNA evidence are obvious. It helps to convict criminals, exonerate the wrongly accused and identify victims of crime. DNA samples collected from the crime scene and the bodies of victims can be used to accurately identify suspects.

It is current CPS policy to quote a match probability of one in a billion. In other words, there may be another six people on the planet who have an identical DNA profile to the suspect, but the probability that the culprit is someone else is so exceedingly low that it can effectively be ruled out.

DNA evidence conclusively proved that James Hanratty murdered Michael Gregsten 40 years after he was convicted of murder. It also silenced the journalists, politicians, human rights campaigners, lawyers, writers, filmmakers and celebrities who were certain he was innocent and had campaigned on his behalf

The disadvantages of DNA evidence

DNA evidence is only one type of evidence jurors should take into account when considering the evidence against a defendant. TV shows like CSI have led some jurors to having unrealistic expectations of DNA analysis and giving it more weight than other types of evidence. This phenomenon is known as the CSI effect.

Prosecutor Wendy Murphy raised her concerns about the CSI effect in 2005:

“This has been a bit of a problem even before the onset of DNA, and shows like ‘CSI.’ You get jurors who don’t have a lot of brain cells asking questions after the case is over about why there weren’t any fingerprints on the pillow case. Of course, that makes no sense.

“But once you get the influence of ‘CSI,’ what they start to expect is not only a lot of forensic evidence, but that this one missing piece would have told them the truth. That’s just not reality.

“Most murder cases have a little forensic evidence, but it doesn’t really tell the whole story.

“I actually think one of the problems is we’re not screening out these jurors who are way too much under the influence of these pop culture programs. They shouldn’t be allowed to sit in judgment, frankly.”

Beth Carpenter, from the Oregon Crime Lab, says there are expectations well beyond what the reality is.

There is a widespread misconception that DNA is like wet paint. However, DNA is not easy to transfer. Dr Stefanoni testified that the “transfer of DNA must not be taken for granted nor it is easy to happen, and more likely to take place if the original trace is aqueous, not if it is dry”.

3. Addressing Of DNA In The Final Report

It seem Judge Marasca was influenced by the CSI effect or ast least deliberately playing on it.

They claim the lack of biological traces attributable to Knox and Sollecito is proof they weren’t physically involved in Meredith’s murder

“Now, a fact of assured relevance in favor of the current appellants, in the sense of excluding their material participation to the homicide, even in the hypothesis of their presence in the house of via della Pergola, lies in the absolute absence of biological traces referable to them (apart from the hook of which we will discuss later) in the room of the homicide or on the victim’s body, where in contrast multiple traces attributable to Guede were found.”

“It is incontrovertibly impossible that that in the crime scene (constituted by a room of little dimensions: ml 2,91x3,36, as indicated by the blueprint reproduced at f. 76) no traces would be retrieved referable to the current appellants had they participated in the murder of Kercher.”

Contradictory and illogical reasoning

Judge Marasca says there were multiple attackers and he places Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito at the cottage at the time of the murder. There’s no DNA evidence of anyone else in Meredith’s room other than Guede and Sollecito.

If Marasca is saying that Guede had accomplices other than Knox and Sollecito, he’s acknowledging it’s possible to commit murder and leave no DNA evidence - which completely contradicts his claim that Knox and Sollecito were not materially involved in Meredith’s murder because of the lack of credible traces that are attributable to them.

Marasca’s reasoning on this specific issue is contradictory and illogical and many DNA experts e.g. Peter Gill disagree with his belief that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

“Sometimes forensic scientists may try to find meaning in the absence of a DNA profile to prove a negative: e.g., ‘‘Mr X was not in the room because I could not find his DNA.’ This is a specious argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (Peter Gill,  Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice).

The fact the Scientific Police found no DNA samples on Meredith’s neck from the person who strangled her with enough force to leave visible bruises and break her hyoid bone proves it’s possible exert considerable force on someone and still leave no DNA evidence.

There were 43 bruises and wounds on Meredith’s body, but the Scientific Police only found one DNA sample of one of her attackers on her body. It’s self-evident that attackers don’t always leave their DNA on their victims.

Marasca also seems to assume DNA evidence is required to convicted someone of murder. It isn’t a required element in Italy or in any common law jurisdiction.

Forensic investigators didn’t find any DNA samples belonging to Jessica Chapman or Holly Wells at Ian Huntley’s home or any DNA samples belonging to April Jones at Mark Bridger’s home or any DNA samples belonging to Milly Dowler at Levi Bellfield’s home or any DNA samples belonging to Teresa Halbach inside Steven Avery’s bedroom.

