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

[acbytesla]

Why I argue for little "c" conspiracy not big "C" conspiracy.

I don't think of it as a massive conspiracy at all. I see a lot of people that didn't want to lose face and instead of looking at the whole from an entirely objective perspective get scope locked, But that dozen investigators that sat behind that bank of investigators the day that Amanda and Raffaele were invested quickly became maybe two investigators looking into the case. All it really takes for this case to get out of hand is one person and a bunch of people hypnotized by "group think". I see this as a calamity of errors that built upon themselves. I tend to think that the knife blade was a deliberate error to hold Raffaele until they could find some more convincing evidence. They could always say that this was a mistake if they found out that they were wrong. I really want to know the date that they mistakenly matched Raffaele's shoe prints to all those bloody shoe prints and the day they realized that they weren't his. All the evidence about the latter seems to be the result of Raffaele's dad. That they were convinced that they were matched until they picked up on the phone taps.

But if I thought all those shoe prints belonged to Raffaele, I'd think he was involved...in fact I'd think it was a slam dunk. So was it two weeks that they thought they were a match? 3 or even 4 weeks or longer? There they were for a month giving interviews slapping each other on the back for a job well done. Giobbi even had framed pictures of Amanda and Raffaele on his wall alongside Mafia bosses and other notorious criminals and this was less than a month after the murder.

 

[Strozzi]

I think this kind of delusional rant is nearly clinical, frankly. No reasonable person would hold such ideas about a grand conspiracy - and anyone that did would be ushered towards the nearest psychiatric clinic. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. OK I can understand that some people need conspiratorial thrills to enliven their otherwise mundane lives, but this is at the insane end of the spectrum. God save us.

Supercalifragilistic, are you talking about Mignini? If so, I agree with you that Mignini's view is delusional - Mignini believing that Meredith's murder is a grand conspiracy by an American girl, her very-recent Italian boyfriend, and a failed young burglar who had never even met Raffaele. Mignini handed Rudy the break of a lifetime by insisting that the other two were there and led the attack, allowing Rudy to be portrayed as a minor participant. Mignini's "Poor Rudy".

 

[Strozzi]

really, I think the conspiracy can be blamed by various officials in various places not wanting to blame others in their organization.

Almost exactly the same reason why police officers can often get away with some pretty extreme corruption. The other cops protect them.
I don't really see much of a grand conspiracy but more an unwillingness for enough people to stand up and yell "Enough"

I am curious if anyone has ever heard of a police officer arresting/taking into custody another police officer whe is acting in violation of the law towards a suspect at the time the violation occurs? For example, five police officers respond to a call and take a suspect into custody. One or two police officers use unwarranted physical violence against the submissive detainee. Has there ever been a case of the other police officers at that moment arresting the violent police officer for assault of the submissive detainee?

 

[carbonjam72]

Big C, little c, I see, you see.

Why I argue for little "c" conspiracy not big "C" conspiracy.

What makes a conspiracy a big C, or a little C?

Was it to Mignini's advantage to frame Knox for the Kercher killing, by echoing his previous claims of satanic ritual cult murder in his MOF cases, and bolstering his reputation in the face of abuse of office charges?

Answer is yes.

Did he do it deliberately, knowing Knox was innocent from Day 1? Did it evolve over the first few days, while consulting with the psychic Carlizzi in Perugia? (which did happen, by the way).

Did the police, in their evidence collection, and coordinated interrogation regime, and perjured statements (of cartwheels and biscuits, etc), and the lab in generating fraudulent results and evidence suppression, support Mignini's claims against Knox?

Answer is yes.

Did the Italian Supreme Court of cassation (ISC) overturn the Hellman acquittal, after Hellman methodically destroyed every element of the objectively crazy case?

Just as the ISC panel reversed Pacciano's overwhelming acquittal in the Monster of Florence conviction, during which the appeals prosecutor had switched sides and argued for acquittal because that case was similarly so plainly bogus?

Answer is Yes.

Has the ISC and prior judges gone out of their way to protect the prosecutors and Mignini, from the embarrassment of having their theory of crimes be declared wrong, while trying to minimize the resulting harm, and avoid finally confirming & convicting innocent defendants of social substance, at ISC level?

For the most part, the answer to that too, is yes.

(The exceptions are Vanni and Lotti in the MOF cases - Vanni was a postman, and Lotti was a village idiot and 'super-witness' against himself; and potentially Pacciano - who died two days before his retrial was due to begin - so that issue is unknown)

There is a very good chance that Knox and Sollecito will be found not guilty for lack of evidence, while upholding the prosecutions theory that the crime was a group killing by Guede, along with others.

They know Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Of the Italian judiciary, only Mignini wants them in jail. (Arguably Nencini, but with so many blatant errors in his motivation, who really can say?).

I don't see these convictions being confirmed by ISC. I see them being absolved without requiring a re-trial. Because that outcome serves their interests - getting rid of this albatross, while preserving their dignity.

So, BIG C or little C?

There seems to be only 2 speeds on the Italian police investigation speedometer: incompetent and corrupt.

The idea of a cloistered room full of people all plotting together to frame the American? That I don't see. A climate of opinion among certain allies to support a fellow judge, Mignini, in his time of need so as to not let him splatter reflected egg on all their faces? Absolutely.

'Italian justice' not a monolithic monster. It's a collection of players with complex agendas, like any other community. It's a shame, but its also obvious, that 'truth and justice' have very little to do with the case ever having been brought forward, and will be only secondary considerations in allowing it to be dismissed.

I don't want to think about the alternative.

 

[acbytesla]

I am curious if anyone has ever heard of a police officer arresting/taking into custody another police officer whe is acting in violation of the law towards a suspect at the time the violation occurs? For example, five police officers respond to a call and take a suspect into custody. One or two police officers use unwarranted physical violence against the submissive detainee. Has there ever been a case of the other police officers at that moment arresting the violent police officer for assault of the submissive detainee?

I've never heard of it and there would be ton of pressure against doing that.
here really is a blue line where cops stick up for each other particularly when it come to going "hands on". "Hands on" is the expression my best friend a SPD officer uses. Fighting with a suspect is in fact not only part of their training but a regular event...but much more so with certain officers.

Most people don't recognize just how abused by the public that the police are on the job. They naturally start to view the world as an "us vs them" world. Cops (the brotherhood) vs the scumbags or "turds" as they call them and every day citizens aren't view as much better. I've gone on a few ride-alongs with my buddy and you really can't fathom just how horribly people treat cops. It easy to see how some times cops are just pushed over the edge and take it out on a suspect. When a cop goes too far, usually his fellow officers will just pull him off the suspect and try and diffuse the situation. But they are very very unlikely to arrest a fellow officer. They might report the guy to the superiors but even that is unlikely. They "stand together". They want to know that they have each other's backs.

 

[kwill]

I've never heard of it and there would be ton of pressure against doing that.
here really is a blue line where cops stick up for each other particularly when it come to going "hands on". "Hands on" is the expression my best friend a SPD officer uses. Fighting with a suspect is in fact not only part of their training but a regular event...but much more so with certain officers.

Most people don't recognize just how abused by the public that the police are on the job. They naturally start to view the world as an "us vs them" world. Cops (the brotherhood) vs the scumbags or "turds" as they call them and every day citizens aren't view as much better. I've gone on a few ride-alongs with my buddy and you really can't fathom just how horribly people treat cops. It easy to see how some times cops are just pushed over the edge and take it out on a suspect. When a cop goes too far, usually his fellow officers will just pull him off the suspect and try and diffuse the situation. But they are very very unlikely to arrest a fellow officer. They might report the guy to the superiors but even that is unlikely. They "stand together". They want to know that they have each other's backs.

Remember this story? In my town, just last year. One cop stops an off-duty friend, realizes his friend is blotto, and instead of arresting him, (as he would if it were you or me) calls the friend's wife to come and get him.

All of us do this, in whatever profession we're in. It's the whole point of having a system with checks and balances, the lack of which in the Italian system are on full display here.

Testimony given by a police officer or person employed by the police is assumed to be true. Accusations against police officers or persons employed by the police are assumed to be false and are grounds for criminal punishment and civil fines.

Stephanoni could NOT have been wrong when she told the court there had never been contamination in her lab. The police could NOT have smacked AK while they were trying to get her to tell them what they already knew to be true.

 

[acbytesla]

What makes a conspiracy a big C, or a little C?

Was it to Mignini's advantage to frame Knox for the Kercher killing, by echoing his previous claims of satanic ritual cult murder in his MOF cases, and bolstering his reputation in the face of abuse of office charges?

Answer is yes.

