Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Incidentally, do you know Prof Pascali is under trial for writing a fraudulet expert's report? Guess who was the expert who caught him.

I have no idea, who was it?

You seem obsessed with RFUs, as if they were an amount of substance. But RFU are relative units. My understanding is that you cannot infer a quantization from peaks measure in RFUs.

That's not what they're used for, it's a standard (internationally recognized) method to help determine whether a peak is an allele or stutter/other. Here's Stefanoni on the subject:

Stefanoni: “Yes, exactly, from the height which they shouldn’t be above according to the international standards that are actually reported in this work that the Professor was citing, which however are recommendations for correct interpretation, so they’re guidelines, for the height and the percentage that this hieght has with respect to the main peak, this height, this percentage should never be above fifteen percent because otherwise there’s a risk of mistakenly attributing a peak of this type to stutter“.

Bear in mind that Potenza and other defence experts were summoned to the bra clasp analisys and that was an incidente probatorio to which the defence didn't object.

WTF do you mean by incidente probatorio? I've been trying to figure that out for some time now, with limited success.

An Italian media that looked like the Polizia Scientifica.
Your fantasy doesn't know borders.

It looked like they just cribbed from a Polizia Scientifica press release, that's what I meant. I know they do that in Italy due to all the utter crap the (mainly) Squadra Mobile got disseminated through the media in the early days of the case.

This is La Nazione (the paper for which Mario Spezi also worked). It's in the Umbria pages.

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/05/21/509949-processo_meredith_risultati_della_nuova_perizia_entro_giugno.shtml

Here's what I get out of that from Google Translate. I'm assuming you mean the very bottom part which says:

Meanwhile in the House, this morning, experts have explained that you have obtained all the scientific data required.

The new deadline for the investigation was set by the court at the request of their experts who recently had requested an extension of 40 days to respond to the questions asked.

However, they highlighted the need to be able to see a record of the seizure of the knife and the statements in the first trial of the agents that followed the raid at Sollecito's house.

Documents that the Court has ordered that are now being provided to the experts.

In the courts of one of the experts stressed the "full cooperation" provided by forensic technicians who performed the investigation during the investigation.

Note the date of the article: May 22nd, 2011. That's about a month after their original ninety day commission was supposed to elapse. Getting all the data required (to determine Stefanoni's work is unreliable) is not the same thing as getting everything they requested which may well have landed Stefanoni in a prison cell instead of it just being considered unreliable. I wonder just who they meant by 'forensic technicians who performed the investigation' as that could very likely mean just the guys who took the samples and not Stefanoni who processed them. That also may have been a way for them to congratulate the ones who did cooperate (the forensic technicians) and by omission damn the ones who didn't: Stefanoni in the lab and the Squadra Mobile. At any rate you now know the date this quote was mined from and you can read Italian so when you get ahold of the transcript for that day could you please post the full context so we can find out exactly what is meant by that quote?

Another source:

http://www.leggo.it/index.php?p=articolo&id=122817

June 30 date of deposit REPORT DNA will be filed by June 30 next expertise relating to identified traces of DNA on the knife considered a weapon used to kill Meredith Kerch and on the bra clasp worn at the time of her murder. This was established this morning the Court of Assizes of Appeal in the trial of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. The new deadline is set by the court at the request of their experts who recently had requested an extension of 40 days to respond to the questions asked. Experts appeared this morning in the House, explaining that you have obtained all the scientific data required. However, they highlighted the need to be able to see a record of the seizure of the knife and the statements in the first trial of the agents that followed the raid at Sollecito's house. Documents that the Court has ordered that are now being provided to the experts. In the courts of one of the experts stressed the "full cooperation" provided by forensic technicians who performed the investigation during the investigation.

Yeah, that's what I meant: they're basically the exact same with a line or two switched around like the reporters cribbed it from the same source, quite possibly a Polizia Scientifica press release.

Because I don't have the transcript of May 20. 2011.

Well, you'll get it eventually, when you do keep this exchange in mind, I'm still interested in why those reports are not congruent with reality.

However Vecchiotti repeats that Stefanoni was "cooperative" even on July 30. (the very same cross questioning when she says she didn't found the negative controls in the e-mails).

No context for the quoting of "cooperative?" Why not? You have that transcript. What are the words around "cooperative?"

I correct myself (slightly) on this: indeed, as I said, C&V requested the 40 days delay because they wanted to have minutes from the Perugia Mobile Squad, not from Stefanoni. However, they hadn't asked to that date yet, they asked the judge an order to access them on that very same May 20. hearing.

Being as they hadn't received the bare necessities (from Stefanoni) as of late April when their 90 day commission expired, they needed an extension regardless of what the Squadra Mobile was up to.

But Vecchiotti actually does not say she requested them; actually she implicitly admits that she did not ask for negative controls. Not only that: on both the July 30. and on the on Sept. 5 court hearings, PM Comodi repeatedly states that there was no request of negative controls in the e-mail exchange between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni; she points out how Stefanoni attached those files that she had not already deposited with the court. The negative controls had been already deposited by Stefanoni on Oct. 4. 2008 (knife) and Oct. 8. 2008 (bra clasp).

As I recall they asked for 'everything necessary to evaluate the work done on the knife blade and the bra clasp' or words to that effect. Vecchiotti was astonished Stefanoni didn't include the negative controls. I'd have to review that transcript for the rest, I don't recall off the top of my head.

Oh well, if they say that they "should"...

Yes, they should.

On the contrary, we also have diametrically opposite comments, saying that the Polizia Scientifica offered a "complete cooperation" ("massima collaborazione") and saying that they obtained all data they requested. We also have Vecchiotti repeating this comment again saying "cooperative" about Stefanoni on July 30. 2011.

Quotes without context in defiance of the known facts of the raw data being requested and not being received. I'll go with the known facts and try to track down why the quotes are without context and inaccurate.

There is no complaint about missing data at all. Vecchiotti and Conti said they were satisfied with the data and didn't want more from the Polizia Scientifica, on May 20. 2011.

They also found Stefanoni's work to be unreliable, it could very be they saw enough to realize they didn't need any more data to make that conclusion, in fact they released a report over a hundred pages detailing why her work was suspect without it. They weren't commissioned to put her in a prison cell which is what the edfs would likely do were they ever revealed....

Well I know fairly well what Stefanoni explained, because she talked about raw data at lenght in court; she opened it and showed a data file, explaining how it works, graphs frames etc.

But the fact is that I am just not interested in "how valuable it is to evaluating forensic DNA work"; I am interested in that the defence did obtain what they requested, they made their strategic choices, the trial took shape through years under due procedure; the purpose of this trial is not to evaluate forensic DNA work. It was only at a certain point that the defence thought they need a change of strategy line, they should try to focus on the DNA discourse and attempt to create a kind "narrative" in a way to put in discussion the DNA findings, to "evaluate forensic work" how you put it, they decided to take this dangerous road only when they realized they were cornered within the court proceedings.


But not all games remain open. Previous choices are part of the defence historical record as well. At a certain point, the trial is not supposed to steer to follow the tracks of focusing on "evaluating forensic DNA work", just because it is in the defence's interest to put the forensic under trial instead of themselves. The trial has already taken a shape and another focus, another interest. The defence attorneys were never so keeen to request raw data, only one lawyer made one confuse request two years later, then they didn't request them in further hearings or at the appeal; and this is noted. And at that point it would make anyway no difference.

Nothing you wrote above matters, even it it is accurate. The trial will never be fair without the release of those files, seven DNA experts wrote a letter to the court dubious about that DNA work, the DNA work was determined to be 'unreliable' by the Italian court appointed experts and as of late Dr. Peter Gill, one of the fathers of DNA forensics dedicated a chapter in his book about misleading DNA work and its effect on miscarriages of justice to Raffaele and Amanda's trial.

In fact it probably won't be too long before the law catches up with the technology and the release of those files will be required by all those who answer to the ECHR.

 

[Kaosium]

But actually Vecchiotti and COnti did not talk directly neither with the Squadra Mobile neither with Stefanoni. They only talked with Hellmann. And it was the court's office who contacted Stefanoni and the Squadra Mobile.

The request for raw data sent to Stefanoni's lab is of Apr. 14. 2011. Stefanoni's response was Apr. 20. And it was still to Hellmann.
Hellmann apparently got lost, didn't know what they were talking about, gives a confuse and rather vague polite answer in copies to all. Stefanoni in her letter asked Vecchiotti to indicate files specifications; Hellmann possibly had no clue.

I've wondered what Stefanoni meant there, the loss of nuance inherent to some translations may be working against me. My current theory is that Stefanoni was saying she couldn't (or didn't know how to) copy just the edfs for the bra clasp and knife, she would have had to send the entire file for all the DNA work on the case and that was...unpalatable...for her and she figured she could fight it as C&V's commission was just for the bra clasp and knife.

This is Apr. 20, and on May. 20 Vecchiotti and Conti are there to request a further 40 days because they want a judge order to turn them the minutes from the Squadra Mobile. And they say they are satisfied with the data they obtained; they say they don't want other files.
They are, obviously, not interested. Thus, apparently contadicting all statements from experts about how important and necessary those data are.

Vechiotti and Conti are not interested in the data: what other example do you need before concluding that maybe they are not always so interesting.
If they are not interesting for C&V, why should they be necesarily interesting for a judge like Nencini, or for Bongiorno?

If I'm right about what that conflict was about, then with C&V just being hired to evaluate the bra clasp and the knife blade they wouldn't be as much interested in the entirety of the edfs as that would be a lot of work they weren't being paid to do and there's enough about what Stefanoni provided to determine the bra clasp and knife blade were garbage 'evidence'.

The fact is that it is no true that documents full of information are so interesting in a trial. They may be interesting or not, depending if you think they are useful, if you have a strategy to use them, if they have a purpose. It is not a scientific discussion it's a trial. Things have pragmatic use. The purpose determines the importance of things in the end.

These are critical to evaluating DNA work. It's the data that generates the graphs that Stefanoni produced and they can be manipulated to show just about whatever she wants them to, in one way or another.

 

[Numbers]

As a relief to the repetitions that DNA profile raw data (EDFs) was just not begged for enough and isn't important anyway and that a trial is not a scientific argument, and so on, by our guilter friend, I propose here to present some excerpts copied from:

The ECHR in 50 Questions
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

Only a few of what may be the most relevant FAQs from the first 30 are copied here; I may do another post copying those IMO most relevant in 31 to 50. Note that certain FAQs, such as #29, in this post directly contradict the statements of our guilter friend; I have emphasized such FAQs by highlighting.

5. Are domestic courts obliged to apply the Convention?
The Convention is applicable at national level. It has been incorporated into the
legislation of the States Parties, which have undertaken to protect the rights defined in
the Convention. Domestic courts therefore have to apply the Convention. Otherwise, the European Court of Human Rights would find against the State in the event of complaints by individuals about failure to protect their rights.

19. Who can bring a case to the Court?

The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO having a complaint about a violation of their rights, and inter-State applications brought by one State against another.
Since the Court was established, almost all applications have been lodged by individuals
who have brought their cases directly to the Court alleging one or more violations of the
Convention.

20. Who are cases brought against?

Cases can only be brought against one or more States that have ratified the Convention. Any applications against third States or individuals, for example, will be declared inadmissible.

25. What are the different stages of the proceedings before the Court?

There are two main stages in the consideration of cases brought before the Court: the admissibility stage and the merits stage (i.e. the examination of the complaints). The processing of an application also goes through different phases.

A single-judge formation will declare an application inadmissible where inadmissibility
is clear from the outset; its decisions cannot be appealed against.

A Committee will give a final decision or judgment in a case which is covered by well-
established case-law of the Court.

A Chamber will give notice of the case to the respondent Government for their observations. Written observations are submitted by both parties. The Court then decides if it is appropriate to hold a public hearing in the case, but this remains exceptional in relation to the number of applications examined. Ultimately, the Chamber delivers a judgment that will become final only after the expiry of a three-month period during which the applicant or Government may request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber for fresh consideration.

If the request for referral is accepted by the panel of the Grand Chamber, the case will
be reconsidered and a public hearing will be held if necessary. The Grand Chamber judgment will be final.

26. What are the conditions of admissibility?

Applications must meet certain requirements if they are to be declared admissible by the
Court; otherwise the complaints will not even be examined.

Cases can only be brought to the Court after domestic remedies have been exhausted;
in other words, individuals complaining of violations of their rights must first have
taken their case through the courts of the country concerned, up to the highest
possible level of jurisdiction. In this way the State itself is first given an opportunity to
provide redress for the alleged violation at national level.

An applicant’s allegations must concern one or more of the rights defined in the Convention. The Court cannot examine complaints concerning violations of any other rights.

Applications must also be lodged with the Court within six months following the last judicial decision in the case, which will usually be a judgment by the highest court in the country concerned.

The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.

It should not be forgotten, of course, that applications can only be lodged against one or more of the States Parties to the Convention, and not against any other State or against an individual.

28. What is a third-party intervener?

The President of the Court may authorise any person other than the applicant, or another State Party to the Convention other than that against which the application has been lodged, to intervene in the proceedings. This is called third-party intervention. The person or State in question is entitled to file pleadings and take part in public hearings.
29. Can the Court appoint experts or take evidence from witnesses?

Yes. Exceptionally, the Court may decide to take investigative measures and to travel to certain countries in order to clarify the facts of a given case. The delegation from the Court may then take evidence from witnesses and carry out an on-site investigation. The Court occasionally appoints experts, for example when it requests expert doctors to examine applicants in prison.

 

[Numbers]

Here are a few more excerpts from The ECHR in 50 Questions.

31. What are preliminary objections?

Preliminary objections are arguments submitted by the respondent Government in support of their claim that the case should not be examined on the merits.

32. What is a friendly settlement?

A friendly settlement is an agreement between the parties to put an end to proceedings initiated by an application. When the parties concerned agree to settle their dispute in this way, the outcome is usually that the State pays the applicant a sum of money. After examining the terms of the friendly settlement, and unless it considers that respect for human rights requires continuation, the Court will strike out the application.

The Court always encourages parties to negotiate a friendly settlement. If no agreement is reached the Court will proceed to examine the merits of the application.

34. Are deliberations open to the public?

No, the Court’s deliberations are always secret.

35. Have States ever refused to cooperate with the Court?

There have been cases where States have omitted or even refused to provide the Court with the information and documents required for its examination of an application.

In such cases the Court may find against the State under Article 38 of the Convention (obliging States to furnish all the necessary facilities to the Court).

36. How long do proceedings before the Court usually last?

It is impossible to indicate the length of proceedings before the Court.

The Court endeavours to deal with cases within three years after they are brought, but the examination of some cases can take longer and some can be processed more rapidly.

The length of the proceedings before the Court obviously varies depending on the case, the formation to which it is assigned, the diligence of the parties in providing the Court with information and many other factors, such as the holding of a hearing or referral to the Grand Chamber.

Some applications may be classified as urgent and handled on a priority basis, especially in cases where the applicant is alleged to be facing an imminent threat of physical harm.

37. What is the difference between a decision and a judgment?

A decision is usually given by a single judge, a Committee or a Chamber of the Court.
It concerns only admissibility and not the merits of the case. Normally, a Chamber examines the admissibility and merits of an application at the same time; it will then deliver a judgment.

38. Are States bound by judgments against them?

Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation or the damage they have sustained.

39. Can judgments be appealed against?

Inadmissibility decisions, and also judgments delivered by Committees or the Grand Chamber, are final and cannot be appealed against. However, the parties have three months following the delivery of a Chamber judgment to request referral of the case to the Grand Chamber for fresh consideration. Requests for referral to the Grand Chamber are examined by a panel of judges which decides whether or not referral is appropriate.

40. How are the Court’s judgments enforced?

When the Court delivers a judgment finding a violation, the Court transmits the file to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which confers with the country concerned and the department responsible for the execution of judgments to decide how the judgment should be executed and how to prevent similar violations of the Convention in the future. This will result in general measures, especially amendments to legislation, and individual measures where necessary.

41. What are the consequences of a judgment finding a violation?

In the event of a violation being found, the State concerned must be careful to ensure that no such violations occur again in the future, otherwise the Court may deliver new judgments against them. In some cases the State will have to amend its legislation to bring it into line with the Convention.
46. What rights do most cases concern?

In about one half of the judgments finding a violation since its establishment, the Court has found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, concerning both the fairness and the length of proceedings. In fact, 55% of the violations found by the Court concern either Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Then in about 13% of cases, the Court has found a serious violation of the Convention under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (right to life and prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).

 

[MichaelB]

September 5 and 6, 2011, were not good days for Patrizia Stefanoni in the Hellman court.

This is from: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

September 5, 2011

Stefanoni produces electropherograms belonging to another court case and tries to pass them off as belonging to this case.
Raffaele Sollecito 2014 Appeal Document page 257

Relativamente ai pochi documenti inerenti i controlli positivi e negativi depositati durante l’udienza del 5 settembre 2011 (controllo neg.doc, controllo pos.doc, I Sample Info REP.36-B.doc, II prova 36-B.doc, II Sample Info REP. 36-B.doc, Rep.165-B.doc), si segnala che:
1) dal file I Sample InfoREP.36-B.doc può essere dedotto che il controllo negativo (ID778) e il controllo positivo (ID777) siano controlli di qualità relativi alla sessione di analisi del reperto ID771 (traccia B del reperto 36, coltello);
2) gli elettroferogrammi di questi controlli non sono stati forniti e quindi non è possibile valutarli;
3) vengono forniti invece gli elettroferogrammi di un controllo negativo (ID732) ed uno positivo (ID731) di cui tuttavia non è possibile risalire a quale sessione di lavoro si riferiscano né a quale procedimento (potrebbero in realtà essere controlli di un altro caso giudiziario);
4) del reperto 165B-gancetto non viene fornito alcun controllo né positivo né negativo: a tutt’oggi non esiste ancora alcuna evidenza che esistano controlli di qualità di PCR relativamente a questo reperto;
5) è pur tuttavia improbabile che i controlli 731 e 732 siano riferiti al gancetto, dal momento che, se come si auspica la numerazione dei campioni è progressiva, devono essere precedenti al reperto 36-B (771), quindi precedenti al 13 novembre 2007; il gancetto è stato invece analizzato dal 29 dicembre 2007 in avanti.

In conclusione, può affermarsi che la sentenza impugnata sia caduta in un gravissimo travisamento di una prova decisiva, che, ove correttamente valutata, avrebbe permesso di accertare l’avvenuta contaminazione da laboratorio.

September 6, 2011

Stefanoni admits she didn’t provide the raw data to the independent experts. p253
Dalla Vedova: The raw data, several times our consultant asked us to request for them to be submitted and we did so, can you tell us in a few words what this raw data is and if this data is available today in the case files?
Stefanoni: So, the raw data is not available in the case files, because they were never, let’s say, handed over. I can explain what they are…

Thanks Bill. I notice Machiavelli completely ignored it which was to be expected.

Here's an English translation from the Sollecito appeal document:

With regards to the few documents related to positive and negative controls submitted during the hearing of 5th September 2011 (controllo neg.doc, controllo pos.doc, I Sample Info REP.36-B.doc, II prova 36-B.doc, II Sample Info REP. 36-B.doc, Rep.165-B.doc), we note that:

1) from the file “I Sample InfoREP.36-B.doc” it can be deducted that the negative control (ID778) and the positive control (ID777) are quality controls relating to the analysis session of exhibit ID771 (trace B of exhibit 36, knife);
2) the electropherograms of these controls were not provided and so it is not possible to evaluate them;
3) Instead the electropherograms of a negative control (ID732) were provided and one positive [control] (ID731) for which, however, it is not possible to determine which session of work it refers, nor which proceedings (they could in reality be controls from another court case);
4) for exhibit 165B-clasp no controls are provided, neither positive nor negative: to date there is still no evidence that PCR quality controls exist relating to this exhibit;
5) however it is improbable that the controls 731 and 732 refer to the clasp, considering that, if the number of the exhibits is progressive as one would expect, they should be preceding the exhibit 36-B (771), and so before the 13th November 2007; the clasp was instead analyzed from 29th December 2007 onwards.

In conclusion, it can be established that the appealed sentence fell into a serious misrepresentation of a decisive piece of evidence, that, if properly evaluated, would have permitted to ascertain the occurrence of laboratory contamination..

 

[RWVBWL]

A Lefty, or The case of the zig-zagging Cat?

Here's an earlier post of mine. Frank Sfarzo reports that Bongiorno confirms human blood found in the downstairs apartment.......

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9759065&postcount=2254

Thanks for the info Magister.

Greetings everyone,
Here's some info about the blood drops on the stairs heading down to/heading up from to the boyz flat,
feel free to correct me or add to the info I wrote, ok?

There was only 1 blood drop found on any step,
and all are seemingly water diluted as Diocletus pointed out,

The blood drops do not look like the closely splatterered, much deeper red blood drops found in the little bathroom downstairs.

The cat or someone also seems to have left some blood on a paper towel/napkin or 2 that were found near the bottom of the downstairs stairway. Kinda odd I thought.

Most blood drops are found near the middle of the width of any step.
There are no blood drops on the edges of any of the steps.


Blood drop #1 is found on the top step, in the middle of it. The hand rail is on the left. I can see a person holding something in their right hand, grabbing the rail, and a drop of blood fell here as the person put his weight down.

Blood drop #2 skips a step, it is on the 3rd step, in the same general location as #1.

Blood drop #3 is on the next step down. The drop is close to the cement wall of the hand rail.

Blood drop #4 is on the step below #3, closer to the cement wall again.

Blood drop #5 is 6 steps downward, closer to the wall again.

Blood drop #6 is on the far right side of the step as the path turns leftward as you head downward.

Blood drop #7 is on cement wall of hand rail. Near the open small bathroom window.

Blood drop #8 is also on cement wall of hand rail. On the very edge, strange place for cats blood.
It too was found near the small bathroom open window.

Blood drop #9 is on the bottom step.

There are 2 doorway entrances near #9, 1 is leading to the kitchen, with a sheet, or a window curtain and hanging rod or shower curtain and hanging rod seen on the floor near the kitchen table. I do not know where the other doorway, seen to the left of this door + to the right of the open, small bathroom window, leads to.