It didn’t matter because criminal cases should never hinge on solely DNA evidence. The juries in these respective cases considered all the pieces of evidence wholly - not separately and in isolation from the other pieces of DNA evidence.

There have also been high-profile cases in America where the defendants were convicted of murder without any DNA e.g. Adnan Syed, Damian Elchols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley and Brendan Dassey.

Judge Marasca made the exact same mistake that Judge Chieffi criticised Judge Hellmann in his Supreme Court for i.e. assessing a piece evidence in isolation from the other pieces of evidence.

Marasca should have placed the bra clasp into the wider context of the other pieces of evidence against Sollecito i.e.his multiple false alibis and numerous lies to the police, the bloody footprint matched the precise characteristics of his foot, one of the bare bloody footprints in the hallway revealed by Luminol matched his foot and Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife.

The fact that he didn’t defies belief, especially when he specially referred to the elements of strong suspicios with regard to Sollecito.

Judge Marasca also ignored the expert opinions of a number of DNA experts who effectively ruled out the possibilty that the bra clasp was contaminated at the cottage.

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, excluded environmental contamination at the Massei trial because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Professor Francesca Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it

Professor Novelli also ruled out environmental contamination. He pointed out in court there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perugia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust at the cottage.

“The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”

Professor Balding of London University also said Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith on Meredith’s bra clasp can’t be explained by environmental contamination.

He also said there was a “much greater likelihood“ that the DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp came from Sollecito and that’s the reason why it’s “extremely strong“ evidence against him.

He told Chris Halkides that people walking in and out of the room etc would be unlikely to contaminate the bra clasp.

On the BBC documentary, he said contamination from passers-by isn’t an issue and that he has taken that into account and it’s extremely unlikely.

Replication is not essential

Professor Balding pointed out that replication isn’t essential. However, he also regards the attribution of the Y haplotype to Sollecito as replication:

“But although replication is desirable it is not essential.  (In a sense there already is replication, because each of the 15 loci is an independent test.)”

Professor Novelli also agrees that replication isn’t essential. He testified that he and other DNA experts believe it it quality of the DNA that matters - not the quanity.

This is especially relevant with regard to the knife evidence. Meredith Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen. There is no question that the DNA belonged to Meredith.

“In his report submitted on 6 September 2011 to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant of the Prosecutor, wrote the following observations on this point: “[...] the consultant [Stefanoni] also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim.

The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to 1 chance in 300 million billion. This value computed in this manner makes it possible to attribute the analyzed trace with absolute certainty to exactly one person, which the consultant holds to be the victim Meredith Kercher.” (Page 11 of the above-cited report) (The Nencini report, page 230).

There wasn’t enough DNA for a second test, but this shouldn’t matter because Meredith’s profile came out clean on a single amplification. Replication is a necessity when you have a dirty uncertain sequence like Knox’s DNA profile on the knife that was discovered by Major Berti and Captain Barni in 2013

The most important thing is there no evidence of contamination in or outside the laboratory. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means laboratory contamination can be ruled out.

Judge Micheli ruled out contamination during the collection phase because the knife was sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment on Corso Garibaldi by a different police team to the one that collected evidence from the cottage on Via della Pergola on the same day.

3. Some Conclusions

The most embarrassing schoolboy error Judge Marasca made was to assume the absence of DNA evidence of Amanda Knox inside Meredith’s room is evidence of her absence. Every law student knows that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Furthermore, Amanda Knox admitted in her book she had been in Meredith’s room to take photographs - which just highlights the fact you don’t necessarily leave any DNA samples behind when you’ve been in a room.

Like the defence experts, Judge Marasca had no trouble accepting the attribution of Y haplotype to Rudy Guede in the LCN DNA sample that was found on the vaginal swab. However, he objected to the attribution of the Y haplotype to Raffaele Sollecito in the DNA sample that was found on Meredith’s bra clasp.

It seems replication is only required if you’re white. As we’ve seen in this case time and time again, the burden of proof is raised when it comes to the two white people and lowered when it comes to the black man.

Judge Marasca’s claim there were multiple attackers, but Knox and Sollecito couldn’t have materially participated in Meredith’s because there was a lack of biological traces attributable to them makes absolutely no sense because there was no DNA of anyone else in Meredith’s room.

Perhaps, we shouldn’t be surprised his illogical and contradictory reasoning because most of his Supreme Court’s report makes no sense. You’d be forgiven for thinking as a great many have that he gave into intense pressure to acquit Knox and Sollecito and that he was not motivated by any desire to see justice served.

