• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Precisely. Toss in Oxford and Cambridge and we're done.

Of course, Sapienza is the best thing Italy has to offer on this front. But, given that it sponsors the highly questionable talents of Conti & Vecchiotti, even its merits are in doubt.

La Sapienza is far from being one of the best Universities in Italy. Ranks are different depending on faculties but the average Sapienza rank is not that high.

Anyway you are just running away from the topic.
 
La Sapienza is far from being one of the best Universities in Italy. Ranks are different depending on faculties but the average Sapienza rank is not that high.

Anyway you are just running away from the topic.

What topic? Instead of decrying other people's sources, why don't you show your own? Even better, can you anything at all proving, not just suggesting, that the blobs and footprints were made in blood?

Do you have any comment regarding the actions of the scientific police, seen stepping ina pool of victim's blood?
 
Stefanoni said if TMB was negative you could be sure it's not blood. That is the only citation I need. Others far better qualified than me will bury you in citations as they have in the past (to no effect, suggesting your bias has overpowered your reason) As for the highlighted bit, you will need quite a bit to convince any reasonable person that Amanda's bare footprints in her own home, if not made in the victim's blood, are in any way suspicious (assuming, which I do not, her prints were detected at all).

Hey Diocletus! Just think! She cleaned up all her fingerprints (except one - the slut) but was happily padding barefoot around the place in the victim's blood.

If that is the only citation you would need, that's like admitting you are a proud irrational individual. I don't think you even have that quote btw, and if you have it it would be surely stretched out of context, but that's not important. You decide a hypothetical (I would add: stretched) phrase from Stefanoni woul overpower any other evidence statement or finding. This is plain irrational. But if you are happy so...
 
So we should lean towards Pisa, academically speaking?

So, top 12 in the world?

In fairness, Italy does have one school in the top 100 (Pisa #63).

Pisa is ranked more highly than Sapienza? Who knew?

One presumes it's for its architectural and engineering merits, typified by its famous tower.
 
Pisa is ranked more highly than Sapienza? Who knew?

One presumes it's for its architectural and engineering merits, typified by its famous tower.

It's weird. I always thought that Bologna was good, but I might have been confused with lunchmeats.
 
If the Luminol prints were blood they would have tested positive with TMB and they would have all yielded DNA. The investigators went in looking for bloody footprints because they knew Amanda had stepped on the bloody bathmat and walked barefoot the morning after the murder. They weren't looking for clues to what happened during Meredith's murder. They were looking for evidence that they could spin into a guilty verdict.

Where are the photographs of non-footprint Luminol hits in that hall? We know they should be there because we know that there are blood tracts in that hall that do show up with Luminol. The one Luminol hit in the hall that did test positive with TMB and did yield a genetic profile was where one of the supposed footprints overlapped Rudy Guede's shoe print tracking Meredith's blood.

The results of this overlapping track proves that the TMB test does react positively when there is blood present and genetic profiles are recovered from dilute blood on those tiles, even where the blood tract was wiped up to leave no visible mark. This proves conclusively that the tracts in that hall where TMB was negative and no genetic profile was developed can not be claimed to be blood.

The prosecution is lying, Stefanoni is lying and especially Machiavelli is lying when they claim that these footprint shaped Luminol detected tracts in the hall were created with Meredith's blood.
 
It's weird. I always thought that Bologna was good, but I might have been confused with lunchmeats.

I was just in Bologna for the first time last month. Justly famous for its kitchen, as the Italians say, but second only to Naples as the ugliest famous city in Italy.
 
If that is the only citation you would need, that's like admitting you are a proud irrational individual. I don't think you even have that quote btw, and if you have it it would be surely stretched out of context, but that's not important. You decide a hypothetical (I would add: stretched) phrase from Stefanoni woul overpower any other evidence statement or finding. This is plain irrational. But if you are happy so...

Mach

Her testimony is the basis of your case on luminol. If citing her isn't enough then it's not me who is being irrational. I am not going to run around looking for the quote now. Can I take it you deny she said it alternatively that, if she did, it was in another context entirely? Can I also take it that if I (or anybody else) show you are wrong, that you will never raise the matter again? No. I thought not.

ETA I succumbed to temptation (although someone put this up the other day):

From here, this (at p.177):

JUDGE – ok! And here there is a degree of sensitivity?

ANSWER – It is very sensitive, now I do not know how to say it to him, however, in common practice …

JUDGE – There also cites false positives of the series …

ANSWER – Yes, in the sense that it does not distinguish whether it is human or animal blood, for example.

JUDGE: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?

ANSWER: Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.
 
Last edited:
a different knife

Is this the knife where they say Stefanoni's scratches/striations are visible? If so, they should read the Massei report from 2010, where Massei quotes Stefanoni that they were not visible in photos, and only under certain, restricted lighting conditions - which no one else could replicate.
No this was a knife that they claimed was from Sollecito's supposed collection, but was not.
 
