Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[sept79]

.
.
It's not unheard of for innocent people to be framed, but would she (Stefanoni) do it, and if she did, why?
.
.

1. Why did Stefanoni withhold the negative TMB results on the luminol prints and blobs?

2. Why did Stefanoni testify the Kercher DNA on the knife was in the order of a few hundred picograms?

3. Why did Stefanoni say the knife sample was quantified with Real Time PCR when it wasn't?

4. Why did Stefanoni falsify her RTIGF Report #1--page 77 records sample B as being assessed with Real Time PCR when it wasn't?

5. Why did Stefanoni falsify her RTIGF Report #2 where her labwork shows the opposite of what she claims: RTIGF page 78 –- “the samples testing positive to quantification (samples A and B) were subjected to amplification and subsequent capillary electrophoresis…”?

6. Why did Stefanoni destroy evidence--the bra clasp was destroyed making re-testing impossible?

7. Why has Stefanoni not delivered the electronic data files to the defense?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520207a87a.jpg[/qimg]

And this my interpretation, its overlapping with the blade:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520b91f08a.jpg[/qimg]

You have a scale in one picture but not the other. Why is that?

 

[Numbers]

You have a scale in one picture but not the other. Why is that?

Note that in the photo, the blood stains marking the edges of the blade end before the solid (continuous) approximately rectangular stain, further confirming that rectangular stain marks the contact of the sheet with the knife handle. Note that the photo shows a "double" outline of stains defining the blade, indicating a movement or wobble of the blade, not the depth of blade shown by Mach's reconstruction.

Mach's reconstruction of the knife that made these stains is fanciful and arbitrary.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale. (But for what reason?)

This is wrong. Framing 'on a massive scale' multiplies the chances of exposure. What would framing 'on a massive scale' look like anyway?

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?
And their reported fear that Stefanoni and the Rome scietific police wanted to frame their client?

Their fears were justified. Stefanoni's conduct reeks to high heaven of fraud. Only her gross incompetence serves to mask it from those who can't face it.

 

[Desert Fox]

Some even have false confessions, even when the confession doesn't match the evidence. All the judicary (and jury, in the US) sees are the three words, "I did it," and nothing matters after that.

The cop thing, I believe, is called the "Thin Blue Line", and there was even a movie by that name about a true to life wrongful conviction, and the movie actually helped straighten out that wrongful conviction. I haven't seen it, so maybe I should and shut-up about it until then.

In the US anyway, it seems to me that judges don't really like stepping all over other judge's decisions (especially murder cases) and that is sometimes part of the problem behind innocent convictions, and none of that really needs a conspiracy to be true, and I don't see any reason why Italy would be any different.

And once again, this is all just my opinion,

d

ETA: I can understand why judges (in the US) would not really like to do a lot of stepping (the higher courts do it more than the lower ones), How confusing would that be if all judges overturn all other judges daily. Even, if it was just precedents alone, in my opinion any way.

Some call all of this conspiracy and what most of us are arguing that the AK/RS trials is in this pattern although maybe turned up a couple of notches. . . .

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This is wrong. Framing 'on a massive scale' multiplies the chances of exposure. What would framing 'on a massive scale' look like anyway?

Their fears were justified. Stefanoni's conduct reeks to high heaven of fraud. Only her gross incompetence serves to mask it from those who can't face it.

-

I'm the one who brought up the massive scale idea. My original thought was, if she was manufacturing evidence, why did she need to go get the bra-clasp?

I personally believe that she really believes her new-age vodoo forensics is the next big step in legal forensics, but I still have to laugh if she really did say her lab had no contamination. Ha ha,

But, I don't believe she would literally manufacture evidence,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Some call all of this conspiracy and what most of us are arguing that the AK/RS trials is in this pattern although maybe turned up a couple of notches. . . .

-

I don't understand. Are you saying that you believe in a full blown conspiracy and everyone's in on it, even Hellman?

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't understand. Are you saying that you believe in a full blown conspiracy and everyone's in on it, even Hellman?

Err, I don't think by what you mean

I think what happening is a combination of incompetence and stubbornness, combined with some conspiracy between individuals involved.

That said, I think many involve know that they are innocent but they are covering their butts and/or have this bull that they don't know how to get off of.

The easiest solution and the least painful actually would be to admit that they are wrong and offer restitution. The longer it goes on, the more ugly the situation will become.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Err, I don't think by what you mean

I think what happening is a combination of incompetence and stubbornness, combined with some conspiracy between individuals involved.

That said, I think many involve know that they are innocent but they are covering their butts and/or have this bull that they don't know how to get off of.

The easiest solution and the least painful actually would be to admit that they are wrong and offer restitution. The longer it goes on, the more ugly the situation will become.

-

Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of all that, and I really can't argue about most of it, a lot of conspiracies aren't as complex as some people think they are and from what I understand, some conspiracy theories have been proven to be true. I can't remember them off hand, but if anyone really wants to know, a simple wiki (or Google) search should bring them up,

d

-

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Note that in the photo, the blood stains marking the edges of the blade end before the solid (continuous) approximately rectangular stain, further confirming that rectangular stain marks the contact of the sheet with the knife handle. Note that the photo shows a "double" outline of stains defining the blade, indicating a movement or wobble of the blade, not the depth of blade shown by Mach's reconstruction.

Mach's reconstruction of the knife that made these stains is fanciful and arbitrary.

Well, we can't say without a better picture.

But let's say I wouldn't be very surprised if the far end of the blade didn't quite line up with the 15cm mark on the measuring tape, and that the photo was cropped just so that we could not make that observation.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of all that, and I really can't argue about most of it, a lot of conspiracies aren't as complex as some people think they are and from what I understand, some conspiracy theories have been proven to be true. I can't remember them off hand, but if anyone really wants to know, a simple wiki (or Google) search should bring them up,

While most conspiracies are pretty small scale, real life large conspiracies do exist. . . .Think about organized crime for example.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

While most conspiracies are pretty small scale, real life large conspiracies do exist. . . .Think about organized crime for example.

-

Bingo. Perfect example of a large (scale) conspiracy, the drug trade is one of the best examples of that also,

Which surprise surprise (according to some people anyway) also has a small bearing on this case,

d

-
ETA: hell, if you think about it (from just the right angle), large corporations and religions and GOVERNMENTS (and I could go on, but they) are ALL large scale conspiracies on some level or the other.

-

 

[Numbers]

-


-

I'm the one who brought up the massive scale idea. My original thought was, if she was manufacturing evidence, why did she need to go get the bra-clasp?

I personally believe that she really believes her new-age vodoo forensics is the next big step in legal forensics, but I still have to laugh if she really did say her lab had no contamination. Ha ha,

But, I don't believe she would literally manufacture evidence,

d

-

She isn't "manufacturing" evidence as in a factory. She merely reruns samples until there is a convenient contamination accident, or relies on contamination through improper handling. Or she makes up new procedures without validating them. And, of course, she doesn't report these little miraculous happenings of contamination or rerunning samples when no one is looking. In her mind, perhaps, it is God or nature who is responsible for the contamination. She doesn't "intentionally" put it there, but she merely doesn't follow procedures that reduce the probability of contamination.

ETA: And she is careful to never reveal her original data - the electronic data files - that would show the contamination level and actual equipment settings during the DNA profiling. That stubborn refusal to show original data is one sign of scientific fraud.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

1. Why did Stefanoni withhold the negative TMB results on the luminol prints and blobs?

2. Why did Stefanoni testify the Kercher DNA on the knife was in the order of a few hundred picograms?

3. Why did Stefanoni say the knife sample was quantified with Real Time PCR when it wasn't?

4. Why did Stefanoni falsify her RTIGF Report #1--page 77 records sample B as being assessed with Real Time PCR when it wasn't?

5. Why did Stefanoni falsify her RTIGF Report #2 where her labwork shows the opposite of what she claims: RTIGF page 78 –- “the samples testing positive to quantification (samples A and B) were subjected to amplification and subsequent capillary electrophoresis…”?

6. Why did Stefanoni destroy evidence--the bra clasp was destroyed making re-testing impossible?

7. Why has Stefanoni not delivered the electronic data files to the defense?

-

Yeah, those are some of the same questions I have also. It's what makes her work look (to be kind) suspicious, but I attribute this bit to this new-age voodoo forensic thing she's got going.

If you think about it though, before the 1950s, a lot of inventions and discoveries were made in unsanitary conditions, and yes even crimes were solved, so, who's to really say what the next big thing might be,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

She isn't "manufacturing" evidence as in a factory. She merely reruns samples until there is a convenient contamination accident, or relies on contamination through improper handling. Or she makes up new procedures without validating them. And, of course, she doesn't report these little miraculous happenings of contamination or rerunning samples when no one is looking. In her mind, perhaps, it is God or nature who is responsible for the contamination. She doesn't "intentionally" put it there, but she merely doesn't follow procedures that reduce the probability of contamination.

ETA: And she is careful to never reveal her original data - the electronic data files - that would show the contamination level and actual equipment settings during the DNA profiling. That stubborn refusal to show original data is one sign of scientific fraud.

-

These are exactly the kind of things I am referring to when I say new-age voodoo forensics.

Oh, and don't forget, leaving evidence in the refrigerators at the murder scenes, so it wouldn't go bad on her. I think of this as the voodoo part,

d

-

 

[Annella]

No. He used a balcony.

No. He climbed THEN used a balcony. And the cottage climb was said to be around 3 metres, Brocchi estimates 3 to 4 metres at his office. And with windows from nearby apartments facing where the break in occurred!! Seems this particular burglar wasn't in the least concerned about being seen at that Law Office, nor the cottage.

Defence Counsel Luca Maori questions Paolo Brocchi...

LM: Is your property alarmed?

PB: The building had an alarm system, but that night it was not activated, because I discovered in reconstructing the affair, it had just been installed. That evening I went out around 8 or 8:30 and I remember perfectly that I didn’t activate the alarm system. The strange thing that I can highlight in this respect is that I noticed that the alarm system the next day, when we went, it was damaged because the light was always on, even if it is disabled, and the person or persons who entered din’t damage the alarm, but they just deactivated the phone dialer, so with this the their shows a certain competence in electronics, and alarms because to disable a phone dialer without damaging the alarm I wouldn’t be able, despite being the owner, so I would not have this expertise.

LM: Another thing. You said then from a window that br…

PB: Yes, apparently.

LM: This breaking and entering was only there.

PB: Yes.

LM: Is it a window that overlooks the main road or onto a private courtyard?

PB: No. So, the window overlooks a private courtyard which then is protected from the public area, by another gate. So chances are, I do not know if this can be … because then near that window there are other windows of other apartments, which are … There is a window which is about one meter from the balcony of my office, then anything is possible. But anyways this person or these people, if they were passing through from a public street, would have had to open a gate that overlooks a private property and then, with the help I do not know what resources, climb up about three meters, four meters, on a vertical wall to get to the terrace of my office where the window was located, where it is still located and then through this window to enter inside the office If it were this way.

LM: The burglary occurred in this window three or four meters up.

PB: Roughly.

LM: Did you find ladders nearby?

PB: No.

LM: Have you found other equipment?

PB: No. We also did an inspection, as I recall, with the crew of police squad. We say, the property just below the office has a door, as we say secured with a type of grating that a particularly gifted person could even climb up. It might, I don’t know, this is a guess.

LM: However of course it was not easy to climb.

PB: Absolutely not.

Source:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/paolo-brocchi/

 

[MDDVS]

Of course (and it's particularly easy there). But this is what I am saying, and it's within the statistics I mentioned. Something like 30% of break-ins are from second floor windows, but they are all windows or doors that can be accessed from a surface at that same level, a balcony or a roof, where the burglar can stand.

I am talking about statistics I had already quoted years ago.

By the way, I don't know this yar statistics but recent figures are there are between 600 and 900 break-ins per year in the Province of Perugia.

It's not true. I presented examples here of break ins from 3rd and 4th floors. Some burglars are quite adept of climbing.

 

[Numbers]

Well, we can't say without a better picture.

But let's say I wouldn't be very surprised if the far end of the blade didn't quite line up with the 15cm mark on the measuring tape, and that the photo was cropped just so that we could not make that observation.

Each blood stain (with the possible exception of round ones, which are likely the result of drops) represents a contact between the actual knife and the sheet. The almost rectangular, solid-filled stain, which in Mach's mock-up is under the large blade, would thus represent a raised rectangular surface on the blade. Is there such a surface on any blade, and in particular the one from Raffaele's kitchen? (I doubt very much that there is.)

To the left of the relative large circular stain there is the suggestion of a pointed tip in the stain pattern; there is a recursion or turn back of the stain. The tip of Mach's mock-up goes well past that point.

There is no reasonable explanation for the various linear and nearly round stains under the blade of Mach's mock-up; they are more reasonably considered blood stains left by the edges of the real knife blade.

 

[Antony]

It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale.

That would be a fair enough point if the so-called prosecution "evidence" was in any way convincing. The fact that it consists of just 2 transparent conjuring tricks (combined with a lot of destruction and concealment of genuine evidence) demonstrates their confidence that nothing they did would ever be exposed to scrutiny. The behaviour of the courts thus far shows that this confidence was well-founded.

(But for what reason?)

The motives are as diverse as the ones ascribed to Amanda and Raff by the prosecution. But you don't need to identify a motive for a frame-up when you have clear-cut evidence that it's happened.

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?

The question isn't why Raff and his lawyers initially hesitated to have the stain tested, but why the prosecution and the courts refused to do so. It's not the only thing they're hiding, Machiavelli.

(ETA: my guess is that they've already tested it, but the results didn't suit their case, so they hid them - just like they're hiding the audio-video recordings of the interrogations.)

 

[Planigale]

Planigale,

Has Machiavelli backed up the claim that you quoted with a citation of a particular statute? IIRC Chris Mellas wrote a comment to Frank Sfarzo's blog, in which he said that with respect to the testing on one date, they were given only a few hours notice, and it is about 2 hours just to travel from Perugia to Rome. Professor Potenza was an observer, and he raised objections: "...both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification products of extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI (Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci."

In Professor Dan Krane's opinion, observing the testing is almost worthless, but having the electronic data files is critical to a complete case review. I would add that it would be more important to observe Stefanoni doing the analysis, as opposed to the testing.

We also know that in 2008 Professor Pascali was denied his request for electropherograms that just had the peak heights on them, let alone actual raw data. The analogy that you are trying to draw doesn't work for me. If a lawyer fails to raise an issue during the trial, that is one thing, but we are talking about pretrial discovery. In addition, if a lawyer does a very poor job, his or her client may appear on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We also know that Machiavelli's whole argument is dubious; Professor Novelli was apparently able to get what he wanted just by saying "pretty please."

BTW, I found that I did not remember Professor Potenza's second report, especially with respect to the DNA found at Rudy Guede's apartment. For example, "148) 3 samples of presumed blood substance carried out on a towel found in the bathroom: DNA analysis have provided a profile attributed to Rudy Guede." Sounds like someone was bleeding in his apartment.

I do not know if the defence made objections at the time. I am ignorant of how this is documented. certainly as I have said I do not think that with modern complex techniques turning up to observe particularly at short notice is a reasonable way to guarantee quality. One needs access ton protocols and manuals prior to the test being carried out otherwise how can one know whether the methodology is correct.

It strikes me that what is continually highlighted is the need for the Italian legal system to evolve. What I think even Mach will admit is the Italian political system does not make change easy in any sphere.