Sunday, April 19, 2020

Another Deep Dive Into The Evidence: Maybe Guede’s Shoeprints Have Not Finished Talking

Posted by James Raper

Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi, leader of “pitbull” footprint team

1. This Post In Context

My book on the case referred to below is this one.

My past posts have focused on Italian law and court outcomes, on behaviours, and on these aspects of the physical evidence

Click for Post:  Why The Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Are Guilty Just As Charged

Click for Post:  Considering The Sad And Sensitive But Also Crucial Subject Of Meredith’s Time Of Death

Click for Post:  Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA In Meredith’s Room Could Be Definitive Proof Of Guilt For New Appeal Jury

Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

Click for Post:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

Click for Post:  Despite Disinformation From Apologists And Even Supreme Court, Law & Science Support Damning DNA

Click for Post:  Knox’s Lamp: The Very Incriminating Evidence Found INSIDE Meredith’s Locked Room

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Crimescene Presence: Unmistakably HIS Footprint

2. Guede’s Prints Near The Front Door

In the course of reviewing the content of Chapter 14 of my book the other day I noticed something which I had not paid much attention to previously.

This is to do with the placement of shoeprints at the cottage. These shoeprints were either visible, because in blood, or revealed by the application of luminol.

We can clearly see the trajectory of Guede’s left shoe by placing two maps together, as below.

In the first we see Guede’s left shoe, in blue, leaving Meredith’s room. The traces are identifiable as blood without the use of luminol.

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

In the second we see his left shoe prints, in red,  this time identified by the application of luminol.

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

What I had not paid much attention to before is the fact that in the first plan we have a left shoe print (marked “h”) in the kitchen-lounge by the side of the divan (coloured green, the yellow is the fridge by the front door) in the living room.

There are also some other traces there respectively marked f, j and y but none of these are shoe,or foot, prints. They were not identified by luminol because they were visible in blood.

A question arises as to whom this shoeprint “h” belongs. The map is from the Boemia/Rinaldi Report but I cannot see that the report attributes the shoeprint.

This shoeprint and footprint evidence was presented on 9 May 2009 in a very dramatic day in court by Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi [above], unit head from the Scientific Police in Rome, and Dr Pietro Boemia

The only time that I see it referred to in testimony is during cross-examination of Boemia by Dalla Vedova during the trial. The following extracts are abridged.

CDV:
I wanted to ask you, one thing that we hadn’t done with your colleague [Dr Rinaldi] this morning, in particular with two prints, is it true that one – we’re talking of Rudy Guede – of the prints is at the entrance of the apartment facing towards the inside of the apartment? I only wanted confirmation of this.

[After some confusion as to where and which prints Vedova is talking about, and Boemia’s apparent assent to the premise, we can continue as follows (and here I think Vedova is primarily interested in the mark “f“ which may, or at least he seems to think it may, be that of a toe)]

CDV:
This one here.
MC:
It’s facing the lounge really.
GCM:
But the toe is towards…
MC:
The lounge.
PB:
Yes, it’s going towards the lounge, perhaps he wanted to pick something up from the lounge, this is something we can’t know,
GCM:
Though at the part of the lounge close to the door to Romanelli’s room. Is that so?
CDV:
It would have to be “Y”, “H” or “F” in the photographs.

Then after more confusion, we have -

CDV:
And going back to that slide again, in front of the lounge, that one there is it true that it is pointing towards Romanelli’s room?
PB:
“F”?
CDV:
I can’t see.
PB:
This one here? This one is the door to Romanelli’s room, which is here.
CDV:
Yes, it would have to be that one.
PB:
It’s here right in front of the lounge.
CDV:
Is that the one?
PB:
No, towards the outside.
CDV:
Towards the outside with respect to Romanelli’s room?
PB:
Let’s say in the exit direction.
CDV:
Although I see on the outside with respect to Romanelli’s room.
PB:
Exactly, in the exit direction from Romanelli’s room.
CDV:
In the exit direction from Romanelli’s room, not from the house.
PB:
But, this doesn’t prove that in any case he was in Romanelli’s room and was exiting, perhaps only maybe that he was standing there and doing a pirouette.
CDV:
I have no other questions, thank you.

Rather confusing? But in any event I do not see that Boemia challenged Vedova’s initial presumption that “h” had been attributed to Guede, but I think that Vedova was trying to go further by suggesting that h, f, j and y were somehow evidence that Guede was exiting Romanelli’s room.

“h” was, of course facing towards her room rather than facing in an exit direction and it is somewhat difficult to see where Vedova thought he was going with all this, but then a lot of his cross-examination was rather like that. The luminol revealed shoeprints clearly show that Guede did not enter Romanelli’s room.

Anyway Massei said “h” was a presumed haematic substance and that the technicians had arrived at a conclusion of probable identity with Guede’s left shoe.

Indeed it does appear fairly obvious from the trajectory of Guede’s left shoe that “h” probably is his mark.

That being so, then how did the visible blood trace “h” arrive at the point where it was found? Are there any connecting prints? Well, obviously, yes. Those that had been identified by luminol.

Were those connecting prints made in fruit juice or another false positive substance?  Obviously not. The luminol had correctly identified blood and “h” makes it clear that there had been sufficient blood in the washed out/removed traces for them to have been visible.

It was not a case of the blood on the sole of Guede’s shoe having been reduced to nothing through repeated compression of the sole of his shoe with the floor.

Had Guede paused on his way out, turned and perhaps sat down on the divan for a moment? Did he then stand up, pirouette, and leave?

In any event we can see that there was a removal of blood traces in the living room, as well as from the hall way/corridor.

Each print might have been only just visible but a long line of them might have been noticeable, and so they had to go if Knox’s account of visiting the cottage to have a shower before the murder was to seem credible.

It’s just that “h” and the prints immediately outside Meredith’s locked door were missed. It also strengthens the context which says that the luminol revealed footprints in the corridor were indeed made in blood rather than being the result of a false positive.

Indeed, if the blood in the corridor had to go then so too that in the living room.

Guede is, of course, not a credible candidate for removing his own prints as not only does the luminol not show any backtracking by him but Guede omitted to remove the more incriminating shoe prints of his in and just outside Meredith’s room.

3. Conclusion

The foregoing supports the rather obvious conclusion that there had been a post-murder and perhaps hasty manipulation of the crime scene, specifically in the removal of certain blood traces by Knox and Sollecito (and there is other evidence to this effect).

Specifically to enable Knox to create her fictitious account of having visited the cottage to (inter alia) shower as a prelude to her (and Sollecito’s) innocent presence at the cottage for the discovery of the murder.

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Italy’s Vivaldi! To Celebrate Our Seeming Conquering Of The Worst Of The Worst

Posted by Our Main Posters

Sunday, April 12, 2020

Should All American Blacks Be Told LOW AVERAGE SELENIUM May Be Killing You?

Posted by Peter Quennell

“US data shows African Americans more likely to die from COVID-19”

There are many similar cable news reports about the “inexplicable” plight of the community.

They tell us that nobody knows who or what to blame, or what precise system went wrong, now or in previous times.

Really?!

Here is one system that has very obviously gone wrong. It was the operationalizing of vital shape-shifting medical research. First:

• We’ve already recognised the awesome power of Glutathione. A body fully saturated with Glutathione molecules can eliminate ONE MILLION FREE RADICALS EVERY SECOND.


• We’ve already recognised the vital roles of Selenium and NAC. Absent either of those? The body can make little or even no Glutathione.

Now look at this large expensive US-government funded Selenium study.

Main finding? The Black population in the US has on average substantially less selenium.

When plasma selenium was analyzed by race and gender, significantly different distributions were observed between blacks and whites for both males and females.

The charts below hammer the findings home (GSH is Glutathione).

This report is not alone in showing that. There is another official study right here. 

Neither of those official reports (nor various others) were ever operationalized, and so people are dying who didn’t “need” to.

It doesn’t matter right now why not, or why there’s this disparity. To save lives ROLL OUT THE SELENIUM AND NAC, NATION-WIDE.

The daily doses again? At least 100mcg of the vital selenium and 200mg of the vital NAC. Other supplements (Vits A,B,C,D,E, zinc, and CoQ10) while not vital would help.

Saturday, April 04, 2020

What Seems On Most Good Lists For Anti-Covid Immune System Boost

Posted by Peter Quennell

Peak Immune System And Lungs

In the video above, all you ever wanted to know about NAC and Glutathione.

And perhaps more! He is really on a roll. He’s very clear on why they beat drugs. Some doctors have been using NAC on COVID patients intravenously, as the infected body can burn through 6,000 mg a day.

A lot of scanning online of the immune system recommendations for COVID-19 suggests that NAC, selenium, and Vitamins A, B, C, D, and E still stand up.

Plus one can readily find these five tips. 

Tip 1. The Jarrow Sustained Release NAC results in much more NAC showing up in the blood, see the Amazon reviews here.

Tip 2. Glutathione supplements really can result in more glutathione in the blood if/if/if they are the LIPOSOMAL kind such as these.

