Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

While some may believe Mach is resorting to double-talk in these responses, to give Mach the benefit of the doubt, the statements he/she/they provides are most likely accurately reflecting de facto law in Italy. De facto, the prosecution gets to admit or withhold any information it wishes, and the defense gets to admit only the information that the prosecution allows it to. This is based on the Italian translation of "adversarial" and "equality of arms" as determined, of course, by the prosecution's official translator.

This sounds like what Commodi meant when she said, 'we decide what's relevant'.

So if the prosecution decides that the downstairs crime scene isn't relevant, or the semen stain isn't relevant, or even the exculpatory elements of the forensic test they do perform - like negative TMB confirmatory blood tests or missing DNA files and lab documents that would invalidate the results that they do submit - then the defense can't use any of it?

How could any trial be considered fair under these circumstances?

I don't think thats actually the law in Italy. One of the appeal points Amanda's lawyers raised was that the courts were supposed to allow testing of evidence if the defense requests it, and that this was denied. So what's the actual law, and how the law is applied in this or other cases, may not be the same.

 

[Kauffer]

Terms

While some may believe Mach is resorting to double-talk in these responses, to give Mach the benefit of the doubt, the statements he/she/they provides are most likely accurately reflecting de facto law in Italy. De facto, the prosecution gets to admit or withhold any information it wishes, and the defense gets to admit only the information that the prosecution allows it to. This is based on the Italian translation of "adversarial" and "equality of arms" as determined, of course, by the prosecution's official translator.

With respect to you, there is no such thing as "de facto law". We have "de jure" and "de facto" - what the law says they must do versus what they actually do, when this is in contradiction. And it is in contradiction. Italian judges (including the prosecutors who are all part of the same club) are a walking, talking breach of Article 6 of the European Convention Human Rights.

 

[Numbers]

With respect to you, there is no such thing as "de facto law". We have "de jure" and "de facto" - what the law says they must do versus what they actually do, when this is in contradiction. And it is in contradiction. Italian judges (including the prosecutors who are all part of the same club) are a walking, talking breach of Article 6 of the European Convention Human Rights.

You are totally correct that "de jure" = according to law and that "de facto" = according to fact or practice; the "law" that I appended is superfluous (in normal usage).

I was, perhaps not very successfully, trying to say with some irony that what the judges do they think is the law - because they believe that what they say and do defines the law, without regard to written law, constitution, or Convention. I am not stating that what the judges practice can be considered consistent with law; I was trying to say that their practice is contrary to law.

ETA: The attempted irony about the Convention terms "adversarial" and "equality of arms" being translated by the official prosecution translator was not successful? I am, of course, disappointed in that.

 

[carbonjam72]

WOndering what's become of him?

Bumping this in vain hopes that Godot will appear and add clarity.

Hi Mach, as it was me who had asked about Carlizzi, I actually had more to say.

But first I will ask you to respond to my post hgere:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10329912&postcount=1852

It's on the previous page, and the question is do you agree that the central issue in dispute if the relevance of evidence of only Rudy Guede's presence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher, at the time of the actual assault? This is demonstarted principally by the medium of Meredith blood, but also by Rudy's DNA on and in her body, among numerous other places.

It is clearly you who are ducking this, the absolutely central issue in the case. Nothing else you say about what you consider to be evidence, or behaviors, or tramp lying witnesses, has any validity or relevance until you can squarely face this central issue.
There was blood everywhere, so obviously no clean-up. Only foot tracks of one person in that blood. Only fingerprints of one person, in that blood. Olny a palm print of one person, in that blood. No one else, just one person, IN THAT ROOM.

Only DNA in any meaningful quantity on and in Merdith's body and on her clothing. Just one person: Rudy Guede.

Your failure to address this issue shows that you can't. But even if you lack the objectivity to follow the simple plain logic of the argument, you OUGHT at least be able to recognize that this IS the central issue about which we are in disagreement.

I doubt you will my friend, I feel you are too far gone, and I'm sorry to say that, but I think its true.
As to Carlizzi - the fact that Mignini had her arrested in 2005, doesn't mean he still didn't rely upon her, and was indeed influenced by her, after that point in time.

