Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[JREF2010]

-


-

I'm not talking about public opinion swaying anything. I was responding to Mach's contention that defamatory comments are criminal, and why was he only cherry picking comments from those who believe Raffaele and Amanda are innocent and not those who believed they were guilty.

You're the one who brought up the media, not me, but since you did...

d

-

Many of the Guiltards seem to have an issue with sex too. They include in a description of a person as if its a negative trait of Amanda...never Meredith having sex with some unknown Italian within a month. Only evil when Amanda has sex.

 

[Dan O.]

It seems to be a very deliberate smear campaign - and is incredibly sexist. They seem to think that if they shout 'sex and drugs' loud enough, some people will think that Amanda (Raffaele is mostly ignored) is a dirty girl and therefore must also be capable of murder. In reality, Amanda is no different to any other young college girl - and probably more vanilla than most, including Meredith Kercher. They were both young, sexually active women - and yet one is vilified for fairly average young adult behaviour

But there is overwhelming evidence that she was sexually involved with a guy involved in an illegal drug operation and was even willfully participating in that operation. Why does everybody just ignore this or sweep it under the rug yet make up stories about Amanda having sex with a drug dealer?

 

[acbytesla]

It seems to be a very deliberate smear campaign - and is incredibly sexist. They seem to think that if they shout 'sex and drugs' loud enough, some people will think that Amanda (Raffaele is mostly ignored) is a dirty girl and therefore must also be capable of murder. In reality, Amanda is no different to any other young college girl - and probably more vanilla than most, including Meredith Kercher. They were both young, sexually active women - and yet one is vilified for fairly average young adult behaviour

It is classic slut shaming.

 

[acbytesla]

Nencini has it wrong. There are guilters that have sorted this out in favour of the obvious fact that Raffaele did not ring Carabniere while Battisteli etc were on site.

This takes a bit of wading through.

Here is maths professor Leila Schnepps/thoughtful correcting fake wiki author McCall on PMF on january 19th 2014.

McCall wrote:
Also something that is important with respect to Postal.PDF. The logic used by the defense is incorrect so if we assume that the images of the Carabinieri arriving are actually them arriving and then work backwards not making the mistakes the defense made the result is a range for the postal police arriving between 12:49pm and 12:57pm so still before the 112 calls were made. This actually needs to be added to the reasoning.

Then thoughtful wrote:

Well no, this is just my point. An arrival time between 12:49 pm and 12:57 pm means that the 112 calls (at 12:51 and 12:54) were happening virtually at the same time as this arrival.

Certainly an arrival time of 12:49, 12:50, 12:51 can be exluded. Battistelli started out upon arrival by seeing and talking to Amanda and Raffaele, and both of their voices are heard in the first phone call.

So, 12:52, 12:53…Raffaele hangs up the phone as he sees Battistelli arriving, and after a few remarks, Amanda rushes Battistelli inside babbling about bloodstains while Raffaele makes the second phone call. Possible.

Can’t have been 12:54 since Raffaele wasn’t actually on the phone when Battistelli came in. So, 12:55-12:57? Possible, although the time before the arrival of Luca and Marco seems to get awfully short.

Personally I’d go for the second of the three possibilities.

How about if, like stilicho, we assume that the police were there long before, and the reason Raffaele and Amanda were free to phone at 12:51 and 12:54 was that Luca and Marco had already arrived.

Well, testimony shows that Filomena called Marco and asked him to go see what was going on at the cottage at 12:34. At the same time, Paola called Luca. Then Luca called Marco. Then Luca went down into the street, got his car and drove to Marco’s place (he estimates this as 10-12 minutes). Then he drove Marco to the cottage (he estimates this as another 10 minutes). He estimates the total time from their phone call to each other as 20-30 minutes. Marco estimates their arrival time at 13:00, and Luca, who estimates Paola’s phone call to him as 12:15 (when it was really 12:34) estimates the arrival time at the cottage as 12:45 (so logically, it would have been closer to 13:04).

In addition, Paola and Filomena both estimate their arrival time as 13:00 and Filomena says she asked Marco how long he had been there and it was very little time. And both policemen thought the four young people all arrived together.

Having Luca and Marco arrive at the cottage at 12:50 means having to ignore all of the above testimony, from four people who showed themselves to be quite reliable in testimony in general, and to assume that Luca called Marco, fetched him and got them both to the cottage in less than 15 minutes in spite of both their estimations that it must have been quite a bit longer. For me, that’s too much of a stretch.

What I don’t agree with about your timeline is that it ignores all oft his.

Basically, you are basing your reconstruction on believing Battistelli’s statements about the 12:35 and other estimations and not taking the others into account. But Battistelli’s testimony is very unreliable. He places the 112 call that we know happened at 12:29 at around 13:00, and there are other discrepancies in his testimony that the four friends don’t have in theirs.

As for Marsi, he never looked at a clock, but he does estimate the times and time-spans. He has all events taking place between 12:30 and 13:05, ending with the arrival of the Carabinieri at 13:05 that we know really happened more like 13:30. If you shift his testimony over to end at 13:30, that makes him and Battistelli arrive at 12:55. So if anything, his testimony supports an arrival shortly before 13:00.

My opinion is that making the assumption that the postal police circulated looking for the house for about a quarter of an hour longer than they thought is the solution that involves the smallest possible amount of discarding testimony.

Very Good Samson. Basically, Nencini makes it up as he goes along. Or if a police office declares it to be true, it must be...even if it is discounted by all the other evidence.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

But there is overwhelming evidence that she was sexually involved with a guy involved in an illegal drug operation and was even willfully participating in that operation. Why does everybody just ignore this or sweep it under the rug yet make up stories about Amanda having sex with a drug dealer?

Which she is this?

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks. I will look at this. By the way it's not my timeline nor my reconstruction! I am reading the Nencini report and seeing how much of it is suspect (or not). I would hope that in time, if the appeal goes wrong for Amanda and Raffale, about which I am somewhat pessimistic then a properly annotated version of the various reports could be made with defence rebuttals made.

I think you are right to be pessimistic actually. . . . .
I am optimistic for Amanda however being that the prime minster of Italy told Obama that the Italian court system is effectively out of control. As well, this case is just bad.

The US has lot of bad cases and bad convictions but the Italian legal system seems almost systematic in a way that the US is not.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Patrizia Moretti

Hi Machiavelli,
Since you know Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni personally,
can you please ask her for the DNA result charts for the seminal fluid, err, presumed seminal fluid that she mentioned on video back on the 3rd of Nov. 2007?

RWVBWL,

I think Machiavelli knows Patrizia Moretti, Federico Aldrovandi's mother.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

watering the plants

Which she is this?

Ampulla of Vater,

I think Dan O. is referring to Meredith, with respect to watering Giacomo's pot plants. I am not in a position to say that I personally condone growing pot, but it seems like a minor issue to me. The double standard in play with respect to Meredith versus Amanda is remarkable, however.

 

[NancyS]

Ampulla of Vater,

I think Dan O. is referring to Meredith, with respect to watering Giacomo's pot plants. I am not in a position to say that I personally condone growing pot, but it seems like a minor issue to me. The double standard in play with respect to Meredith versus Amanda is remarkable, however.

Exactly, all fairly minor stuff, although definitely more serious than Amanda's few joints. However, according to Machiavelli's standards, Giacomo is straight out of Breaking Bad

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Since you know Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni personally,

I was talking about Patrizia Moretti, the mother of Federico Aldrovandi.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

No, allow me. Ms. Moretti was quoted on Beppe Grillo's blog: "This blog eventually spread the word about what was going on in the case, bypassing the press, which had been truly being left out in the cold in Ferrara, so no other news on the trial was getting to our little village.
This was the last in a long line of what were perhaps intimidation attempts that we as a family were forced to endure, as well as many other people that were writing on the blog and many journalists that were talking about the Aldrovandi affair...Many complaints have been laid against me over the years. I think that I have collected around ten of them. In my case, I believe that all of these complaints laid against me over the long years were attempts to intimidate me and to prevent people talking about the case, either on the Internet, in the newspapers or using any other medium of communication."

Your silence about your being caught lying on Stefanoni and the allele peaks is just telling.

The obtusity of this comment on Aldrovandi is also dismaying. You report things that only confirm what I say dut don't realize it, what appears on your part is an obtuse attempt to make an argument out from a reality that just supports my point.

Facts are Patrizia Moretti had to stand trial for one legal action, that is the lawsuit filed by Mariaemanuela Guerra, she the only person of ‘authority’ who filed a lawsuit (and she lost). The other lawsuits are from private persons and private subjects. For example Coisp sued Moretti in 2014 because of an interview. Coisp is a private association, a police syndicate. All subjects who attacked Moretti and her family via legal actions are private citizens, political groups. Actually they are very small political groups.

So truth is: defamation lawsuits law is used by tiny groups, private citizens and activists, not by authorities. There is no ‘authority’ intimidating Patrizia & family, it’s just small subjects defending their own particular interests and pushing their own small political agendas within their groups. You pin on authorities and judiciary what is in fact private citizens corporations and subjects attempting to pursue their own interest. Indeed police cover ups existed on the Aldrovandi case, but they were not 'protected' at all by the defamation laws, defamation law didn't work in favour of the criminal people involved and the cover-ups have nothing to do with defamation law.

It is also worth noting that all those defamation complaints filed by privates (to protect their interests) were subsequently dropped by the judicial authority or withdrawn, thus confirming that the system is not authority-driven, it’s rather the opposite: it is privately driven, authorities tend to filter the legal activism and legal retaliation of private subjects; and the system tends to work properly, it’s ‘heavy’ in practice when you have political grups against you but the judicial authorities do not punish innocents such as Patrizia Moretti using defamation charges (and unfounded lawsuits like Guerra’s are doomed to lose). All these are things you refuse to admit.

PS: The Beppe Grillo blog you quote strongly supports my positions and the judiciary.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli,
can you please, please, please ask Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni for those seminal fluid DNA results?
Heck, maybe Professor Halkides can have a look at the electropherograms and help you Italians find the perp who left those semen stains there by Miss Kercher.

RW--I'm not holding my breath on this one. I think that stefanoni is keeping the semen to herself.

 

[Samson]

Show us your muscles Samson!

This post that Machiavelli ignored

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10269044&postcount=3564

(the pen is mightier than the sword)
(and I've still got a full head of hair)

 

[Machiavelli]

What nonsense - and don't all these lies make you a criminal as stated in your previous post?

And I have a question for you - would you let a 'scientist' like Stefanoni be in charge of the Ebola crisis - or would you prefer someone who didn't laugh in the face of standards and protocols?

All derogatory comments against Stefanoni by pro-Knox supporters are unjustified and they appear based on circular logic. It seems also prejudice ignorance about the legal procedures play a part, since some people seem to think that not taking care of storage shows ‘incompetence’ (item storage is actually unusual and never requested when art. 360 is applied, actually, as most frequent procedure for ‘non-repeatable test’, items tested under art. 360 of procedure code are destroyed immediately after the test right away).

What you say about Ebola and Stefanoni is somehow funny because, while Patrizia Stefanoni has personally no role in contrasting Ebola, she happens to be trained in the institute that is actually leading the research on the Ebola vaccine.

Stefanoni had her degree in molecular biology at the University Federico II of Naples and worked as a researcher having her PhD at the Ceinge labs, that is the Genetics laboratories inside the University Federico of Naples, her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia. The persons in charge of producing the Ebola vaccine in fact are Stefanoni’s professors, Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia and others from the Ceinge lab. Some years ago they created a company with Swiss-Italian and Duch capitals that leads genetic research in vaccines, has its laboratories in Italy and last year was bought by Glaxo.

The University Federico II of Naples is not one of the top universities, especially if considered overall. But contains some advanced faculties such as Genetics, and scientists at the institute from which Stefanoni is from are clearly not totally incompetent, otherwise they wouldn’t be the world top researchers on the Ebola vaccine.

Of course I would trust Stefanoni if she was in charge of Ebola genetic researches. Indeed I would have complete trust. She has a degree cum laude and post-degree trainings in Naples, her professors who selected her and trained her are Cortese, Salvatore and Nicosia, there is no reason why I should consider her an incompetent. Of course I would prefer Stefanoni rather than those who appear presumptuous and petulant ideological activits ranting about standards and made up legal principles like amateurish beaurocrats, or claim to be 'experts' in cases where they are not even witnesses.

For news about the Ebola vaccines and a trip in the Naples lab:
On al Jazeera inside the lab
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-italy-2014910201952813411.html

Some mention on the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29238992

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pascali's request was refused

Your silence about your being caught lying on Stefanoni and the allele peaks is just telling.

Machiavelli,

I have not been silent, and it is you who is speaking falsely. I previously reminded people that Bongiorno remarked upon this problem in her 2009 address to the court and also in Sollecito's appeal document in 2010. Dr. Pascali was not given the peak heights in 2008: "- To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU." (machine translation with edits)

In addition, Stefanoni's tables were deficient. Leaving alleles out of the table is a serious professional lapse. Worse still are the missing egrams and the fact that having the peak heights is not as good as having the electronic data files. I asked an Italian lawyer (not one affiliated with the defense), and he told me that an Italian lawyer can get anything he wants. That may well be the ideal, but the reality of this case has been very different. There exist people who were in a position to help the defense no later than 2009, but they needed and asked the defense for the EDFs but the defense lawyers were always refused, as confirmed by Dalla Vedova in 2011. Any attempt by the authorities to defend bad forensics (which is what Nencini has done) ends up being a determined march in the wrong direction for the criminal justice system. It is a Faustian bargain.

 

[Machiavelli]

This post that Machiavelli ignored

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10269044&postcount=3564

(the pen is mightier than the sword)
(and I've still got a full head of hair)

Not "the" post, I ignored many posts, and I will ignore many more. It is just impossible to follow all topics.

 

[Desert Fox]

Not "the" post, I ignored many posts, and I will ignore many more. It is just impossible to follow all topics.

I will actually kind of agree with that argument. . . .I sometimes have had discussions where I just cannot respond to everything.

 

[NancyS]

All derogatory comments against Stefanoni by pro-Knox supporters are unjustified and they appear based on circular logic. It seems also prejudice ignorance about the legal procedures play a part, since some people seem to think that not taking care of storage shows ‘incompetence’ (item storage is actually unusual and never requested when art. 360 is applied, actually, as most frequent procedure for ‘non-repeatable test’, items tested under art. 360 of procedure code are destroyed immediately after the test right away).

What you say about Ebola and Stefanoni is somehow funny because, while Patrizia Stefanoni has personally no role in contrasting Ebola, she happens to be trained in the institute that is actually leading the research on the Ebola vaccine.

Stefanoni had her degree in molecular biology at the University Federico II of Naples and worked as a researcher having her PhD at the Ceinge labs, that is the Genetics laboratories inside the University Federico of Naples, her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia. The persons in charge of producing the Ebola vaccine in fact are Stefanoni’s professors, Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia and others from the Ceinge lab. Some years ago they created a company with Swiss-Italian and Duch capitals that leads genetic research in vaccines, has its laboratories in Italy and last year was bought by Glaxo.

The University Federico II of Naples is not one of the top universities, especially if considered overall. But contains some advanced faculties such as Genetics, and scientists at the institute from which Stefanoni is from are clearly not totally incompetent, otherwise they wouldn’t be the world top researchers on the Ebola vaccine.

Of course I would trust Stefanoni if she was in charge of Ebola genetic researches. Indeed I would have complete trust. She has a degree cum laude and post-degree trainings in Naples, her professors who selected her and trained her are Cortese, Salvatore and Nicosia, there is no reason why I should consider her an incompetent. Of course I would prefer Stefanoni rather than those who appear presumptuous and petulant ideological activits ranting about standards and made up legal principles like amateurish beaurocrats, or claim to be 'experts' in cases where they are not even witnesses.

For news about the Ebola vaccines and a trip in the Naples lab:
On al Jazeera inside the lab
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-italy-2014910201952813411.html

Some mention on the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29238992

And yet she doesn't change her gloves - heaven help us all if handwashing is considered unimportant 'protocol nonsense' by those dealing with Ebola patients

Your reply has made me laugh a lot though )

 

[Machiavelli]

And yet she doesn't change her gloves - heaven help us all if handwashing is considered unimportant 'protocol nonsense' by those dealing with Ebola patients

Your reply has made me laugh a lot though )

Protocols in reality must be made compatible with many practical limitations (time, supplies, etc.). Real life is often imperfect, you can't expect ideal conditions as if they were a practical standard or reasonable expectation. You need to make the best of what you have, you can't always ask for the best.
Moreover, Stefanoni is not even the person in charge of the crime scene.
What matters instead is something else. The question to answer about the DNA findings (which is not the most important evidence in the trial anyway) is how did Sollecito's DNA come to the bra clasp. If there is any reasonably explanation why the specific finding of Sollecito's profile on the metal hook should be a probable event, without he taking part to the murder.
Attempts to attack Stefanoni are just mean attempts to divert the discourse, and to try to go around the question. No ranting of protocols and standards nor pretexts or specious unjustified insults against forensic scientists will change the finding and the point to answer: Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp, no alleged protocol breach would offer a probable alternative explanation, even if they dipped the bra clasp in a bucket of mud before collecting it that would not be helpful to Sollecito's defense: its DNA would still demand to be explained.

 

[Diocletus]

Protocols in reality must be made compatible with many practical limitations (time, supplies, etc.). Real life is often imperfect, you can't expect ideal conditions as if they were a practical standard or reasonable expectation. You need to make the best of what you have, you can't always ask for the best.
Moreover, Stefanoni is not even the person in charge of the crime scene.
What matters instead is something else. The question to answer about the DNA findings (which is not the most important evidence in the trial anyway) is how did Sollecito's DNA come to the bra clasp. If there is any reasonably explanation why the specific finding of Sollecito's profile on the metal hook should be a probable event, without he taking part to the murder.
Attempts to attack Stefanoni are just mean attempts to divert the discourse, and to try to go around the question. No ranting of protocols and standards nor pretexts or specious unjustified insults against forensic scientists will change the finding and the point to answer: Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp, no alleged protocol breach would offer a probable alternative explanation, even if they dipped the bra clasp in a bucket of mud before collecting it that would not be helpful to Sollecito's defense: its DNA would still demand to be explained.

Wrong. The dna was in the machine, not necessarily on the bra clasp. I do, however, think that the other three guys' dna was on the clasp.