Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

Recycling the old lies

This just in from an Italian speaker in Italy.....

Nencini implies that Conti-Vecchiotti should be ignored. Yet Nencini has written in his motivations that of the various Y-Haplotypes found on Meredith's bra-clasp, one is from Sollecito, one is from Silenzi, and, some are from "some of Meredith's female friends."

OK, let's look at the lesser mistake first. No one has ever said that Silenzi's reference profile was even taken (I have never seen it), and Mrs. Stefanoni tried to ignore the extra peaks in the YSTR analysis. So how would Nencini or anyone else know whether or not Silenzi contributed DNA to the clasp? What utter rubbish.

Now, I hope no one asks me for a citation, but the last time I checked, only men had Y chromosomes, not women. However, this is actually interesting. I distinctly recall that when we first discussed the extra DNA on the clasp, Fulcanelli insisted that the other contributors were women. It is almost as if Nencini is trawling through all the old lies from 2007-2009 and trotting them out again. The notion of Amanda's grabbing Meredith so hard that fingermarks were left is at least as old as the cartoon that the prosecutors showed in 2009. What's next, a claim that there are bleach receipts?

 

[Anode]

This just in from an Italian speaker in Italy.....

Nencini implies that Conti-Vecchiotti should be ignored. Yet Nencini has written in his motivations that of the various Y-Haplotypes found on Meredith's bra-clasp, one is from Sollecito, one is from Silenzi, and, some are from "some of Meredith's female friends."

...

More later - straight from Italy.

It's almost like he's making an effort to placate the Kercher family. Getting rid of most or all of the sexual aspect of this crime. No sex game gone wrong etc... The only DNA on the bra is from her "convicted" attacker and her boyfriend. The other two samples must be from her girlfriends obviously gotten by hugging. Although she must not have known the girlfriends were drag queens...

What ever happened to Rudy's DNA found inside of MK? Did anyone find mention of that?

 

[Planigale]

One interesting co-incidence is Curatalo and his saying about looking at his watch and seeing that the time that Sollecito and Knox arrived in the park was 21.28 amazingly close to when Sollecito started Naruto. one might think that he heard that time somewhere, perhaps he'd been told that he had to give a time after then?

I of course do not believe in a conspiracy, so I think this is just co-incidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
Well, to me instead it means he had all logical reasons for picking it up, since it is obviously usable as a weapon, and since his mandate was to pick up just all items that intuitively might have a chance of having possible connection with evidence whatsoever. The police picked up many items from his apartment (that included panties, hankerchiefs cleaning rags etc.) and obviously included knives that could be potential weapons in the case. This - to me - means no "selection" nor "choice" was made by Finzi. The picking of the knife is not the result of a choice. That was an object that would just "compel" any officer to collect it.

I am a bit stumped by Italian use of language sometimes. Where you say 'logical reasons' we would say it was reasonable to collect the knife because ... It was reasonable to collect knives from Patrick's place. More reasonable than from Raf's given that Amanda has said she kind of remembered that Patrick killed her. What 'logical reasons' were there not to collect knives from Patrick's place?

The selection of a single knife from Sollecito's kitchen, and the failure to collect any knives from Patrick shows there is no honest effort to actually "investigate" the case.

The selection of a single knife to "test", shows it's not really a test at all. It's an exercise in manufacturing false positive lab results. All the safe guards against false results are disregarded, or more likely, there probably were duplicate tests performed, and negative controls. But the problematic evidence is buried, as though it never existed.

On the bright side, and in accordance with official Italian criminal procedure, the panties were dutifully sniffed, fondled and other wise fetishized, in contemplation of discovering any whiff of criminality.

 

[Planigale]

OK, let's look at the lesser mistake first. No one has ever said that Silenzi's reference profile was even taken (I have never seen it), and Mrs. Stefanoni tried to ignore the extra peaks in the YSTR analysis. So how would Nencini or anyone else know whether or not Silenzi contributed DNA to the clasp? What utter rubbish.

Now, I hope no one asks me for a citation, but the last time I checked, only men had Y chromosomes, not women. However, this is actually interesting. I distinctly recall that when we first discussed the extra DNA on the clasp, Fulcanelli insisted that the other contributors were women. It is almost as if Nencini is trawling through all the old lies from 2007-2009 and trotting them out again. The notion of Amanda's grabbing Meredith so hard that fingermarks were left is at least as old as the cartoon that the prosecutors showed in 2009. What's next, a claim that there are bleach receipts?