Specifically, in Preston/Spezi's book, 'Monster of Florence', they describe Spezi's closed door hearing in April of 2006 where Mario Spezi has an opportunity to speak, and points out how much of Mignini's claims appear to be taken directly from Carlizzi's blog. And they point out how the presiding judge put down her pen and took no more notes, after Mignini said Spezi needed to remain in prison because he was such a dangerous fellow that he had successfully instigated an international PR campaign - all from his prison cell, that's how dangerous Spezi was, according to Mignini.

And, Preston/Spezi describe the scene two years later at Mignini's failed trial of Dr Francesco Calamandrei in Florence, also as being the Monster of Florence in Mignini's imaginings. They describe how Mignini had taken a statement from an associate of Carlizzi's, and declared the witness statement to be held in secret, and used the secret statement of Carlizzi's associate as the basis for the charges against Spezi and Calamandrei. Preston/Spezi describe how the witness statement from Carlizzi's associate then proceeded to provide a completely fictitious account of Spezi's life history and his family's history, and this was in 2008.

Carlizzi also reportedly (Spezi/Preston) contacted and met with Mignini in Perugia, "within days" of the Kercher killing, and as has been posted here in the last few pages, Mignini was still arguing that the Kercher killing was related to the rites of Halloween. And that was as late as 2008 as well.

And the case of the Florence 20, dismissed by judge Micheli in 2010, Mignini claims against the Narducci family were reportedly provided to him by Carlizzi in 2002, and 8 years later, Mignini is still working off of the same crazy Carlizzi theory.

So the simple fact that Mignini had Carlizzi arrested in 2005, in no way indicates Mignini was not still relying on the word of this ◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy lady, after 2005.

Let us not forget that the Italian judges charged, put to trial, convicted, and even sentenced to prison Dr Mignini and MIchele Giutarri. Although the conviction was overturned on a technicality relating to jurisdiction, the case was transferred to Turin - BUT NEVER REFILED! So things like arresting someone for house arrest can't be taken too seriously, when even prison sentences are not deemed important enough to be confirmed, EVEN WHEN IT IS A HIGH PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO IS THE CRIMINAL WHO HAS BEEN SENTENCED.

So if you want to be honest here, please leave aside the multiple side-trackings and focus on the evidence in the murder room, and kindly explain how Rudy Guede could paint a masterpiece in Meredith's blood, leave his DNA in large amounts in several places - including on and in her body, YET THERE BE NO TRACE OF AMANDA, or really anyone else in any reliable amount - AND YET THIS STILL BE A CRIME COMMITTED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN RUDY GUEDE - ALL BY HIMSELF.

 

[Numbers]

It's not the law, it's the unlawful practice

This sounds like what Commodi meant when she said, 'we decide what's relevant'.

So if the prosecution decides that the downstairs crime scene isn't relevant, or the semen stain isn't relevant, or even the exculpatory elements of the forensic test they do perform - like negative TMB confirmatory blood tests or missing DNA files and lab documents that would invalidate the results that they do submit - then the defense can't use any of it?

How could any trial be considered fair under these circumstances?

I don't think thats actually the law in Italy. One of the appeal points Amanda's lawyers raised was that the courts were supposed to allow testing of evidence if the defense requests it, and that this was denied. So what's the actual law, and how the law is applied in this or other cases, may not be the same.

What the Italian courts have done in this case is not fair and is contrary to Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights. The judges have no immediate check and balance against them, and arrogantly align with the prosecution. The judges may even believe that, as successors to the Inquisitors, they are the law.

 

[carbonjam72]

And part 2...

Still Waiting For Godot...

Well, again you seem to miss the point. Specifically, evidence that Amanda or Raf, or anyone else, was present in the house, AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER. Guede's presence is there at that time, because of his signature in blood and DNA at the scene.

Amanda and Raf lived in the house. Of course there will be signs of their presence, but not necessarily at the time of the murder. D'UH!! Nencini's conclusion that any traces of Amanda in her own home are only referable to the crime, is an indication that the trial and the judicial reasonings are not serious or valid, but plainly irrational, unsupported, unfounded, or how shall we say, michugena.



Well, I agree. The issue is whether one believes Spezi/Preston and their professional reporting.

And I do believe Spezi/Preston, over the my admirably game sparring partner 'Big Mach', who thinks he can contradict forensic experts on subjects like luminol tests which are TMB negative, as still being 'probably blood'.

