Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

I agree with what you've written and you're take on how careful and cagey Nencini is being in producing his rigged guilty verdict. My only question is whether Nencini specifically acknowledges he is assigning male profiles to Meredith's female friends. I don't think he did that.

I think he got the facts wrong, and bent over backwards to reach the finding he wanted to, in contradiction to the evidence you're pointing to, but I don't think he is accepting the evidence that you are presenting as part of the case.

So you have a conflict between the evidence as it was actually presented, but not as Nencini claims he perceives it. (Did that come out right?).

I'm no fan of Nencini. I think he reached for a guilty decision no matter what, as he believes cassation had instructed him to do, and he explicitly states so much at the beginning of his motivation report.

But he is not so completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy as to knowingly assign male DNA to Meredith's female friends. I just don't think he did that. If you want to dredge up the Nencini paragraph again - or search for the discussion with Vibio (can't believe I wrote that).

I don't believe Nencini realized that all of the profiles, except for Meredith's, are male. I think he missed it. He really screwed up. He should have asked Machiavelli to proof his motivation report before releasing it. Machiavelli would have caught the error.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with what you've written and you're take on how careful and cagey Nencini is being in producing his rigged guilty verdict. My only question is whether Nencini specifically acknowledges he is assigning male profiles to Meredith's female friends. I don't think he did that.
I think he got the facts wrong, and bent over backwards to reach the finding he wanted to, in contradiction to the evidence you're pointing to, but I don't think he is accepting the evidence that you are presenting as part of the case.

So you have a conflict between the evidence as it was actually presented, but not as Nencini claims he perceives it. (Did that come out right?).

I'm no fan of Nencini. I think he reached for a guilty decision no matter what, as he believes cassation had instructed him to do, and he explicitly states so much at the beginning of his motivation report.

But he is not so completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy as to knowingly assign male DNA to Meredith's female friends. I just don't think he did that. If you want to dredge up the Nencini paragraph again - or search for the discussion with Vibio (can't believe I wrote that).

The issue is this: the pro-guilt lobby relies on the factoid that the Conti-Vecchiotti report was nulled-out along with the Hellmann *verdict**.

If that is true, why does Nencini spend ANY time at all even trying to refute Conti-Vecchiotti? Also, why at times in his report does he say that his court is not in a position to dispute certain things?

On page 241, Nencini's motivations report examines 3 points made by Conti-Vecchiotti in relation to Stefanoni's work. Why does Nencini discuss it at all if C-V has been annuled with Hellmann? Why the need to refute the independent experts findings?

As for the three remaining profiles - Nencini is simply ignorant of what Conti-Vecchiotti found in the remaining profiles. Machiavelli is quite correct, nowhere does Nencini concede that the three remaining profiles are all male; but that's not the point.

But Nencini spends sometime refuting Conti-Vecchiotti (cf. page 241), yet spend no ink at all in refuting C-V on that one detail that all the profiles are male,yet he's ignorant of it randomly (and without evidence) assigning the remaining two to "amica".

Note exactly how Machiavelli answers the question. Mach. always says that Nencini never concedes that the remaining two are Y-profiles.

That is both correct AND the problem. Nencini does not treat the C-V report as if it has been debunked by Cassazione; he addresses points in it. And he misses technical details - crudely, awkwardly and ignorantly.

No wonder Machiavelli is now not in a mood to support motivation reports. I just hope it's because he knows something we don't.

 

[Bill Williams]

I know this is one of Bill's favorites, but I think we found (courtesy of vibio no less), that a translation of Nencini has him finding 2-4 other profiles, or maybe even male profiles - so he takes the lower number of 2 - then assigns one to Raf and one to Meredith's boyfriend and ignores the other two, so that his motivation report is "compatible" with the evidence.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure we concluded Nencini was not actually suggesting women have "Y" DNA. He was just taking the lowest possible number of males, and assigning one extra to Meredith's boyfriend - purely speculatively and without a reference profile.

Read and/or translate page 243 of Nencini's report.



Nencini is simply ignorant of what he is suggesting.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is from the PMF translation of page 243:

Detailing the textual evidence of the [differences in] the two technical reports, as quoted above, is not merely an irrelevant detail, but an obligation, given that to assert in an expert report that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably exfoliation cells) belonging “only to Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” is absolutely not equivalent to the concept expressed in the sentence “The analysis of trace B allowed the extrapolation of a genetic profile coming from the mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals of which at least one male”.
But the real question that is relevant for justice is not represented by the presence of several contributors in the mixed DNA trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher wore on the evening she was killed, but by the presence of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA.

Indeed, from the little it was possible to find out about her from the statements in the case file, Meredith Kercher was a perfectly normal girl who had recently entered into a romantic relationship with one of the young men who lived in the semi-underground floor of the cottage, so it is reasonable to infer that she had a normal sexual life. This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA.​

For Nencini to have written an honest (and informed) report about this, he should have simply not put in the paragraph about Meredith's boyfriend and her (at least) two amicas. I mean, does not the pro-guilt lobby tell is that C-V is invalid? If it's invalid,why does Nencini feel the need to deal with one issue coming from it?