This is a rather traditionalist view of gender, that one's sex is somehow predetermined, rather than being a consequence of social stereotyping. If heterozygotes want to wear frocks and be girl friends they should be free so to do.

Actually I think this will be a translation issue ragazze vs ragazzi?

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, let's look at the lesser mistake first. No one has ever said that Silenzi's reference profile was even taken (I have never seen it), and Mrs. Stefanoni tried to ignore the extra peaks in the YSTR analysis. So how would Nencini or anyone else know whether or not Silenzi contributed DNA to the clasp? What utter rubbish.

Now, I hope no one asks me for a citation, but the last time I checked, only men had Y chromosomes, not women. However, this is actually interesting. I distinctly recall that when we first discussed the extra DNA on the clasp, Fulcanelli insisted that the other contributors were women. It is almost as if Nencini is trawling through all the old lies from 2007-2009 and trotting them out again. The notion of Amanda's grabbing Meredith so hard that fingermarks were left is at least as old as the cartoon that the prosecutors showed in 2009. What's next, a claim that there are bleach receipts?

It appears clear to me that many of the errors in the Nencini Report go beyond simple typos or transcription errors. They are, in fact, pretty significant misinterpretations of fact or inference. This is one of those.

It's also worth repeating that one of the inappropriate vestiges of the clumsy crossover from the inquisitorial system to the adversarial system in Italy is that the court essentially decides its own view of the crime (including a narrative and inferences). It can - should it so wish - choose to discard both the prosecution and defence arguments on any particular issue(s), and substitute its own. When you add this into the clearly-demonstrated phenomenon of Italian criminal courts (including Nencini's and Massei's) giving grossly unfair weight to the prosecution case (treating it in essence as an unbiased "search for the truth" rather than the partisan "search for victory" that it actually is), and it's a pretty poisonous concoction for a defendant to face.

Basically, in Italy if the court charges you with a criminal offence, you are on a losing fight against conviction from that point onwards - unless you can actively disprove the prosecution case. It seems that most courts still take the default view that if the prosecutors say you committed the offence, then you committed it - since (in the courts' view) the PMs are only seeking the truth and have no agenda other than the truth, plus the PMs are wise, experienced individuals who don't tend to make mistakes.

By contrast, defence lawyers appear to be viewed as partisan nuisances whose arguments are to be hugely discounted on account of the fact that they are nothing more than paid shills who are being paid to offer a defence at all costs (unlike the noble PMs, who are only putting the case for guilt because they have a moral duty to do so, and because they have reached that position objectively and dispassionately).

Of course, all of this makes a total mockery of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The Nencini Report actually rides a coach and horses through this doctrine - which is actually now officially enshrined in Italian criminal law! - several times. The shocking amount of conjecture, invention, distortion, supposition and flat-out error in the Nencini Report is bewildering and distressing. And, as I and others have pointed out before, one of its overarching themes is "Well, we gave the defendants a fair crack of the whip to counter the prosecution arguments and offer a suitable alternative narrative, and they seemed unable to do so, so therefore that's a pretty good reason in itself to find for guilt". This also speaks to Nencini's astonishing post-verdict remark to journalists that Sollecito could have helped himself by testifying.

It will truly be another bad, bad day for criminal justice in Italy if/when the Supreme Court affirms the Nencini verdicts - as I suspect it will. On the other hand, I have a high degree of confidence that there is an extremely solid case to be made in front of the ECHR. In the meantime, though, I feel terrible for Sollecito, since the ECHR process may take several years to reach a conclusion. I don't expect that Knox will ever be extradited (perhaps an interesting point there is whether Italy will even request her extradition in any case, pending any ECRH appeal).

 

[Grinder]

PS for Grinder depending on circumstances Luminol can detect haemoglobin at about a ten fold greater dilution than hemostix.

Thanks that's what I had thought. To me that means if someone at some time, even months before, had had a minute amount of blood on their feet from the shower, for example, then the Luminol could have had a glow but the TMB test could have been negative.

Therefore the "footprints" compatible with Amanda's size of foot could have been blood from a very diluted mixture from ages before, correct? With such a diluted mix would it be possible for no DNA to be found?

 

[acbytesla]

Earlier today Sky News was reporting of a botched execution in America.

America does not require my agreement or respect, it will act like any other western sovereign state.

Just saying.

It was in Oklahoma for crying out loud Coulsdon....where men are men and sheep are scared. This is one of those states where even mentioning the word Evolution can get you time in prison.

And who says it was botched? The guy died after all...just kidding.

America ain't perfect Coulsdon, just as I am sure Britain isn't either. We have our travesties of justice, Ryan Ferguson, Russ Faria, the West Memphis Three, the Norfolk four. The list goes on. The Innocence project is trying to get at least 80 people exonerated who it believes are in prison wrongfully.

 

[carbonjam72]

Taking a dive

If the translations we're working with are correct, it seems to me it is at least as likely Nencini made these mistakes on purpose as as it would be he made them in error. If Nencini is taking a dive, the "why" is puzzling, to say the least.

I mentioned in a previous post, that I had read somewhere, that sometimes the judges will find themselves expected to reach a particular verdict they don't agree with, and will deliberately sabotage their opinion to ensure it is reversed on appeal. They do what's expected of them, but they leave the door wide open for the case to be rectified. One hope that's what's going on here. I have not the slightest inlkling what the ISC will do with this.

But I'll make a prediction. Cassation will reject this verdict, and dismiss the case outright, on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They'll hew to the line that there were multiple assailants, that Guede did not act alone, that the break-in was staged, but out of respect for the principle of 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' they cannot in good conscience convict. So these two very probably murderers will be allowed to go free, because Italian justice is that careful.

They save face, and get out from under this albatross. It's still lousy, but better than a conviction or a retrial.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the translations we're working with are correct, it seems to me it is at least as likely Nencini made these mistakes on purpose as as it would be he made them in error. If Nencini is taking a dive, the "why" is puzzling, to say the least.

Just a totally speculative theory...

Perhaps Nencini is way smarter than some are giving him credit for being.

He was essentially told by the ISC to find them guilty, and so he has, this way he can stand up hand on heart and say, I did what I was told to do, and so keep his reputation and his job (unlike Hellmann who received a quick push out the door.)

However... at the same time he is aware that the evidence doesn't agree with that verdict, so what to do.

If you make up a motivations report that is obviously fantasy and mistake ridden then you set up the ISC to take the fall.

Either they have to reject the guilty finding and order a new appeal trial, and in doing so they also have to drop the demand to find for guilt (it's hard to say, "find them guilty" at the same time they are rejecting a guilty verdict)

Or, if they accept it, blatant mistakes and all, then it sets up the case as a full toss for the ECHR.

Either way, Nencini wins.

Of course this is totally speculative.

 

[Grinder]

Yes. That is my impression too. I was joking earlier about 'logical connections' between items of evidence but I really have no idea what it means. I call bull ****.

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item's] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability.


I think it means that the more connection to one piece of evidence the less value it has. So if a finger print might be compatible with 10 people that were related to the cottage it would have a much lower gravity than if it were only two. It lines up with the three compatible rule.

 

[Planigale]

Thanks that's what I had thought. To me that means if someone at some time, even months before, had had a minute amount of blood on their feet from the shower, for example, then the Luminol could have had a glow but the TMB test could have been negative.

Therefore the "footprints" compatible with Amanda's size of foot could have been blood from a very diluted mixture from ages before, correct? With such a diluted mix would it be possible for no DNA to be found?

Yes, if we assumed that the blood was so dilute that TMB was negative, then DNA would be negative. Indeed according to a met document even TMB positive blood samples can be below the limit for standard DNA testing. (Though LCN techniques may be tried).

Against this is light output is directly related to haemoglobin levels; if so dilute the Luminol should be faint, which I do not think was observed.

 

[Grinder]

You still have you hand in Grinders pocket?

Disgusting. That must be some sort of violation and I have no idea what it means if it isn't disgusting.

 

[carbonjam72]

Double jeopardy versus 'tried for the same acts'

CoulsdonUK, a couple of points here. Do you think at extradition hearings in the US that Hellmann would not be considered? I don't know the answer, someone will, but I suggest he would be of deep interest because of the inevitable discussion around double jeopardy, irrespective of arguments of applicability. There is an intense urge, vehement even, by PGP to close out discussion of Hellmann. They are playing the three monkeys frankly.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, I believe the same court that deemed the November 5th interrogation inadmissible, is hearing the final appeal, and Nencini has pinned his motivation to the mast of that interrogation.
Judge Hellmann was asked what his opinion of the November 5 interrogation was.

What was his answer?
It was very interesting.
ETA to avoid confusion, he said he had not read it because it was ruled inadmissible.

There was a legal opinion from an internationally recognized expert in extradition law, saying that the US-Italy extradition treaty itself bans people from 'being tried for the same acts'.

In essence, even though its not technically double jeopardy, the Hellman trial was essentially a full re-hearing on the same acts, resulting in an acquittal, and that's the end of the road so far as extradition is concerned.

Amanda is probably safe in the US under any scenario. Rafaele may have to pass time in prison until the ECHR can rectify this fiasco. I'm still hoping, and leaning towards believing, the ISC will outright reject Nencini's opinion, which he has all but tee'd up for them, and dismiss the case outright for an insufficiency of evidence to 'prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because the Italian jurists are that enlightened.

 

[Grinder]

Judicially speaking, Hellmann does not exist, of course you and others can and will speak of Hellmann and the C & V findings but they will not play apart in the remanding Italian judicial process.

You seem gleeful about that and seems to be in contradiction to your love of what the court says - Hellmann's ruling was a court ruling.

They didn't exactly wipe out Hellmann since they required Nonsense to review Allesi or one of the whack witnesses heard only before at Hellmann's trial.

It is of note that Hellmann is not being silent as I'm sure he had been overruled before as most all judges are overrule many many times in their careers.

ETA - regardless of Hellmann or anything else it should bother your quest for truth for Meredith that Nonsense has made so many mistakes that can't be disputed.

 

[Grinder]

The one part I disagree with Bill is that Meredith could never have engaged in group sex. I'm not saying that she had or ever will, just that we are not privy to that information. Most people would be shocked to find out who has done group sex. The people who do, usually keep it well hidden even and very often especially hidden from their families and friends. I don't agree with the sex orgy gone awry or the dispute over stolen rent money. There is no evidence to support either theory. But that doesn't seem to matter in Italy.

On this we agree. Meredith was enjoying her life and certainly wasn't the shrinking violet they have portrayed as.

 

[Bill Williams]

More gems from the Nencini report, straight from Italy from a true Italian speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, start your reply buttons.....

In rejecting possible contamination for the bra-clasp, Nencini does not consider any activity in the date range of Nov 2 to 6th. Heck, Even Massei relates the concern that the group from "118" on the first day went into Meredith's room, but Massei rules that out because Stefanoni told him that the clasp was "probably" under Meredith at that time.

Nencini sticks to considering possible contamination for the bra-clasp only on Dec 18. AFAIK, Nencini makes no mention of Stefanoni's own testimony where she can neither confirm nor deny that she, herself, had touched the hooks on that date. AFAIK, Nencini does not mention that despite her claim at trial that she changed her gloves before each sample was collected, the video shown at the Massei trial shows her putting the bra-clasp back on the floor (replacing a sample on the floor is itself a possible contamination route, as discussed by Massei in 2010), and then shows her touching other "evidence"..... Nencini does not discuss this. Massei does, then rejects it saying that he believes Stefanani, (paraphrase alert "Because she told me so."

Nencini admits there were two "other inspections" between Nov 6 and Dec 18, but does not discuss those times specifically as it relates to potential contamination.

For Nencini, it's Dec 18 or nothing for contamination on the bra-clasp.

In comparison, Massei has a more full discussion about this, admitting to at least four known potential routes for contamination, at the crime scene. Nencini deals with the issue by only talking about Dec 18.

 

[Samson]

Another blunt assertion from Nencini (from PMF)

Finally, she was perfectly aware that, throughout the night of 1-2 November 2007, none of the other residents of the flat would return home, and therefore she had all the time necessary to undertake the alteration of the crime scene and the obstruction of the investigation.

So there you are Anglo, sorted.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is the teaser for the Knox interview on CNN later. The comment in the text below is from Judge Hellmann.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/amanda-knox-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Judge Hellmann is quoted as saying:

Claudio Hellman, the judge who tossed their convictions, lashed out at colleagues.

"The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito," said the judge in a scathing statement obtained by CNN.​

 

[Grinder]

Yes, if we assumed that the blood was so dilute that TMB was negative, then DNA would be negative. Indeed according to a met document even TMB positive blood samples can be below the limit for standard DNA testing. (Though LCN techniques may be tried).

Against this is light output is directly related to haemoglobin levels; if so dilute the Luminol should be faint, which I do not think was observed.

Thank you for your wonderfully concise answers.

The Luminol photographs show light blobs on the booties of the technicians. Some have suggested that they applied way too much. Is there a relationship with the amount applied and the brightness of the result? I must say that Luminol seems a sketchy method, reliant on level of brightness for 30 seconds.