I'm sorry Mach, but your undoubtedly high opinion of yourself does not extend to the denial of well settled forensic science. You may think you're being clever, but you're fighting the best state of our knowledge. Only your refusal to concede the defeat of your assumption of guilt, drives your irrationally clinging to an irrational argument.



Yes, I was aware that Mignini asked to archive the charges. Spezi/Preston reported that a suggestion was made to the prosecutor, and it was taken up.

Just think about that for a second: Mignini said there was insufficient evidence for charges, in an investigation that he himself had brought forward INTO COURT. Do you think it's possible he may have been similarly mistaken in other cases? Like, ahem, THIS ONE!!! (This is not a compliment to Mignini you've made!!! You've exposed him as a complete buffoon, contradicting his own case!!! Don't you get that???)
But it shows the 'never give an inch' spirit of Mignini to hang in there and even then proceed with his insane fraudulent cases against the Florence 20, still trying to ingratiate himself in the Monster of Florence crimes, and secure his precious career promotion, which he valued over his intentional disruption of so many innocent lives.

On some level, I confess that I do admire Giuliano Mignini. He is almost a pure psychopathic sadistic narcissist. The sheer madness of his delirium, and his unwavering devotion to a manifestly crazy set of beliefs is endlessly fascinating to me. I admit it! Of course he belongs in prison, as any rational society would surely conclude, and in time, I have no doubt will. Giuliano Mignini has a date with a jail cell, and neither fire, flood nor earth quakes (predicted or otherwise) will keep him from his appointed rounds. You have my word.
And btw, you didn't respond to the argument, concerning the relevance of Guede in the room when Meredith died, and the absence of anyone else, for the simple reason, that you can't.

 

[JREF2010]

Like the presumed semen stain on the pillow below the hips of the victim.

It got quiet after that question/statement. Guiltards dont like discussing this subject.

Did Nencini reject this request to test this semen stain? was he even asked to enter it in his "fast-food" trial?

Maybe Edgardo Giobbi just told Migninni and Stephony and Napoleoni..."dont bother I already know who did this crime, because I can just tell by looking at people."

He is the Italian Serious Crime Squad professional after all....

 

[Desert Fox]

What the Italian courts have done in this case is not fair and is contrary to Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights. The judges have no immediate check and balance against them, and arrogantly align with the prosecution. The judges may even believe that, as successors to the Inquisitors, they are the law.

That is something I have noted - The way that Italian law is written, if followed, might be an extremely fair system. The problem is that they simply don't seem to be following it.

 

[Bill Williams]

While some may believe Mach is resorting to double-talk in these responses, to give Mach the benefit of the doubt, the statements he/she/they provides are most likely accurately reflecting de facto law in Italy. De facto, the prosecution gets to admit or withhold any information it wishes, and the defense gets to admit only the information that the prosecution allows it to. This is based on the Italian translation of "adversarial" and "equality of arms" as determined, of course, by the prosecution's official translator.

With respect to you, there is no such thing as "de facto law". We have "de jure" and "de facto" - what the law says they must do versus what they actually do, when this is in contradiction. And it is in contradiction. Italian judges (including the prosecutors who are all part of the same club) are a walking, talking breach of Article 6 of the European Convention Human Rights.

While not wading into de facto vs. de jure....

Machiavelli has a view of the facts of this case which are not supported by either of Judge Massei's or Judge Nencini's court. His views on Knox havin sex with drug dealers, as well as having drug dealers' contacts in her mobile are not shared at all by even the two convicting courts.

It is actually hard to know if Machiavelli even represents the thoughts of any of the prosecutors in this case. Most definitely he's the most protective of Giuliano Mignini, and has kept pace with the series of trials Mignini himself has had to endure as a defendant.

Once when my sources said that Mignini had had a hearing on his own abuse of office charges, Machiavelli had accurate, inside knowledge which differed. This could be explained by many things, up to and including that he has access to a courtroom schedule posted at a courthouse, where he can go down and read it as a private citizen....

 

[Bill Williams]

Like the presumed semen stain on the pillow below the hips of the victim.

It got quiet after that question/statement. Guiltards dont like discussing this subject.

Did Nencini reject this request to test this semen stain? was he even asked to enter it in his "fast-food" trial?

Maybe Edgardo Giobbi just told Migninni and Stephony and Napoleoni..."dont bother I already know who did this crime, because I can just tell by looking at people."

He is the Italian Serious Crime Squad professional after all....

It looks to me like the presumed-semen stain was requested as being tested by the Sollecito defence team.

The reading of Nencini's reasoning is that it did not need testing because:

- if it was Rudy's then it adds nothing to the case, because Rudy is already convicted
- if it is Raffaele's then it, too, adds nothing to the case because there is (in Nencini's view - inferred later in the document) plenty of other evidence to convict Raffaele
- if it belongs to someone else, then it adds nothing to the case because it cannot be time-stamped, and Meredith had a normal sex-life.​

1) With regard to the request for genetic testing of the pillow case that was found in the bedroom where the body of Meredith Kercher was found, the Court shares the judgment of irrelevance that has often been expressed during different stages of the case. The presence of Rudy Hermann Guede in the room where Meredith Kercher was assaulted is definitively established by final judgment, and the behavior of Guede is not the subject of this trial; it is also verified in the facts that the victim had a normal sex life for a young woman of her age; she had a boyfriend with whom she had regular sexual intercourse; finally, it must be observed that the requested expert assessment would never be able to certify any actual connection between the moment when the pillow was stained and the assault of Meredith Kercher. The circumstances referred to above suggest that any indication made by the expert assessment would not have importance for the case;​

 

[Bill Williams]

Great stuff, Numbers.

For a guy (gal?) named "Numbers", he/she does great with letters, too.

 

[Numbers]

While not wading into de facto vs. de jure....

Machiavelli has a view of the facts of this case which are not supported by either of Judge Massei's or Judge Nencini's court. His views on Knox havin sex with drug dealers, as well as having drug dealers' contacts in her mobile are not shared at all by even the two convicting courts.

It is actually hard to know if Machiavelli even represents the thoughts of any of the prosecutors in this case. Most definitely he's the most protective of Giuliano Mignini, and has kept pace with the series of trials Mignini himself has had to endure as a defendant.

Once when my sources said that Mignini had had a hearing on his own abuse of office charges, Machiavelli had accurate, inside knowledge which differed. This could be explained by many things, up to and including that he has access to a courtroom schedule posted at a courthouse, where he can go down and read it as a private citizen....

But wasn't that particular piece of BS (highlighted) started as part of the police/prosecution smear campaign? It's hard to say if Mach got that directly from police/prosecution or the general guilter memes.

Mach is not really that well informed on Italian law or the ECHR. That may or may not mean that Mach is close to police/prosecutors, since their knowledge may be imperfect - they don't need to know too much, since they just do as they please with some trickery to cover their unlawful actions.

 

[Numbers]

It looks to me like the presumed-semen stain was requested as being tested by the Sollecito defence team.

The reading of Nencini's reasoning is that it did not need testing because:

- if it was Rudy's then it adds nothing to the case, because Rudy is already convicted
- if it is Raffaele's then it, too, adds nothing to the case because there is (in Nencini's view - inferred later in the document) plenty of other evidence to convict Raffaele
- if it belongs to someone else, then it adds nothing to the case because it cannot be time-stamped, and Meredith had a normal sex-life.​

​

Of course, what Nencini is leaving out is the shoe sole imprint on part of the semen stain. It's Guede's shoe sole. That's a time print. And forensic verification that the stain is semen and that it is Guede's would be exculpatory, IMO, because it would make clearer his total involvement in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Kauffer]

Court orders

It looks to me like the presumed-semen stain was requested as being tested by the Sollecito defence team.

The reading of Nencini's reasoning is that it did not need testing because:

- if it was Rudy's then it adds nothing to the case, because Rudy is already convicted
- if it is Raffaele's then it, too, adds nothing to the case because there is (in Nencini's view - inferred later in the document) plenty of other evidence to convict Raffaele
- if it belongs to someone else, then it adds nothing to the case because it cannot be time-stamped, and Meredith had a normal sex-life.​

​

Was any request put to the Helmann court?

I wish Helmann had tested absolutely everything. I wish he had pulled in all of the forensic data - the EDFs, everything, and had them disclose everything held back. Reading between the lines, I think he was trying to do both the right thing AND the diplomatic thing. I don't think he believed for one moment that Cassation would over turn him. Perhaps he now regrets his naivety and wishes instead that he'd put it all out there - Stefanoni's incompetence and criminal mischief together with all the exonerating evidence they've hidden now for seven years.

 

[Bill Williams]

It looks to me like the presumed-semen stain was requested as being tested by the Sollecito defence team.

The reading of Nencini's reasoning is that it did not need testing because:

- if it was Rudy's then it adds nothing to the case, because Rudy is already convicted
- if it is Raffaele's then it, too, adds nothing to the case because there is (in Nencini's view - inferred later in the document) plenty of other evidence to convict Raffaele
- if it belongs to someone else, then it adds nothing to the case because it cannot be time-stamped, and Meredith had a normal sex-life.​

Of course, what Nencini is leaving out is the shoe sole imprint on part of the semen stain. It's Guede's shoe sole. That's a time print. And forensic verification that the stain is semen and that it is Guede's would be exculpatory, IMO, because it would make clearer his total involvement in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Add to that, this:

Go through the Nencini report with a simple word-search on the word "presumed".

Nearly ALL of what Nencini says is blood evidence against Knox, is both all outside the murder room, as well as only presumed-blood.

Nencini is well aware of what Machiavelli here simply will not concede. All that evidence is only presumed blood. Of course, Nencini does not argue about luminol sensitivity or the difference between presumptive vs. conclusive.....

Nencini basically says, "It's a crime scene with a knife-murder. What else could it be?" But Nencini is at least clear, where Machiavelli tries to fudge it, that it is presumed-blood.

Which brings us back to this "time-stamp" issue. It should cut both ways. If you cannot "time-stamp" a presumed semen stain (even with Rudy's shoe print in it!).....

.... how does one time-stamp a non-blood foottrack of Amanda Knox's in the very cottage in which she lived?

 

[Numbers]

Was any request put to the Helmann court?

I wish Helmann had tested absolutely everything. I wish he had pulled in all of the forensic data - the EDFs, everything, and had them disclose everything held back. Reading between the lines, I think he was trying to do both the right thing AND the diplomatic thing. I don't think he believed for one moment that Cassation would over turn him. Perhaps he now regrets his naivety and wishes instead that he'd put it all out there - Stefanoni's incompetence and criminal mischief together with all the exonerating evidence they've hidden now for seven years.

I suspect that everything asked for by the defense from the Nencini court or from the Massei was also asked for at the Hellmann court. That would be done by the defense for purposes of maintaining bases or rights of appeal (my terminology may not be accurate). Also, I posted over at IIP forum about whether the defense computer expert report was presented to both Hellmann and Nencini, and the response was "yes." Both courts apparently turned it down for admission to evidence.

A systematic flaw in the Italian judicial system, with the defense held unequal to the prosecution in submission of evidence, is revealed by this case. There is a failure to maintain "equality of arms" as required by the Convention, and this does not agree with the provisions of the Italian CCP or Constitution.

 

[js202]

Was any request put to the Helmann court?

I wish Helmann had tested absolutely everything. I wish he had pulled in all of the forensic data - the EDFs, everything, and had them disclose everything held back. Reading between the lines, I think he was trying to do both the right thing AND the diplomatic thing. I don't think he believed for one moment that Cassation would over turn him. Perhaps he now regrets his naivety and wishes instead that he'd put it all out there - Stefanoni's incompetence and criminal mischief together with all the exonerating evidence they've hidden now for seven years.

Great thoughts. One hopes that Hellmann now has such regrets. But, I think a certain way to do business is so imbued in Italians that even the most honorable ones always hedge their bets, as did Hellmann, with full intentionality; and, with objects lessons like the vicissitudes of the Kercher case to guide them, no regrets about being circumspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

But wasn't that particular piece of BS (highlighted) started as part of the police/prosecution smear campaign? It's hard to say if Mach got that directly from police/prosecution or the general guilter memes.

Mach is not really that well informed on Italian law or the ECHR. That may or may not mean that Mach is close to police/prosecutors, since their knowledge may be imperfect - they don't need to know too much, since they just do as they please with some trickery to cover their unlawful actions.

Yes. You see the insight one needs to have about our friendly Nemesis, Machiavelli, is that he is presenting a prosecution case - still.... even after not one but TWO convictions, Machiavelli is still in there which these factoids that some prosecutor somewhere thinks should have been in the record - record of conviction - but wasn't. Not in Massei, not in Nencini.

Proof of this? IMO it is when Machiavelli becomes particularly unhinged. Just mention "Satanic-rite theory" and this thread will be filled with demand for citations. Give him the citation from Barbie Latza Nadeau, that Maneula Comodi (acc. to Nadeau) threatened to quit the case if Mignini went into the 2009 trial with that as the motive - and you have Machiavelli referring to Nadeau as, "an approximate reporter".

Ask Machiavelli why Andrea Vogt some years ago reported that Amanda Knox confessed to her own mother that she'd done the crime, with that secretly recorded prison conversation where Knox told her mom,"I was there."

Now, this plays nowhere in the court decisions, really - but Machiavelli is very sensitive to it on Andrea Vogt's behalf. At first he denied that the context of that secretly recorded conversation made it plain Knox was saying, "I was at Raffaele's", then he abandoned that line by claiming that Knox was really talking "Mafia code" to her mother, so that Raffaele would get the message that Knox would turn on him unless he kept his alibi tight.

Machiavelli is either connected to, or well up in the bleachers above (with a clear view to the playing field) the various prosecutors here. His defence is not of the judiciary per se, it is of Mignini first and foremost and then Crini only as Crini was handed the ball in Florence.

Remember, Machiavelli was the first to reflect on his factoid that, "The kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet stain-outline of a knife", about a week before Crini proposed that in the Nencini court in late 2013.

But he wants to defend the prosecutors, even sometimes against Massei or Nencini when they do not buy into the excessive prosecution factoids as lurking in the minds of prosecutors - still.

 

[Numbers]

Yes. You see the insight one needs to have about our friendly Nemesis, Machiavelli, is that he is presenting a prosecution case - still.... even after not one but TWO convictions, Machiavelli is still in there which these factoids that some prosecutor somewhere thinks should have been in the record - record of conviction - but wasn't. Not in Massei, not in Nencini.

Proof of this? IMO it is when Machiavelli becomes particularly unhinged. Just mention "Satanic-rite theory" and this thread will be filled with demand for citations. Give him the citation from Barbie Latza Nadeau, that Maneula Comodi (acc. to Nadeau) threatened to quit the case if Mignini went into the 2009 trial with that as the motive - and you have Machiavelli referring to Nadeau as, "an approximate reporter".

Ask Machiavelli why Andrea Vogt some years ago reported that Amanda Knox confessed to her own mother that she'd done the crime, with that secretly recorded prison conversation where Knox told her mom,"I was there."

Now, this plays nowhere in the court decisions, really - but Machiavelli is very sensitive to it on Andrea Vogt's behalf. At first he denied that the context of that secretly recorded conversation made it plain Knox was saying, "I was at Raffaele's", then he abandoned that line by claiming that Knox was really talking "Mafia code" to her mother, so that Raffaele would get the message that Knox would turn on him unless he kept his alibi tight.

Machiavelli is either connected to, or well up in the bleachers above (with a clear view to the playing field) the various prosecutors here. His defence is not of the judiciary per se, it is of Mignini first and foremost and then Crini only as Crini was handed the ball in Florence.

Remember, Machiavelli was the first to reflect on his factoid that, "The kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet stain-outline of a knife", about a week before Crini proposed that in the Nencini court in late 2013.

But he wants to defend the prosecutors, even sometimes against Massei or Nencini when they do not buy into the excessive prosecution factoids as lurking in the minds of prosecutors - still.

All good points showing that Mach is indeed aligned with and apparently communicating with the prosecutors.

 

[Desert Fox]

It looks to me like the presumed-semen stain was requested as being tested by the Sollecito defence team.

The reading of Nencini's reasoning is that it did not need testing because:

- if it was Rudy's then it adds nothing to the case, because Rudy is already convicted
- if it is Raffaele's then it, too, adds nothing to the case because there is (in Nencini's view - inferred later in the document) plenty of other evidence to convict Raffaele
^{- if it belongs to someone else, then it adds nothing to the case because it cannot be time-stamped, and Meredith had a normal sex-life.}​

​

Maybe she is like Monica Lewinsky and kept semen stained dresses as well