Tip 3. Fish or Krill Oil (Krill is more powerful), Zinc (lowish doses to not deplete the body’s copper), Alpha Lipoic Acid, Ginkgo, and Circumin are widely favored too.

Tip 4. Maybe avoid for now Elderberry (aka Black Elderberry) capsules and syrup, which are very successful for flu but were warned against for COVID in some reports.

Tip 5. Oxygenate the lungs daily, through this terrific device or aerobics or yoga or the supplements described here.

Everybody should check daily that they are above 94% with a Pulse Oximeter (many on eBay) and those with weak lungs or mild symptoms might invest in an oxygen supply.

Whats luck got to do with it?! Good luck, anyway.

Wednesday, April 01, 2020

Finally From Italy Several Quite Encouraging Reports Of Progress

Posted by Our Main Posters

Saturday, March 28, 2020

US Strongly Unifying On Best Measures, Trump Management Approval Drops 13 Points

Posted by Our Main Posters

Click for larger images. Source: Navigating Coronavirus

Thursday, March 26, 2020

Deadliest Ever “Spanish Flu” With 50-100 Million Dead Was More Accurately “American Flu”

Posted by Peter Quennell

Global leaders should be working together on what matters, not being divided by political nonsense. 

China has an obvious response to the distracting US effort to get other countries to label this the “China Virus” or “Wuhan Virus”.

Patient Zero in the world’s deadliest-ever pandemic is believed to have been a cook at an American troop training camp in Kansas.

The virus is believed to have been carried by American troops to Europe. The US suppressed information, Spain didn’t, and so the world came to think Spain was the origin.

Here is an excellent short history with photographs by Jim Harris, an Ohio State history professor.

Recent estimates suggest that this flu claimed as many as 50 million lives around the world between 1918 and 1919, killing more people in a single year than the entire “Black Death” of the 14th century…

When the first cases of the influenza pandemic broke out in 1918 during the final year of World War I, the origins of this deadly pandemic were unknown…

The Spanish “origin” relates to reports in the press of cases of influenza in the summer of 1918, where as many as eight million Spaniards succumbed to the disease. Even the King of Spain, Alfonso XIII, caught influenza in 1918.

[Today’s] standard narrative maintains that the first cases broke out in a military camp in Kansas where few noticed the signs of the pandemic to come amid the ongoing war.

On March 4, 1918 company cook Albert Gitchell, possibly patient zero, reported sick with a fever of 104º Fahrenheit at Camp Funston, part of Fort Riley, where 54,000 men were gathered for basic training. Within days, 522 soldiers reported sick and by the end of the month 1,100 soldiers were admitted to hospital with influenza….

[The pandemic] followed the movement of soldiers around the globe. The American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), which deployed out of Kansas to France, were likely carrying the flu with them in the spring of 1918 as the Allies rushed deployments to halt the German Ludendorff Offensive.

And the deliberate suppression of factual information carried a huge price.

Britain, France, Germany and other European governments kept it secret. They didn’t want to hand the other side a potential advantage.

Spain, on the other hand, was a neutral country in the war. When the disease hit there, the government and newspapers reported it accurately. Even the king got sick.

So months later, when a bigger, deadlier wave swept across the globe, it seemed like it had started in Spain, even though it hadn’t. Simply because the Spanish told the truth, the virus was dubbed the “Spanish flu.”...

When the second wave of Spanish flu hit globally, “there was outright censorship” in Europe, Barry said. “In the United States, they didn’t quite do that, but there was intense pressure not to say anything negative.”

News about the war was carefully controlled by the Committee on Public Information, an independent federal agency… The CPI released thousands of positive stories about the war effort, and newspapers often republished them verbatim.

So when the Spanish flu spread across the United States in the fall of 1918, both the government and the media continued the same rosy strategy “to keep morale up.”

The official denial opened the way to the much more deadly second wave.

Monday, March 23, 2020

The Unexpected Way In Which It Increasingly Appears Many, Many Lives Are Being Saved

Posted by Our Main Posters

Saturday, March 21, 2020

Most-Watched Virus YouTube Explains The Many Rickety Systems That Have Let Us Down

Posted by Peter Quennell

This excellent interview (from Seattle) mentioning Italy is averaging 3 million views a day.

The expert is Michael Osterholm, Director of The Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy at the University of Minnesota.

He has been warning for decades that the capacity to manage a global pandemic just isn’t there.

The UN System above all else should be the go-to place for global capacity-building. But with neo-isolationism, it is too frequently a political football, and it is severely underfunded and understaffed.

Neo-isolationism is a dead-end street, and for now we are paying the price.