Blood drop #10 is to the right of the metal doorway security gate of the kitchen door.
This was apparently the door that Officer Zugarini broke into.

This drop perplexes me.
What was the cat doing, waiting for the gate to be unlocked, so it could enter?
Odd not to see any blood drops on the other side of the door,
near the white bowl of what is it, milk placed outside?

Blood drop #11 is on 2 napkins or paper towels found on the sparse grass, seen along the stairs.
These 2 napkins are near Blood drop #9.


It's interesting to see where the blood drops are in comparison to the investigators covered shoes.

I'm right handed.
I generally will carry a small plastic bag of groceries in my left hand,
my keys are in the right hand or my hand is free to get them out.

When you watch the video over and over,
it looks, to me at least, that someone who was left handed went down the stairs, holding the rail in his left hand, because it was proably very dark that night, and he was carrying something that dripped diluted blood when his body weight landed on a step. Blood drops #1,#2,#6 seem to suggest this.

As does blood drop #10, seen to the right of the door.
The person was carrying something in his right hand that dripped another drop of diluted blood onto the floor as he waited to open or for someone else to unlock and open the security gate.

Coming back up the steps,
when I look at the blood drops, I can see a guy not holding the hand railing, the bag is in his right hand still, his left hand, his main arm, was free to confront any problems. The blood drops fell closer to the edge of the cement wall, or on the edge of it as he headed back up the stairs.

Blood drop #9, on the bottom 1st step heading up, #8 a few steps up from that, on the edge of the wall, #7 a few more steps up, #5, #4, #3 all close to the cement wall as a person went up the steps, and they are about the same distance from the wall.

Interesting to watch the video again and again.
It kinda makes me wonder: Was someone carrying wet bloody clothing as Diocletus suggested, probably in a single use plastic bag? Like the plastic bags seen on the kitchen stove? Or seen found behind Giacomo's locked bedroom door, on his bed, which had clothing laid out nearby? Or seen in the small bathroom sink, the bathroom with the deep red blood drops in it?

Is this why the cops went thru all the single use plastic bags found at Raffaele Sollecito's flat, looking for evidence that Raff and Amanda brought back and kept a blooded bag, like they think that they did so with the knife? It was pretty odd to see them examine those single use plastic bags in detail, even unfolding bags that had been neatly found neatly squared up. What were they looking for?

Watch the Crime Scene video from Raff's flat if you do not know what I'm speakin' about.

Here is Methos post that has all the Crime Scene downloads
for anyone that does not have them saved or bookmarked already:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10276559&postcount=4068

See ya, RW

 

[Samson]

It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?

It would make no sense to stage a break in by throwing a rock from the car park with a dead girl inside. The rock was thrown from the car park, because there is no possible way for any residual evidence to be explained by an action from within Filomena's room. Therefore the break in was not staged. Therefore Mignini concedes they are uninvolved, evidence from interviews.

 

[RWVBWL]

Couple of questions for anyone:
Were the keys that Giacomo gave Meredith ever dusted for fingerprints?
If so, what were the results?

Who left the bloody finger marks on the wall above Miss Kercher's bed?
They were never ID'd, right? Come on ILE, get with it!
Did a guy or a gal leave them?
What color of race was this person?
Could this person have even been wearing gloves, might that explain why they were never ID'd?

Lastly,
I'm still watching some of The Dexter Series,
a Crime Scene Blood Splatter analyst serial killer storyline.
Dexter did a swab of a gals mouth for DNA analysis..

Was a DNA swab ever taken from Miss Kercher,
and if so, what were the results?

Thanks, RW


By the way, for any Dexter fans,
Sims, 1 of the detectives in the 7th season,
surfs out at Santa Monica Beach sometimes. He's in my photo gallery, as seen here:
http://www.lasurfpix.exposuremanager.com/g/franksanta_monica

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Don't worry. We've got some guys on Strasbourg who are going to tell you how to fix everything. In ten years you'll be able to thank Amanda Knox for what she has done for Italy.

Ha ha. No one can refuse your fundamental right to daydream I suppose. Psychologically it seems to fulfil for you the same comforting function as whistling in the dark.

 

[Samson]

Ha ha. No one can refuse your fundamental right to daydream I suppose. Psychologically it seems to fulfil for you the same comforting function as whistling in the dark.

Senator Cantwell will deconstruct your posts while assessing the advisability of conspiring to disappear an inconvenient constituent.

 

[js202]

Senator Cantwell will deconstruct your posts while assessing the advisability of conspiring to disappear an inconvenient constituent.

Alas, she will not. She has considerably more important things to do with her time than minutely assessing juvenile tripe the likes of that.

Fascinating how certain parties, blinkered by anti-Americanism and confirmation bias, can watch - or ignore, as the case may be - Kaosium, Chris_Halkides and others, systematically expose Machiavelli's lies and obfuscation and have that register nil on the scale of their false beliefs. Human beings are strange.

 

[Samson]

Alas, she will not. She has considerably more important things to do with her time than minutely assessing juvenile tripe the likes of that.

Fascinating how certain parties, blinkered by anti-Americanism and confirmation bias, can watch - or ignore, as the case may be - Kaosium, Chris_Halkides and others, systematically expose Machiavelli's lies and obfuscation and have that register nil on the scale of their false beliefs. Human beings are strange.

Supercalifragilistic's posts are everymans' posts, so of course I know that, but of all the causes that may confront her in her life as a senator, pray name a bigger one.

 

[Diocletus]

Ha ha. No one can refuse your fundamental right to daydream I suppose. Psychologically it seems to fulfil for you the same comforting function as whistling in the dark.

I just can't figure out why, if it's so obviously defective and meritless, Amanda Knox's application to the ecthr to hold Italy in violation of its obligations under the echr, hasn't been dismissed already. Why?

 

[Samson]

I just can't figure out why, if it's so obviously defective and meritless, Amanda Knox's application to the ecthr to hold Italy in violation of its obligations under the echr, hasn't been dismissed already. Why?

If it is dismissed, I will become an unashamed Americanophile as opposed to a conditionally unashamed Americanophile.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks Bill. I notice Machiavelli completely ignored it which was to be expected.

Here's an English translation from the Sollecito appeal document:

With regards to the few documents related to positive and negative controls submitted during the hearing of 5th September 2011 (controllo neg.doc, controllo pos.doc, I Sample Info REP.36-B.doc, II prova 36-B.doc, II Sample Info REP. 36-B.doc, Rep.165-B.doc), we note that:

1) from the file “I Sample InfoREP.36-B.doc” it can be deducted that the negative control (ID778) and the positive control (ID777) are quality controls relating to the analysis session of exhibit ID771 (trace B of exhibit 36, knife);
2) the electropherograms of these controls were not provided and so it is not possible to evaluate them;
3) Instead the electropherograms of a negative control (ID732) were provided and one positive [control] (ID731) for which, however, it is not possible to determine which session of work it refers, nor which proceedings (they could in reality be controls from another court case);
4) for exhibit 165B-clasp no controls are provided, neither positive nor negative: to date there is still no evidence that PCR quality controls exist relating to this exhibit;
5) however it is improbable that the controls 731 and 732 refer to the clasp, considering that, if the number of the exhibits is progressive as one would expect, they should be preceding the exhibit 36-B (771), and so before the 13th November 2007; the clasp was instead analyzed from 29th December 2007 onwards.

In conclusion, it can be established that the appealed sentence fell into a serious misrepresentation of a decisive piece of evidence, that, if properly evaluated, would have permitted to ascertain the occurrence of laboratory contamination..

The egrams for the controls weren't produced? What kind of crap is this? And what did she produce--a note saying "I promise the controls are totally negative"?

 

[anglolawyer]

The egrams for the controls weren't produced? What kind of crap is this? And what did she produce--a note saying "I promise the controls are totally negative"?

She filed the negative controls on 8th October 2008 with Micheli. So he has them. As they blew the budget on the cartoon and 30,000 wiretaps there wasn't enough to make copies for everybody.

 

[Diocletus]

She filed the negative controls on 8th October 2008 with Micheli. So he has them. As they blew the budget on the cartoon and 30,000 wiretaps there wasn't enough to make copies for everybody.

And the egram printer was out of ink.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Bongiorno asked and Nencini refused

In continuation thread 6 Machiavelli wrote, "For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Bongiorno's asking for the raw data in 2013 means it was not released before then. This refusal to release key data indicates that discovery did not happen as it should, whether Biogiorno used the word "discovery" or not when she addressed the court. All of Nencini's comments on DNA should be seen through the lens that he doesn't know why raw data are important.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the info Magister.

Greetings everyone,
Here's some info about the blood drops on the stairs heading down to/heading up from to the boyz flat,
feel free to correct me or add to the info I wrote, ok?

There was only 1 blood drop found on any step,
and all are seemingly water diluted as Diocletus pointed out,

The blood drops do not look like the closely splatterered, much deeper red blood drops found in the little bathroom downstairs.

The cat or someone also seems to have left some blood on a paper towel/napkin or 2 that were found near the bottom of the downstairs stairway. Kinda odd I thought.

Most blood drops are found near the middle of the width of any step.
There are no blood drops on the edges of any of the steps.


Blood drop #1 is found on the top step, in the middle of it. The hand rail is on the left. I can see a person holding something in their right hand, grabbing the rail, and a drop of blood fell here as the person put his weight down.

Blood drop #2 skips a step, it is on the 3rd step, in the same general location as #1.

Blood drop #3 is on the next step down. The drop is close to the cement wall of the hand rail.

Blood drop #4 is on the step below #3, closer to the cement wall again.

Blood drop #5 is 6 steps downward, closer to the wall again.

Blood drop #6 is on the far right side of the step as the path turns leftward as you head downward.

Blood drop #7 is on cement wall of hand rail. Near the open small bathroom window.

Blood drop #8 is also on cement wall of hand rail. On the very edge, strange place for cats blood.
It too was found near the small bathroom open window.

Blood drop #9 is on the bottom step.

There are 2 doorway entrances near #9, 1 is leading to the kitchen, with a sheet, or a window curtain and hanging rod or shower curtain and hanging rod seen on the floor near the kitchen table. I do not know where the other doorway, seen to the left of this door + to the right of the open, small bathroom window, leads to.

Blood drop #10 is to the right of the metal doorway security gate of the kitchen door.
This was apparently the door that Officer Zugarini broke into.

This drop perplexes me.
What was the cat doing, waiting for the gate to be unlocked, so it could enter?
Odd not to see any blood drops on the other side of the door,
near the white bowl of what is it, milk placed outside?

Blood drop #11 is on 2 napkins or paper towels found on the sparse grass, seen along the stairs. These 2 napkins are near Blood drop #9.

It's interesting to see where the blood drops are in comparison to the investigators covered shoes.

I'm right handed.
I generally will carry a small plastic bag of groceries in my left hand,
my keys are in the right hand or my hand is free to get them out.

When you watch the video over and over,
it looks, to me at least, that someone who was left handed went down the stairs, holding the rail in his left hand, because it was proably very dark that night, and he was carrying something that dripped diluted blood when his body weight landed on a step. Blood drops #1,#2,#6 seem to suggest this.

As does blood drop #10, seen to the right of the door.
The person was carrying something in his right hand that dripped another drop of diluted blood onto the floor as he waited to open or for someone else to unlock and open the security gate.

Coming back up the steps,
when I look at the blood drops, I can see a guy not holding the hand railing, the bag is in his right hand still, his left hand, his main arm, was free to confront any problems. The blood drops fell closer to the edge of the cement wall, or on the edge of it as he headed back up the stairs.

Blood drop #9, on the bottom 1st step heading up, #8 a few steps up from that, on the edge of the wall, #7 a few more steps up, #5, #4, #3 all close to the cement wall as a person went up the steps, and they are about the same distance from the wall.

Interesting to watch the video again and again.
It kinda makes me wonder: Was someone carrying wet bloody clothing as Diocletus suggested, probably in a single use plastic bag? Like the plastic bags seen on the kitchen stove? Or seen found behind Giacomo's locked bedroom door, on his bed, which had clothing laid out nearby? Or seen in the small bathroom sink, the bathroom with the deep red blood drops in it?

Is this why the cops went thru all the single use plastic bags found at Raffaele Sollecito's flat, looking for evidence that Raff and Amanda brought back and kept a blooded bag, like they think that they did so with the knife? It was pretty odd to see them examine those single use plastic bags in detail, even unfolding bags that had been neatly found neatly squared up. What were they looking for?

Watch the Crime Scene video from Raff's flat if you do not know what I'm speakin' about.

Here is Methos post that has all the Crime Scene downloads
for anyone that does not have them saved or bookmarked already:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10276559&postcount=4068

See ya, RW

There are 4 Rep sample numbers, 17, 18, 19, 20, labeled "outside tissue" that were DNA analyzed in Batch 1 (profiled 5 Nov; quantified Run 543) and attributed to "lady #1", "man #3", "lady #2", and "lady #2", respectively. These tissues (paper towels?) had considerable DNA detected (range 44 to 930 pg/uL) compared to many of the other samples, and the tests were conducted with the EZ1 blood card.

Who were these unknown bleeding(?) ladies and gent? Were profiles supplied to the defense? Could they perhaps be MK and Guede, but somehow the attribution was not correct?

 

[js202]

Supercalifragilistic's posts are everymans' posts, so of course I know that, but of all the causes that may confront her in her life as a senator, pray name a bigger one.

You're right, of course. His posting is representative of a generic, anonymous type. I think Charlie Wilkes summed it up aptly in post #8.