What exactly your question is? Because, you see, I think the subjects you addressed in previous pages such a discussion about concepts like "inquisitorial" "adversarial" "civil law" etc., Italian constitutional wording etc. would be rather complex.

I will try to be more clear. I will repeat the first 2 or 3 paragraphs from my post and highlight the questions. Then I will restate the questions.

Hi Mach,

I don't believe you have fully explained the non-adversarial inquisitional foundations of the Italian judicial system. I agree you have pointed out the fast-track trial path (apparently based on clause [sentence number] 9 on Article 111) and that the prosecutors are in the judiciary, but the constitutional validity of the transport of "judicial facts" that have not been examined by defendants from one (fast-track) trial, where they were not represented, to their own adversarial trial, is not clear to me. Could you expound a bit on the constitutional logic involved in this transport?
And doesn't clause 5 entitle the defendants at their adversarial trial to receive the electronic data files, the best evidence of the results from the DNA profile tests, for their defense purposes?
I look forward to your response.

Questions restated:

1. What is the constitutional justification for including "judicial facts" or findings from a Fast-Track trial [Rudy Guede's trial] in an adversarial trial [of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito]? Knox and Sollecito had no representation at Guede's trial. (Use of such "judicial facts" or findings in an adversarial trial appear contrary to at least Clauses (sentences) 5, 7, and 8 of Article 111.)

2. What is the constitutional justification for not providing the Knox and Sollecito defense team the Electronic Data Files, which are the original record of the DNA testing and results, and which had been requested by the defense at the trial? (Failure to provide the defense with potentially exculpatory evidence in possession of the police/prosecution is an apparent contradiction of Clause (sentence) 5 of Article 111.)
 
Last edited:
Bumping this down for convenience:

For convenience, I have copied Article 111 below.

From the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf

{I have numbered and highlighted the sentences of Article 111 for ease of reading and reference.}

Art. 111

1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties
are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party
position.

3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be
promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges
that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a
defence.

5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have
cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to
summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the
prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of
the defence.

6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in
the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which
the court proceedings are conducted.

7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the
principle of adversary hearings.

8) The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.

9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not
occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or
owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit
conduct.

10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.
 
No. The sensitivity of TMB in practice is in the magnitude of 500 erythrocytes/microliter. Far more than a dozen cells. And it is indirect.
Sorry, you cannot get around the fact that TMB is far less sensitive than luminol and less specific, and reacts to same substances.
If there are common reactive substances in the environment those substances should be found in many other instances within the same context. For example if there is metal oxide /salts like rust solution you will not find it just in footprints. Which was not our case.
The specific instance of luminol footprints is not just about a substance btw, it is also their physical distribution (the dynamic that produced them) with their being isolated and not in a trail, their shape and size that makes them belong to two different individuals, one of them apparently a man compatible with Solkecito's foot; and above all, the fact that they were found in a context in which footprints with identical features that were proven to be in diluted blood were also found.
Yet, going back to the argument that was TMB, which is independent from those considerations, the statement that a negative TMB test would mean it is "more likely not blood" is a false statement. Such a statement would be backed only by the existence of a big number of common substances with the property of being reactive to luminol and not to TMB, at same and common concentration. Such substances do not exist.

Others, including Chris, have properly addressed the thrust of sensitivity. The important point point of my argument however is that a confirmatory test was never performed. Any source for forensics will state that a confirmatory test must be performed or it is not considered blood.

"Crime Scene Investigation: The Forensics Technician's Field Guide" by Tina You and P.J. Ortmeier states on page 193, "Luminol, Bluestar, and Flourescein are used for presumptive blood testing only. The tests are not confirmatory for blood. The chemicals can produce false positive reactions when places in contact with some other chemicals and certain organic (e.g., plant) materials."

With that in mind, you also need to address my point about the abundance of Umber in the Perugia area.
 
Anyway you are just running away from the topic.

Your argumentation on the matter of Luminol and TMB testing as it applies to the Meredith Kercher murder case is self-contradictory and idiotic. Full stop. In your goading of Professor Chris Halkides - a full Professor in the sciences with a PhD from a fine and competitive university better than anything Italy has to offer - you demonstrate the wisdom of the likes of Supercalifragilistic hewing to the prattle of Ergon over the experience and expertise of Dr. Peter Gill. You may fool yourself with such abject nonsense, but rest assured that no one capable of an inkling of ordered and rational thought is so fooled. You should seriously consider how insulting it is that you incessantly waste thoughtful people's time with the same warmed over shtick.

How's that for sticking to the topic?
 
I was just in Bologna for the first time last month. Justly famous for its kitchen, as the Italians say, but second only to Naples as the ugliest famous city in Italy.

I always thought Florence was over rated other than the famous domed cathedral which I admire more for it's engineering than it's beauty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom