Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
I'm afraid it's not me the person you describe.
Click to expand...

Apologies for not being clear. You admitted that Amanda handled the knife AFTER the murder. The knife was found 5 days after the murder in a different location.

You've just disqualified the knife as evidence.
 
Bill Williams said:
Probably not. As Machiavelli reminds us, in Italy people giving evidence are not on trial. Especially police, they are simply giving the facts and no one has the right to ask how they came to the conclusions they did.
Click to expand...

Of course they have the right to ask them how they came to their conclusions.
Indeed all witnesses can be asked things through cross-questionings in the courtroom, and by that their credibility can be questioned.

But if the theory is that a witness is lying, there is also a burden of proof on this.

And also, this can happen only inside courtroom. Parties are not supposed claim or "prove" or proclaim they have "proven" something in press conferences or through PR campaigns.
 
Machiavelli said:
Of course they have the right to ask them how they came to their conclusions.
Indeed all witnesses can be asked things through cross-questionings in the courtroom, and by that their credibility can be questioned.

But if the theory is that a witness is lying, there is also a burden of proof on this.

And also, this can happen only inside courtroom. Parties are not supposed claim or "prove" or proclaim they have "proven" something in press conferences or through PR campaigns.
Click to expand...

What's the point? You believe testimonies... even untested ones, even ones the result of lying.
 
Machiavelli said:
If the sample was re-processed secretly, otuside the incidente probatorio procedure, then prof. Potenza wouldn't know about the finding of Meredith's DNA profile.
Yet he wrote a report about it. He knew about it. He signed the minutes of the laboratory work session. He was there.
Click to expand...

Nice catch! Unfortunately it's the first run that's been deep-sixed. You know, the contaminated one.
 
Bill Williams said:
What's the point? You believe testimonies... even untested ones, even ones the result of lying.
Click to expand...

"untested"?
What does "tested testimony" mean?

If a defence lawyer in the courtroom presents a claim that a witness is lying, and presents evidence of that, this is ok.

What's your problem?
 
Diocletus said:
Nice catch! Unfortunately it's the first run that's been deep-sixed. You know, the contaminated one.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know. Tell us more about it; also tell us how you discover that the phantom first DNA result you believe existed was a consequence of contamination, and not evidence itself (bear in mind that negative controls of 36B were seen by Potenza).

I know claims of laboratory contamination were dismissed after prof. Novelli analyzed all previous runs showing no trace of contamination (and also no possibility of it, since no samples from Meredith's were analyzed in the previous days); but I also know that the negative controls of the 36B finding were deposited, and that prof. Potenza was assisting at the test, that included his confirming that negative controls were indeed negative.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
"untested"?
What does "tested testimony" mean?

If a defence lawyer in the courtroom presents a claim that a witness is lying, and presents evidence of that, this is ok.

What's your problem?
Click to expand...

I have no problem.

For instance, it is Stefanoni's testimony that she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself touched the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Do you believe Stefanoni's testimony?

 
Machiavelli said:
No, I don't know. Tell us more about it; also tell us how you discover that the phantom first DNA result you believe existed was a consequence of contamination, and not evidence itself (bear in mind that negative controls of 36B were seen by Potenza).

I know claims of laboratory contamination were dismissed after prof. Novelli analyzed all previous runs showing no trace of contamination (and also no possibility of it, since no samples from Meredith's were analyzed in the previous days); but I also know that the negative controls of the 36B finding were deposited, and that prof. Potenza was assisting at the test, that included his confirming that negative controls were indeed negative.
Click to expand...

Potenza wasn't there for the run of plate 365 (first), he never saw the relevant controls, and the controls that stefanoni deposited are from a different plate, not 365bis. Any more questions?

As for Novelli, he's full of crap. Also, he must have missed the contamination that we can see in the quantification results, otherwise the perugia courthouse would have been struck by several meteors by now.
 
-

LondonJohn said:
It's really not difficult at all to understand.

Sollecito can only be responsible for his own actions (and non-actions: e.g. not participating in the Kercher murder). He is not responsible for Knox. It is not his place to argue for Knox's innocence - it's purely his place to argue his own innocence.

The fact remains that it's still just possible - in theory - that Knox might conceivably have (for reasons unknown) chosen to steal Sollecito's keys from his pocket while he was sleeping/dozing, gone out and participated in the Kercher murder, then crept back into Sollecito's apartment and replaced his keys. Sollecito cannot say with 100% certainty that this did not happen. For obvious reasons. But he can say (and has said, repeatedly) that he doesn't believe Knox had anything to do with it either.

It baffles me how a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators cannot (or will not?) see the real picture here. Frankly, anyone in Sollecito's position would be strongly advised to take exactly the same line. Of course, if one is predisposed against Sollecito and Knox, then I guess it's all too easy to let the combination of poor thinking, vindictiveness, anger and wish-fulfillment cloud the judgement..........
Click to expand...
-

Amanda did not need to steal Raffaele's keys to get back into his apartment building.

I've lived in many locked apartment buildings, and one way is to put a small rock in the hinged part of the front door so it doesn't close completely and lock. There are many other ways also, This is just one example,

d

-
 
Bill Williams said:
I have no problem.

For instance, it is Stefanoni's testimony that she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself touched the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Do you believe Stefanoni's testimony?
Click to expand...

It was the bra clasp that was dirty. The glove got dirty when it manipulated the bra clasp, and when it picked it up from behind the carpet where it was found.
 
Diocletus said:
Potenza wasn't there for the run of plate 365 (first), he never saw the relevant controls, and the controls that stefanoni deposited are from a different plate, not 365bis. Any more questions?

As for Novelli, he's full of crap. Also, he must have missed the contamination that we can see in the quantification results, otherwise the perugia courthouse would have been struck by several meteors by now.
Click to expand...

I think you are in a corner. If your claim is that Meredith's DNA was found in the previous run, either this was contaminated, or it was a piece of evidence.
If it was contaminated, you may only imply there was evidence of contamination, which lead to the decision to suppress it, and contamination on a single run could only be detected through negative controls.
But if negative controls showed contamination in 365, how does it happen that they turned out all negatives in the following run, 365bis, under the eyes of Potenza?

And Novelli analyzed also the 105 tests performed over the previous 6 days, during which no trace of Meredith was found. It's strange that the defend didn't make any request for raw data in their reasons for appeal, and it's also strange that she Hellmann ordered the rinnovazione dibattimentale they still didn't come to the laboratory to access the files, as Novelli did.
 
Machiavelli said:
Your friends should advice you about how not being ridiculous. Their guilt doesn't violate any law of physics, and of biology neither.
Click to expand...
My friends wouldn't be that ambitious, but physics and the stats of comparative strength between genders* says the rock was thrown from the carpark by Rudy or Raffaele, you choose, and what time of night. Laws of biology say she died at nine pm, and almost certainly ate pizza and desert consecutively at 7 30pm, and it was unnoticed by her friends that she did not touch her pizza till then.

* The female shot is 8.8 pounds, the same weight as the rock and is thrown in competition about the same distance as the male shot which is 16 pounds.
 
Last edited:
-

Bill Williams said:
I have no problem.

For instance, it is Stefanoni's testimony that she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself touched the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Do you believe Stefanoni's testimony?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:
It was the bra clasp that was dirty. The glove got dirty when it manipulated the bra clasp, and when it picked it up from behind the carpet where it was found.
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
The bra clasp wasn't dirty. Dirt doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
-

Hmm, very interesting exchange about the bra clasp. Was the glove contaminated or not, or was it the other way around, the glove contaminated the bra-clasp?

On the one hand, the bra-clasp was on the floor for a few weeks, so it's plausible that it got dirty and that dirt was transferred to Steffi's glove.

On the other hand, it's too bad we can't see the electronic files, retest the DNA on the clasp, or even find out who the other profiles are.

Because, this would help tell me for sure whether Mach is right or not.

Mach, how EXACTLY do you know with such certainty that the dirt on Steffi's glove is from the bra-clasp?

Because, I also find it plausible that the dirt on her glove could have come from the door knob to Meredith's room (which Raffaele had touched and tried to open), which is also a possible route of contamination,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
I think you are in a corner. If your claim is that Meredith's DNA was found in the previous run, either this was contaminated, or it was a piece of evidence.
If it was contaminated, you may only imply there was evidence of contamination, which lead to the decision to suppress it, and contamination on a single run could only be detected through negative controls.
But if negative controls showed contamination in 365, how does it happen that they turned out all negatives in the following run, 365bis, under the eyes of Potenza?

And Novelli analyzed also the 105 tests performed over the previous 6 days, during which no trace of Meredith was found. It's strange that the defend didn't make any request for raw data in their reasons for appeal, and it's also strange that she Hellmann ordered the rinnovazione dibattimentale they still didn't come to the laboratory to access the files, as Novelli did.
Click to expand...

I already told you that the controls that stefanoni has offered belong to a subsequent plate, and not 365bis.

The entirety of plate nos 365 and 365bis constitute the controls for 36b, so let's see them. If we can't see them, it's because something is being hidden.

There weren't 105 interceding tests. Novelli is full of crap.
 
Machiavelli said:
It was the bra clasp that was dirty. The glove got dirty when it manipulated the bra clasp, and when it picked it up from behind the carpet where it was found.
Click to expand...

AmyStrange said:
-






-

Hmm, very interesting exchange about the bra clasp. Was it contaminated or not, or was it just dirty.

On the one hand, the bra-clasp was on the floor for a few weeks, so it's plausible that it got dirty and that dirt was transferred to Steffi's glove.

On the other hand, it's too bad we can't see the electronic files, retest the DNA on the clasp, or even find out who the other profiles are.

Because, this would help tell me for sure whether Mach is right or not.

Mach, how EXACTLY do you know with such certainty that the dirt on Steffi's glove is from the bra-clasp?

I also find it plausible that the dirt on her glove could have come from the door knob to Meredith's room (which Raffaele had touched and tried to open) and also a possible route of contamination,

d

-
Click to expand...

Why is Stefanoni handling the clasp by one of its hooks AT ALL!!!!!

The constant refrain from the pro-guilt lobby is it is up to us to prove contamination. The reality is that it is up to the police/prosecution/courts to prove that evidence was collected in a manner which would avoid contamination.

Take another look at the photo. Stefanoni is handling the clasp and the hook. In the film her department took of this, it shows her turning the clasp over and over passing it from one hand to another.

Why is she handling it at all!!!! Add this to it being found 46 days after the horrid murder, and it was found in a place different from where it was photographed on the 2nd of Nov.

What does it take to get a piece of evidence thrown out in an Italian court? What does beyond a reasonable doubt mean? This is the sole case against Raffaele, squeezed right between Stefanoni's dirty-gloved fingers. Raffaele could spend the next 20+ years in jail on the basis of this.

And for his part, Machiavelli simply pulls out of thin air, an explanation for Stefanoni having a dirty glove - and it doesn't occur to him that this shoudl expose Stefanoni for what she is.

Napoleoni, at trial, admitted that the 118 Medical staff came into Meredith's room to examine the body - with no protective gear. Battistelli was said by an unconcerned witness to have also gone in to lift the duvet to see if the victim was dead or alive. Battistelli lied about that at trial, saying he had not gone in. Does that mean he risked that Meredith could have still been alive and potentially revivable?

What does it take to see this case for what it is?
 
Last edited:
-

Bill Williams said:
Why is Stefanoni handling the clasp by one of its hooks AT ALL!!!!!

The constant refrain from the pro-guilt lobby is it is up to us to prove contamination. The reality is that it is up to the police/prosecution/courts to prove that evidence was collected in a manner which would avoid contamination.

Take another look at the photo. Stefanoni is handling the clasp and the hook. In the film her department took of this, it shows her turning the clasp over and over passing it from one hand to another.

Why is she handling it at all!!!! Add this to it being found 46 days after the horrid murder, and it was found in a place different from where it was photographed on the 2nd of Nov.

What does it take to get a piece of evidence thrown out in an Italian court? What does beyond a reasonable doubt mean? This is the sole case against Raffaele, squeezed right between Stefanoni's dirty-gloved fingers. Raffaele could spend the next 20+ years in jail on the basis of this.

And for his part, Machiavelli simply pulls out of thin air, an explanation for Stefanoni having a dirty glove - and it doesn't occur to him that this shoudl expose Stefanoni for what she is.

Napoleoni, at trial, admitted that the 118 Medical staff came into Meredith's room to examine the body - with no protective gear. Battistelli was said by an unconcerned witness to have also gone in to lift the duvet to see if the victim was dead or alive. Battistelli lied about that at trial, saying he had not gone in. Does that mean he risked that Meredith could have still been alive and potentially revivable?

What does it take to see this case for what it is?
Click to expand...
-

Isn't there a video of them passing it around and then dropping it back down on the floor?

I think of it this way, would you do that with a knife if it had been found in the room, pass it around and then drop it back down on the floor.

I was thinking of the following while reading your post, One of the unknown profiles could be Steffi's. That's one of the reason's I would like to know what those other profiles are. If one of them is her's, that would prove contamination,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom