Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

But I'm troubled by the 'whore' angle slurs that have come up.

You are right. The honest professionals don't deserve the denigration of having Stefanoni compared to them.

 

[MDDVS]

You are right. The honest professionals don't deserve the denigration of having Stefanoni compared to them.

If nothing else, most of them respect the relevant "protocols" as to avoid "contamination". I know I would avoid the ones who don't.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would have to accept this except it doesn't explain the remark about the bad relationship with the father. That statement can only be an attempt to make the abuse of office appear to be for a good reason, thereby excusing the breaking of the law.

But this is wrong. There is a logical error in this deduction; it's an unjustified heap. So zi repeat it, though you seem you are having a defensive mechanism by which you refuse to believe me: the reason why I note the person's age and his bad relationship with the father, is because - ad I point out again, this should be obvious - there were some actions in this story (like vandalizing the father's car or writing on his house door) there looked as committed by a teenagers gang. Clearly the illicit database access by Napoleoni and/or Zugarini are not an acceptable investigation activity or response, and they have a personal nature.

]cannot be so, on many points. If you saw it as comparable with both guilt and innocence, it would then be of no importance whatsoever, yet it is continuously mentioned. It is never brought up by the pro-innocence people, only by the pro-guilt people as a character flaw of some sort. Just like you state a manipulative personality can be present in both innocent and guilty people, then it cannot be solely indicative of guilt. It must be a non-issue and people must stop attempting to use it as an element of guilt because it is not (and I am not agreeing with Knox having a manipulative personality).

There is another logical error in this. If something is comparable with innocence but also with guilt, it is worth point it out if the advocates attempt to build arguments that tend to deny the compatibility with guilt.

It is important to point out that it is false that Knox and Guede were virtual strangers; it is false that they had no relation to each other whatsoever; it is false that the drug dealers environment of Perugia and the Piazza Grimana folks, and Amanda Knox, belonged to different companies; it is false that Knox had no relations with strange parties that went out of controls or with harassing behaviors against flatmates.
It is also obvious that she was manipulative, if you just read the incipit and para-textual info in his mail to her friends for example or her account about how she manipulated her uncle's feelings; or even if you read her book or if you read her testimonies (how quick she is accusing Filomena of buying drugs, how she downplays some details and is vague on others, etc.).
The argumentation in a courtroom simply works like that. It is not true that I am biased or twisting information.

]None of it has any bearing on whether or not she met Rudy once or six times.

What I am saying is you --you Machiavelli -- view every minute detail of Knox and Sollecito through guilt-colored glasses and everything everyone else does through virtuous glasses, the exact same thing innocenters are accused of doing in reverse.

Indeed the information about Knox's personality and frequentations has a bearing if you want to make an argument that she and Guede were virtual strangers: they had been knowing each other for much longer than she knew Sollecito, it was known that Guede was attracted by Knox, whereas Knox wrote she was attracted by a "black young man" she had met for the first time in September in a bar in via Garibaldi, a man of whom she did not reveal the name; it is a fact that she was talking "very naturally" with Guede on nights where they were guests at the downstairs apartment, and it is a fact that Knox had picked up guests from the downstairs apartment and brought them up to her home; it is a fact that she had contacts with drug dealers from the same environment. And finally, I don't even disregard Kokomani's testimony, despite it is obvious that he was lying in order to cover up his drug dealing activity.

 

[Vibio]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

 

[anglolawyer]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

If you read Follain's account (not exactly a pro-Knox source) you will find there was a lot more to it than that. She was kept waiting for hours and over the course of those hours she went through many moods, including anger, sympathy (towards Sophie for example) stress, shock and sheer boredom.

 

[sept79]

Two significant points seem to be evolving the last few days which may revolutionize how justice will be administered in the future:

--Junk science is not actually junk science when DNA testing and crime scene investigation is performed by the sheer brilliance of one Patricia Stefanoni who is redefining protocol of DNA testing and luminol/TMB/confirmative blood testing.

--However, the previous point is of little significance when the absence of evidence of presence means nothing--"The idea that you need to find DNA or fingerprints of a suspect in a bloody room where a crime occurred . . . is a kind of assumption that . . . is too irrational to discuss". Will this evolving Italian philosophy lead to the dissolution of CSI units since evidence at the scene of the crime is now considered to be inconsequential?

 

[Kauffer]

Tittle tattle

There is another logical error in this. If something is comparable with innocence but also with guilt, it is worth point it out if the advocates attempt to build arguments that tend to deny the compatibility with guilt.

It is important to point out that it is false that Knox and Guede were virtual strangers; it is false that they had no relation to each other whatsoever; it is false that the drug dealers environment of Perugia and the Piazza Grimana folks, and Amanda Knox, belonged to different companies; it is false that Knox had no relations with strange parties that went out of controls or with harassing behaviors against flatmates.
It is also obvious that she was manipulative, if you just read the incipit and para-textual info in his mail to her friends for example or her account about how she manipulated her uncle's feelings; or even if you read her book or if you read her testimonies (how quick she is accusing Filomena of buying drugs, how she downplays some details and is vague on others, etc.).
The argumentation in a courtroom simply works like that. It is not true that I am biased or twisting information.



Indeed the information about Knox's personality and frequentations has a bearing if you want to make an argument that she and Guede were virtual strangers: they had been knowing each other for much longer than she knew Sollecito, it was known that Guede was attracted by Knox, whereas Knox wrote she was attracted by a "black young man" she had met for the first time in September in a bar in via Garibaldi, a man of whom she did not reveal the name; it is a fact that she was talking "very naturally" with Guede on nights where they were guests at the downstairs apartment, and it is a fact that Knox had picked up guests from the downstairs apartment and brought them up to her home; it is a fact that she had contacts with drug dealers from the same environment. And finally, I don't even disregard Kokomani's testimony, despite it is obvious that he was lying in order to cover up his drug dealing activity.

What are the fact?? Where are the facts?? Not what you infer obliquely from some other information. Please list in simple point form the objective factual evidence for:

1) the specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had contact by phone or otherwise with drug dealers.
2) the specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had any contact with Rudy Guede.
3) "harassing behaviours" of Ms Knox
4) Ms Knox talking "very naturally" with Guede on "nights" - (plural) - at the downstairs apartment
5) Ms Knox's involvement with "strange parties" - (plural) - "that went out of controls"

Separately, why is it of any concern to you whatsoever that Ms Knox had any kind of a relationship with any guest of the residents of the downstairs apartment (other than Guede). What possible connection does this have to the murder of Ms Kercher?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is another logical error in this. If something is comparable with innocence but also with guilt, it is worth point it out if the advocates attempt to build arguments that tend to deny the compatibility with guilt.
It is important to point out that it is false that Knox and Guede were virtual strangers; it is false that they had no relation to each other whatsoever; it is false that the drug dealers environment of Perugia and the Piazza Grimana folks, and Amanda Knox, belonged to different companies; it is false that Knox had no relations with strange parties that went out of controls or with harassing behaviors against flatmates.
It is also obvious that she was manipulative, if you just read the incipit and para-textual info in his mail to her friends for example or her account about how she manipulated her uncle's feelings; or even if you read her book or if you read her testimonies (how quick she is accusing Filomena of buying drugs, how she downplays some details and is vague on others, etc.).
The argumentation in a courtroom simply works like that. It is not true that I am biased or twisting information.



Indeed the information about Knox's personality and frequentations has a bearing if you want to make an argument that she and Guede were virtual strangers: they had been knowing each other for much longer than she knew Sollecito, it was known that Guede was attracted by Knox, whereas Knox wrote she was attracted by a "black young man" she had met for the first time in September in a bar in via Garibaldi, a man of whom she did not reveal the name; it is a fact that she was talking "very naturally" with Guede on nights where they were guests at the downstairs apartment, and it is a fact that Knox had picked up guests from the downstairs apartment and brought them up to her home; it is a fact that she had contacts with drug dealers from the same environment. And finally, I don't even disregard Kokomani's testimony, despite it is obvious that he was lying in order to cover up his drug dealing activity.

What are the fact?? Where are the facts?? Not what you infer obliquely from some other information. Please list in simple point form the objective factual evidence for:

1) the specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had contact by phone or otherwise with drug dealers.
2) the specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had any contact with Rudy Guede.
3) "harassing behaviours" of Ms Knox
4) Ms Knox talking "very naturally" with Guede on "nights" - (plural) - at the downstairs apartment
5) Ms Knox's involvement with "strange parties" - (plural) - "that went out of controls"

Separately, why is it of any concern to you whatsoever that Ms Knox had any kind of a relationship with any guest of the residents of the downstairs apartment (other than Guede). What possible connection does this have to the murder of Ms Kercher?

Machiavelli effortlessly swings between his version of "logical errors" and the law. In the little bit highlighted above, his version of "logic" is that all of a sudden the law must be abandoned..... because if the law remains, he's just given the very definition of reasonable doubt.

I know it's California I'm quoting, but this is the charge to at least one jury in that State as to what Reasonable Doubt means: "If you find equal weight to a piece of evidence as to its tendency to acquit or to convict, you must choose the option that tends to acquit."

But swing back to M.'s view of logic, M. is desperate to keep his factoid in play at least by baiting-and-switching the terms of reference (moving the goalposts), "think it least possible that this factoid can be used to suggest guilt."

And as we have learned in this thread many times, somewhere down the line he's going to wave away with a flick of his hand the acquitting option, as "illogical, not part of Italian jurisprudence, and only a fiction in the mind of confirmation biased Knoxophiles."

At least as far as the internal logic of his own posts go, Machiavelli always wins. Three pages from now in Continuation 11 (and most assuredly we will make it to Continuation 12 if he keeps rebooting!), he'll make reference back to this as, "that is when I showed how illogical you were."

So hang in there Kauffer. Wait for the bait and switch. M. will argue until he's blue in the face, "just think it possible that Knox had had phone numbers of known drug dealers in her phone. Think it possible that she used those numbers in the exchange of sex for drugs. I am not saying she did, I am only trying to counter the 'good-girl' image that Knoxophiles wrongly propose."

Then sure enough, M. will claim the actual factoid as the reality of all that, not just the possibility. All with the wave of a hand and with nothing provided as you requested:

- no specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had contact by phone or otherwise with drug dealers.
- no specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had any contact with Rudy Guede.
- no specific "harassing behaviours" of Ms Knox (BTW - this is a new one M. has dreamt up.)
- no instances of Ms Knox talking "very naturally" with Guede on "nights" - (plural) - at the downstairs apartment (What does "very naturally" even mean, when one had choppy Italian, and the other spoke no English!??)
- no examples Ms Knox's involvement with "strange parties" - (plural) - "that went out of controls"​

I thought that Machiavelli's side was winning this judicial war, just on the factoids as exist in Judge Massei's and Judge Nencini's motivations reports. They are content to wrongfully convict BOTH Sollecito AND Knox on their own set of factoids that have nothing to do with the latest from Machiavelli in this thread.

So it leads one to ask..... why does Machiavelli think Judge Nencini needs help?

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

This is a staple of the Pro-guilt lobby. Amongst other things (as mentioned, even John Follain's account does not sustain this tidbit of character assassination, not really) almost everyone else had their moments of "inappropriate" behaviour.

One of Filomena's male-friends made a black humour joke about how Meredith died. Filomena herself in an act of astounding practicality (also in the midst of the murder of her friend) lawyered up, with the purpose to not be on the hook for the damages to her room and/or rent for a cottage she knew she would not be in for months. The last call between Knox and Filomena was them talking about where they might live.

Does that make Filomena the suspect of a crime?

And then there's this? So what if Amanda Knox is vile on ALL those points? So what? Is this thread about the internet-shaming/bullying of all the vile people in the world?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no "independent evidence" that Ms Knox is a manipulative character and, you cite nothing. Similarly, there is no evidence that she was anything other than a virtual stranger to Guede, with two or three instances of her finding herself in his company, randomly and not by design. There are no telephone contacts - you could believe Kokomani of course, but that wouldn't be very bright.

Furthermore you can provide no evidence in the form of actual documentation proving that Ms Knox had any contact whatsoever with any drug dealers and repeat no more than tittle tattle and rumour.

Additionally, you have cast aspersions with no evidence that Ms Knox's scholastic record was not excellent and that the circumstances of her attendance at her course in Perugia were of an unplanned and hurried nature.

Here you are scrabbling around on the margins, looking for something, anything, to impugn Ms Knox's character, because you have no hard evidence at all of her involvement in Ms Kercher's murder, despite your attempts to re-write scientific method and contradict the entire scientific community. Your evidence lite approach to this case is predicated on your guilt filtering the smallest piece of irrelevance. Perhaps you are, after all, representative of the post inquisitional, post facistic nature of Italian society - a debt ridden failed state oiled by corruption and riddled by the rot of a superannuated, medieval judiciary, which has proven itself incapable of adjudicating criminal cases according to Italy's own laws and in ignorance of its constitution - in short, a dietrologian nightmare permeated by collective thought disorder.

The only question, then, is why? Why does Machiavelli believe that Judge Nencini really hasn't covered off the all of it?

The pair, Sollecito and Knox, are four months away from judicial disaster. Judge Nencini has written a motivations report without any of these points Machiavelli sells on this webservice.

Why does Machiavelli think Nencini needs help on an obscure website?

 

[JREF2010]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

this all comes back to your belief in how someone should act, without you being there and without knowing who the people really are.
as you gather your data you present a immature, behavior.

i had the same disgust when the courtroom was laughing out loud at Toto, the reality a murder case was allowed to become a comical scene and became a joke removes the seriousness of the courts and its judges. is this a joke comedy courtroom?

behavior....Migninni's puppet, Miss Commode was making jokes about tennis shoe sizes relating to penus sizes, in Merediths trial.

who is to to decide what is appropriate behavior in a murder of a young college girl?
and then does the behavior demand guilt? if so why waste time with DNA and investigations...all you need is Edgardo Giobbi to figure the crime out very quickly, because he can "just tell" by watching someone or looking at a picture.

for the Italy Serious Crime Squad to keep this man employed after his own video makes the Italy system look like a joke, imo.

 

[Bill Williams]

With all the talk about Luminol and TMB and presumptive tests and confirmatory tests.....

This is perhaps the one test that convcted Knox and Sollecito the most. It was the misuse of the Kastle-Meyer test, a presumptive test for blood.

The Kastle-Meyer chemical test relies upon hydrogen peroxide oxidizing phenolphthalin, which is colorless, to phenolphthalein, which is pink.

The police released photos (see above) to the press that some observers, such as Judy Bachrach of Vanity Fair, thought was blood. Based on the discrepancy between Ms. Knox’s description of the bathroom and its seemingly bloody appearance, some observers lost trust in Ms. Knox.

This intentional biasing of the case in the public's mind was never corrected by the prosecution. The photo which was leaked made Amanda look like a liar - if she had said that there was only minor suspicions to be seen at her early morning, Nov 2 visit to the cottage for a shower.

What was always missed when folk like Judy Bachrach and Vanity Fair reacted the way they did, was that the scene Knox saw was also essentially the scene both the Postal Police and Filomena and her friends saw.

The misuse of the Kastle-Meyer test went well beyond testing for blood.... it was part and parcel of the Pro-guilt media campaign that continues to this day.

See: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.ca/2011_07_01_archive.html

 

[griffinmill]

It's got primate written all over it, and that narrows down the list of candidates considerably.

Still waiting to find out which foot belonged to the "primate."

 

[Kauffer]

Italian law

Machiavelli effortlessly swings between his version of "logical errors" and the law. In the little bit highlighted above, his version of "logic" is that all of a sudden the law must be abandoned..... because if the law remains, he's just given the very definition of reasonable doubt.

I know it's California I'm quoting, but this is the charge to at least one jury in that State as to what Reasonable Doubt means: "If you find equal weight to a piece of evidence as to its tendency to acquit or to convict, you must choose the option that tends to acquit."

But swing back to M.'s view of logic, M. is desperate to keep his factoid in play at least by baiting-and-switching the terms of reference (moving the goalposts), "think it least possible that this factoid can be used to suggest guilt."

And as we have learned in this thread many times, somewhere down the line he's going to wave away with a flick of his hand the acquitting option, as "illogical, not part of Italian jurisprudence, and only a fiction in the mind of confirmation biased Knoxophiles."

At least as far as the internal logic of his own posts go, Machiavelli always wins. Three pages from now in Continuation 11 (and most assuredly we will make it to Continuation 12 if he keeps rebooting!), he'll make reference back to this as, "that is when I showed how illogical you were."

So hang in there Kauffer. Wait for the bait and switch. M. will argue until he's blue in the face, "just think it possible that Knox had had phone numbers of known drug dealers in her phone. Think it possible that she used those numbers in the exchange of sex for drugs. I am not saying she did, I am only trying to counter the 'good-girl' image that Knoxophiles wrongly propose."

Then sure enough, M. will claim the actual factoid as the reality of all that, not just the possibility. All with the wave of a hand and with nothing provided as you requested:

- no specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had contact by phone or otherwise with drug dealers.
- no specific and precise occasions when Ms Knox had any contact with Rudy Guede.
- no specific "harassing behaviours" of Ms Knox (BTW - this is a new one M. has dreamt up.)
- no instances of Ms Knox talking "very naturally" with Guede on "nights" - (plural) - at the downstairs apartment (What does "very naturally" even mean, when one had choppy Italian, and the other spoke no English!??)
- no examples Ms Knox's involvement with "strange parties" - (plural) - "that went out of controls"​

I thought that Machiavelli's side was winning this judicial war, just on the factoids as exist in Judge Massei's and Judge Nencini's motivations reports. They are content to wrongfully convict BOTH Sollecito AND Knox on their own set of factoids that have nothing to do with the latest from Machiavelli in this thread.

So it leads one to ask..... why does Machiavelli think Judge Nencini needs help?

You are a credit to clear thinking Bill. I see that is necessary to remind the Machiavelli character once again of one of the provisions of Article 192, quoted recently by Numbers:

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence


2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

So there we have it: Evidence must be:

1) SERIOUS
2) PRECISE
3) CONSISTENT

Every claim he makes here should be subjected to this entry level test.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have a few responses with Vibion';s comments about Amanda's "vile activities."

This is a skeptical board. Other aspects of skepticism are often however ignored in these discussions. When we discuss psychics, people often ignore the misses and remember the hits.

I consider it quite likely (if people's memories are even reliable which is an open question as well), that people are only remembering Amanda's actions which they consider inappropriate. They are not looking at everybody else as far as "inappropriate" activities.

The fact is also that we not judge based on inappropriate activities. People believed that Damien Echols was guilty based on being strange while most people know it is basically garbage.

Cameron Todd Willingham might have very well one day beaten his wife to death but the problem is that the evidence which convicted him of arson is basically garbage.

 

[Desert Fox]

Still waiting to find out which foot belonged to the "primate."

As poor a quality as the print is, might have been you. Do you have any proof that that you were not at the cottage that day? If not, maybe you are actually the murderer?

 

[Samson]

Still waiting to find out which foot belonged to the "primate."

The bathmat print was made by a male human being, all of whom are primates. That is what we know. Guede is the male human being that claimed to be there messing with Meredith's blood. This is called a clue in detective work.

 

[Numbers]

An honest whore has higher moral standing than any forensics specialist who commits fraud or misrepresents his or her methods or results.

I'm not a fan of Stafanoni. I think she has well earned for herself a jail cell for her to sit in and reflect on her criminal conduct and how many lives she's damaged with her foolish lies and deceit.

But I'm troubled by the 'whore' angle slurs that have come up.
It's sickening to see these kinds of ignorant attacks against Amanda, but it's uncomfortable to watch such baseless claims against Stef.

The post was about moral standing. It did not identify a specific person. The post was not meant as a frivolous insult.

Prostitution is legal and (supposedly) controlled in some jurisdictions, for example, in some counties in Nevada.

The following is from the Innocence Project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Forensic-Science-Misconduct.php

Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.
Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel have allied themselves with police and prosecutors, rather than prioritizing the search for truth. Other times, criminalists lacking the requisite knowledge have embellished findings and eluded detection because judges and juries lacked background in the relevant sciences, themselves.

In some cases, critical evidence has been consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover misconduct has proven impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again, preventing the truth from being revealed. One weak link
The identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.

The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Evidence is later sent to a forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. Then, in the reporting of test results, technicians and their superiors sometimes have misrepresented their findings. DNA exonerations have even revealed instances of "drylabbing" evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed.

 

[sept79]

Originally Posted by Numbers:

"An honest whore has higher moral standing than any forensics specialist who commits fraud or misrepresents his or her methods or results."


Agree, it doesn't get much more despicable than this. Sort of like knowingly stealing from a charity . . .

 

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers:

"An honest whore has higher moral standing than any forensics specialist who commits fraud or misrepresents his or her methods or results."


Agree, it doesn't get much more despicable than this. Sort of like knowingly stealing from a charity . . .

Police and/or prosecutors who commit misconduct are also, obviously, vile.

This following is from the Innocence Project. I've highlighted the official misconduct that, AFAIK, has taken place in the Knox-Sollecito case. I may have missed some official criminal acts; note that the forensics lab in the case is in a police unit, so it's illegal and immoral acts should be included.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Government-Misconduct.php

While many law enforcement officers and prosecutors are honest and trustworthy, criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for negligence, misconduct and corruption exists. Even if one officer of every thousand is dishonest, wrongful convictions will continue to occur.

DNA exonerations have exposed official misconduct at every level and stage of a criminal investigation.

Common forms of misconduct by law enforcement officials include:

• Employing suggestion when conducting identification procedures
• Coercing false confessions• Lying or intentionally misleading jurors about their observations• Failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to prosecutors• Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants

Common forms of misconduct by prosecutors include:

• Withholding exculpatory evidence from defense• Deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence• Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify• Pressuring defense witnesses not to testify
• Relying on fraudulent forensic experts• Making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony
For more background on this issue, download the Northern California Innocence Project report on prosecutorial misconduct.