Did he do it deliberately, knowing Knox was innocent from Day 1? Did it evolve over the first few days, while consulting with the psychic Carlizzi in Perugia? (which did happen, by the way).

Did the police, in their evidence collection, and coordinated interrogation regime, and perjured statements (of cartwheels and biscuits, etc), and the lab in generating fraudulent results and evidence suppression, support Mignini's claims against Knox?

Answer is yes.

Did the Italian Supreme Court of cassation (ISC) overturn the Hellman acquittal, after Hellman methodically destroyed every element of the objectively crazy case?

Just as the ISC panel reversed Pacciano's overwhelming acquittal in the Monster of Florence conviction, during which the appeals prosecutor had switched sides and argued for acquittal because that case was similarly so plainly bogus?

Answer is Yes.

Has the ISC and prior judges gone out of their way to protect the prosecutors and Mignini, from the embarrassment of having their theory of crimes be declared wrong, while trying to minimize the resulting harm, and avoid finally confirming & convicting innocent defendants of social substance, at ISC level?

For the most part, the answer to that too, is yes.

(The exceptions are Vanni and Lotti in the MOF cases - Vanni was a postman, and Lotti was a village idiot and 'super-witness' against himself; and potentially Pacciano - who died two days before his retrial was due to begin - so that issue is unknown)

There is a very good chance that Knox and Sollecito will be found not guilty for lack of evidence, while upholding the prosecutions theory that the crime was a group killing by Guede, along with others.

They know Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Of the Italian judiciary, only Mignini wants them in jail. (Arguably Nencini, but with so many blatant errors in his motivation, who really can say?).

I don't see these convictions being confirmed by ISC. I see them being absolved without requiring a re-trial. Because that outcome serves their interests - getting rid of this albatross, while preserving their dignity.

So, BIG C or little C?

There seems to be only 2 speeds on the Italian police investigation speedometer: incompetent and corrupt.

The idea of a cloistered room full of people all plotting together to frame the American? That I don't see. A climate of opinion among certain allies to support a fellow judge, Mignini, in his time of need so as to not let him splatter reflected egg on all their faces? Absolutely.

'Italian justice' not a monolithic monster. It's a collection of players with complex agendas, like any other community. It's a shame, but its also obvious, that 'truth and justice' have very little to do with the case ever having been brought forward, and will be only secondary considerations in allowing it to be dismissed.

I don't want to think about the alternative.

I agree wholeheartedly with the highlighted part and I too don't want to think of the alternative. I also agree that there wasn't a room full of people plotting together to "frame Knox and Sollecito". All it really takes is one person and that person provides the impetus for the rest of the group falling into line. Mignini saying to Stefanoni. "We know this whore from America killed Meredith and it's your job to help me prove it. Now find some god damn evidence!" And Stefanoni goes over the line and there it is ...The proof that is necessary and that helps solidify what has been in every one's minds. In a way, it doesn't even take Stefanoni forging the evidence even though I think she more than likely did. The problem when you believe Amanda is innocent is when you see the circumstances of how both the knife and bra clasp were tested. It's just bizarre beyond belief.

But let's say the knife evidence was real as far as Stefanoni is concerned. I mean she didn't plant it and even though her testing procedure was unorthodox, she got the result she wanted. And even though it wasn't repeatable, it was still a result in her mind and no way was she going to let the police and the "good guys" down. I feel like if there was one piece of evidence that might be a deliberate framing was the bra clasp or maybe it was just contamination. Either way, this is enough to convince most cops and judges. So many people view "contamination" as lawyer bs. That it isn't real in their minds....Just a defense lawyer being desperate.

 

[acbytesla]

Remember this story? In my town, just last year. One cop stops an off-duty friend, realizes his friend is blotto, and instead of arresting him, (as he would if it were you or me) calls the friend's wife to come and get him.

Similar story...my friend's wife was definitely buzzed and she went looking for her husband.(my friend) and actually waved down one of his fellow officers asking if she knew where her husband was. He knew she was over the limit and told her to wait right there and called her husband on the radio to come pick her up.

But believe it or not, A lot of cops don't like DUIs. My buddy hates to issue DUI tickets because not only is there a lot of paperwork as well as spending a good portion of his shift with a drunk, there is what he sees is the injustice of the system. Consistently those with lawyers get their clients off and if you don't have one you're going down. Another example of those with money sidestepping the law and those who don't getting kicked in the teeth by the law.

All of us do this, in whatever profession we're in. It's the whole point of having a system with checks and balances, the lack of which in the Italian system are on full display here.

Testimony given by a police officer or person employed by the police is assumed to be true. Accusations against police officers or persons employed by the police are assumed to be false and are grounds for criminal punishment and civil fines.

Stephanoni could NOT have been wrong when she told the court there had never been contamination in her lab. The police could NOT have smacked AK while they were trying to get her to tell them what they already knew to be true.

Boy is all this true.

 

[Strozzi]

I agree wholeheartedly with the highlighted part and I too don't want to think of the alternative. I also agree that there wasn't a room full of people plotting together to "frame Knox and Sollecito". All it really takes is one person and that person provides the impetus for the rest of the group falling into line. Mignini saying to Stefanoni. "We know this whore from America killed Meredith and it's your job to help me prove it. Now find some god damn evidence!" And Stefanoni goes over the line and there it is ...The proof that is necessary and that helps solidify what has been in every one's minds. In a way, it doesn't even take Stefanoni forging the evidence even though I think she more than likely did. The problem when you believe Amanda is innocent is when you see the circumstances of how both the knife and bra clasp were tested. It's just bizarre beyond belief.

But let's say the knife evidence was real as far as Stefanoni is concerned. I mean she didn't plant it and even though her testing procedure was unorthodox, she got the result she wanted. And even though it wasn't repeatable, it was still a result in her mind and no way was she going to let the police and the "good guys" down. I feel like if there was one piece of evidence that might be a deliberate framing was the bra clasp or maybe it was just contamination. Either way, this is enough to convince most cops and judges. So many people view "contamination" as lawyer bs. That it isn't real in their minds....Just a defense lawyer being desperate.

I would like to see an objective scientist examine the knife blade to see if there is the striation (indented spot? or scratch?) that Stefanoni claims retained and sheltered DNA matter she allegedly located and tested as being Kercher's. You know - the condemnatory matter that she claims existed but was consumed in testing, and thus is not testable a second time (like the bra clasp that she stored improperly and destroyed). Use a very precise laser to examine the blade's surface, if necessary. But find it or prove it does not exist, and therefore show Stefanoni was being honest or that she lied in her testimony. Stefanoni came up with the striation story when she was challenged that the blade was clean. Test her veracity on this.

 

[xinonix]

"They know Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Of the Italian judiciary, only Mignini wants them in jail. (Arguably Nencini, but with so many blatant errors in his motivation, who really can say?).

I don't see these convictions being confirmed by ISC. I see them being absolved without requiring a re-trial. Because that outcome serves their interests - getting rid of this albatross, while preserving their dignity."

,A K + RS were acquitted,
they went home. And they were left alone for awhile.
Then the plans to publish their books were made public.
They must have made some kind of a deal with Amanda where she gets a judge who likes her, an acquittal and release, IF she promises to NOT write a book about her ordeal, and then go on tv to promote it.
She needed lots of money to pay her families debts, so she did the book anyway. The Italians got mad and took back the aquital.
The same thing happened to Raffael

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree wholeheartedly with the highlighted part and I too don't want to think of the alternative. I also agree that there wasn't a room full of people plotting together to "frame Knox and Sollecito". All it really takes is one person and that person provides the impetus for the rest of the group falling into line. Mignini saying to Stefanoni. "We know this whore from America killed Meredith and it's your job to help me prove it. Now find some god damn evidence!" And Stefanoni goes over the line and there it is ...The proof that is necessary and that helps solidify what has been in every one's minds. In a way, it doesn't even take Stefanoni forging the evidence even though I think she more than likely did. The problem when you believe Amanda is innocent is when you see the circumstances of how both the knife and bra clasp were tested. It's just bizarre beyond belief.

But let's say the knife evidence was real as far as Stefanoni is concerned. I mean she didn't plant it and even though her testing procedure was unorthodox, she got the result she wanted. And even though it wasn't repeatable, it was still a result in her mind and no way was she going to let the police and the "good guys" down. I feel like if there was one piece of evidence that might be a deliberate framing was the bra clasp or maybe it was just contamination. Either way, this is enough to convince most cops and judges. So many people view "contamination" as lawyer bs. That it isn't real in their minds....Just a defense lawyer being desperate.

I have effectively been abandoned at work without any sleep.
I was planning to answer very much like you would put beyond the abilities of a sleep addled brain.
Thanks though, looks liek you took care of it.

 

[acbytesla]

I have effectively been abandoned at work without any sleep.
I was planning to answer very much like you would put beyond the abilities of a sleep addled brain.
Thanks though, looks liek you took care of it.

That's ok...I'm totally distracted by the USA Portugal Soccer match.

 

[RWVBWL]

I would like to see an objective scientist examine the knife blade to see if there is the striation (indented spot? or scratch?) that Stefanoni claims retained and sheltered DNA matter she allegedly located and tested as being Kercher's. You know - the condemnatory matter that she claims existed but was consumed in testing, and thus is not testable a second time (like the bra clasp that she stored improperly and destroyed). Use a very precise laser to examine the blade's surface, if necessary. But find it or prove it does not exist, and therefore show Stefanoni was being honest or that she lied in her testimony. Stefanoni came up with the striation story when she was challenged that the blade was clean. Test her veracity on this.

I love how Doctor Stefanoni kept retesting the knife

until she got the desired results,
don't you?

Was this the only item she kept re-testing and re-testing?

Why didn't she do so with that apparent semen stain?
Or those 2 blonde hairs found? Or underneath Meredith's fingernails?

Link:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

 

[Strozzi]

I agree wholeheartedly with the highlighted part and I too don't want to think of the alternative. I also agree that there wasn't a room full of people plotting together to "frame Knox and Sollecito". All it really takes is one person and that person provides the impetus for the rest of the group falling into line. Mignini saying to Stefanoni. "We know this whore from America killed Meredith and it's your job to help me prove it. Now find some god damn evidence!" And Stefanoni goes over the line and there it is ...The proof that is necessary and that helps solidify what has been in every one's minds. In a way, it doesn't even take Stefanoni forging the evidence even though I think she more than likely did. The problem when you believe Amanda is innocent is when you see the circumstances of how both the knife and bra clasp were tested. It's just bizarre beyond belief.

But let's say the knife evidence was real as far as Stefanoni is concerned. I mean she didn't plant it and even though her testing procedure was unorthodox, she got the result she wanted. And even though it wasn't repeatable, it was still a result in her mind and no way was she going to let the police and the "good guys" down. I feel like if there was one piece of evidence that might be a deliberate framing was the bra clasp or maybe it was just contamination. Either way, this is enough to convince most cops and judges. So many people view "contamination" as lawyer bs. That it isn't real in their minds....Just a defense lawyer being desperate.

I want to ask about Mignini interviewing Filomena about how far open or closed she left her outside shutters when she left the cottage that afternoon. It is my understanding that Filomena originally told Mignini that she closed her shutters only part way, explaining that the shutter wood was swollen and that the shutters would not close well. IIRC, Mignini raised this with her again in several more interviews. Is that correct? Was Mignini trying to get her to change her account to say her shutters were fairly tightly closed?

I ask this to see if Mignini was trying to alter/shape testimony to support his preconceived theory.

 

[acbytesla]

I want to ask about Mignini interviewing Filomena about how far open or closed she left her outside shutters when she left the cottage that afternoon. It is my understanding that Filomena originally told Mignini that she closed her shutters only part way, explaining that the shutter wood was swollen and that the shutters would not close well. IIRC, Mignini raised this with her again in several more interviews. Is that correct? Was Mignini trying to get her to change her account to say her shutters were fairly tightly closed?

I ask this to see if Mignini was trying to alter/shape testimony to support his preconceived theory.

I have no doubt that Mignini was "coaching" his witnesses. While maybe not outright telling them what to say asking again and again in ways that conditioned them to answer in just such a way until that became the way they testified. Filomena and the shutters is just one such example. So is the glass on top of the clothes meme. But even with all this, Mignini really didn't get Filomena or Laura to say that Amanda and Meredith weren't getting along.

 

[xinonix]

"Why? Why would the police want to "assassinate Meredith Kercher? Why would they want to kill a twenty year old college student who had been in the country for about 60 days. For the life of me I can't imagine why. "

Are you sure you can't imagine why?
What we are trying to accomplish here is to make the single attacker theory, the single attacker fact.
So far we know of no motive Rudy had to Murder Meredith.
OK, there is a theory that Rudy killed Meridith because she came home earlier than he expected her to.
Amanda's lawyer needs something better than that.
I am not saying that theory is wrong, the problem is, it is still a guess.
The prosecution can claim that Rudy would not be burglarising a home that is the upper floor of the flat where his friends live. Burglars break into houses that are not in the neighborhood they live in. Rudy would know there was nothing to steal in that flat that would make the crime worth while.
The autopsy results suggest that Rudy snuck up behind Meridith and attempted to use a technique that assasins use to kill quietly, and disable the victim, before the victim can scream or use a gun. After that, he schtupped the body, and added a few more wounds
To confuse the police, and make it look like a rape. The prosecution would say that is just another theory, because Rudy had no reason to assasinate Meredith.
So what we need is for you to do is put on your thinking cap and imagine why the police would want to assasinate Meridith.
How do you know, you can't imagine this? Have you tried?

 

[acbytesla]

"Why? Why would the police want to "assassinate Meredith Kercher? Why would they want to kill a twenty year old college student who had been in the country for about 60 days. For the life of me I can't imagine why. "

Are you sure you can't imagine why?
What we are trying to accomplish here is to make the single attacker theory, the single attacker fact.
So far we know of no motive Rudy had to Murder Meredith.
OK, there is a theory that Rudy killed Meridith because she came home earlier than he expected her to.
Amanda's lawyer needs something better than that.
I am not saying that theory is wrong, the problem is, it is still a guess.

The prosecution can claim that Rudy would not be burglarising a home that is the upper floor of the flat where his friends live. Burglars break into houses that are not in the neighborhood they live in. Rudy would know there was nothing to steal in that flat that would make the crime worth while.
The autopsy results suggest that Rudy snuck up behind Meridith and attempted to use a technique that assasins use to kill quietly, and disable the victim, before the victim can scream or use a gun. After that, he schtupped the body, and added a few more wounds
To confuse the police, and make it look like a rape. The prosecution would say that is just another theory, because Rudy had no reason to assasinate Meredith.
So what we need is for you to do is put on your thinking cap and imagine why the police would want to assasinate Meridith.
How do you know, you can't imagine this? Have you tried?

Everything is a guess Xionix. EVERYTHING. What we do know is that Rudy had a history of committing burglaries. That Rudy had once pulled a knife on a burglary victim. That there were signs of a break in. That Rudy arrived at the cottage an hour before Meredith. That there was no sign of Amanda or Raffaele. You go where the evidence points you. There really is no credible evidence that declares to the world unequivocally that there were multiple assailants. The evidence shows that it could have been a single assailant despite the rulings by two judges. Is there a major motive for Rudy killing Meredith? Not if you don't count having been caught having broken into the cottage. Not really. But who else would have wanted to kill Meredith and why? There isn't a shred of evidence that anyone would want to kill Meredith. Present it and we'll consider it. You may have a theory, but is there really anything that actually points you to your theory? Probably not.

 

[xinonix]

there is a theory that Rudy killed Meridith because she came home earlier than he expected her to.
If Rudy was just a burglar, His friends in Perugia would just throw him under the bus.
But no, they cared about him and they saw to it that he would spend much less time in prison than an ordinary murderer would. He got a large reduction in his sentence for following his lawyer's advice and opting for the fast track trial. Then the cops made 2 people who were not involved into suspects so they could make a deal where he rats out these people and gets rewarded with a large reduction in his sentence. He is allowed out to go to school now, well I read that in the Daily Mail so I'm not sure it's true.
Hey maybe Rudy knew something that the cops wanted to keep secret, so the lawyer went up to Germany and told Rudy That they could help him out, if he kept his mouth shut.

 

[xinonix]

To help poor Rudy they had a plan
to get out of prison while still a young man,
he just plead guilty in a fast track trial
he got a shortened sentence that would make him smile
then they got 2 people, on which to blame his crime
he got a shorter sentence, those two did his time.,

-from The Ballad of Poor Rudy, by M.C.Hammer

 

[anglolawyer]

I love how Doctor Stefanoni kept retesting the knife
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/13/vcdb.jpg[/qimg]
until she got the desired results,
don't you?

Was this the only item she kept re-testing and re-testing?

Why didn't she do so with that apparent semen stain?
Or those 2 blonde hairs found? Or underneath Meredith's fingernails?

Link:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

I think we need to see the complete document. It's not my understanding that she kept re-testing the knife until she got the desired result. This is the same as the 'cranking up' point. Her procedures, insofar as recorded, are described in Conti-Vechiotti and did not include repeated testing of the same samples. The thing about the 'too low' results is that she chose to ignore them, relying on the same mystical intuition that inspired the selection of the knife in the first place.