I believe he lets it slip by because, as he says, he's arguing for a non-innocent reason for Raffaele's DNA to be there, a reason Nencini argues has the irresistible inference that it is proof of his presence at the murder. Nencini THEN has to make mention of why the other profiles are there for innocent reason, NOT associated with the murder. (Why? Because he rejects contamination with the wave of a hand!)

Nencini then gets sloppy, speculates about things he really knows nothing about - when he should have just said; "The C-V report has been debunked and is not before this court, therefore in the absence of any opposition to Stefanoni, her analysis stands."

That would have taken care of it. My futile hope is that Cassazione in March 2015 realizes that Nencini exceeded his mandate, and was ignorant enough of technical issues to render his findings invalid.

 

[Strozzi]

The Washington Post has an article "Why your cheating team can do no wrong" about how individuals identify with groups (including sports teams) and merge their self-identity with the group (for a sports fan, it is no longer "me" but "we" the team of which I am now a team member). This think allows individuals to overlook or rationalize away wrongdoing (cheating) committed by the team. I see similarities in the willingness of many to overlook serious wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of the Kercher murder case. Rationalize away and excuse behavior and incompetence.

You may see the article by going to and scrolling down at:
http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperd...#_article34a1dbfa-9379-4c36-a95b-31afe34345b0

 

[Numbers]

The Washington Post has an article "Why your cheating team can do no wrong" about how individuals identify with groups (including sports teams) and merge their self-identity with the group (for a sports fan, it is no longer "me" but "we" the team of which I am now a team member). This think allows individuals to overlook or rationalize away wrongdoing (cheating) committed by the team. I see similarities in the willingness of many to overlook serious wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of the Kercher murder case. Rationalize away and excuse behavior and incompetence.

You may see the article by going to and scrolling down at:
http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperd...#_article34a1dbfa-9379-4c36-a95b-31afe34345b0

It is this "team spirit" rather than a highly planned conspiracy that is, I believe, responsible for much of the official misconduct in this case. The team players fudge their actions or statements to accommodate and preserve the cheating of a very few primary conspirators.

 

[Desert Fox]

But this is multiple crashes, one after another. It's more like a demolition derby, being falsely presented as a smooth test ride for a new car.

Both the bra clasp and the knife could have innocent explanations
The biggest problem I see is that they could have examined a few hundred items and they only selectively allow evidence which they think they can use to show guilt. They don't actually have to cook the individual items however.

 

[Dan O.]

If I remember correctly, Dr. Stefanoni did not herself locate and pick up the bra clasp from the floor in Meredith's room. I seem to recall that it was located under a corner of a rug and was "recovered" from there off-camera by a male police officer who passed it to Stefanoni. (question: If it was "recovered" off-camera, how did the camera miss it?)

I think you are remembering wrong. I don't have the part 2 video with me but from my wiki I have the index where you need to look. There may have only been the one man in the room that discovered the clasp but everybody was called in and I recall it was Stephony that first picked it up.

Video index|Photo|Photo Time|Description
00:34:26.64|053.jpg|15.52.32.80|clasp on floor
00.34.48.48|054.jpg|15.52.54.70|stef holding clasp, flashlight man pointing to it

Perhaps Machiavelli could help us out here and identify the person that actually rediscovered the clasp. Was there any testimony as to what he was doing back in that corner alone?

 

[Samson]

I think you are remembering wrong. I don't have the part 2 video with me but from my wiki I have the index where you need to look. There may have only been the one man in the room that discovered the clasp but everybody was called in and I recall it was Stephony that first picked it up.

Video index|Photo|Photo Time|Description
00:34:26.64|053.jpg|15.52.32.80|clasp on floor
00.34.48.48|054.jpg|15.52.54.70|stef holding clasp, flashlight man pointing to it

Perhaps Machiavelli could help us out here and identify the person that actually rediscovered the clasp. Was there any testimony as to what he was doing back in that corner alone?

Returning to the jail cell theory, it seems to fit best, because it delivers exactly what is required with a very high degree of certainty, a physical link to the crime scene with the desirable sexual component, at exactly the time it is needed.
And there is motive and opportunity. Indeed what better opportunity than this mystery operator?
If it walks like a duck etcetera,

What strikes me as fortuitous is that the clasp had been left behind. I can't see this as intentional. But it may have been a flash of inspiration on Mignini's part that he had a unique opportunity to sew the case up.
I suspect he was in denial that he might be wrong about the case, for survival reasons, and reacted like a cornered animal, but rationalised his behaviour nevertheless as being in the public interest.

If all the above sounds like conspiracy theory, a weak link will be revealed, and I can be persuaded otherwise.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It is this "team spirit" rather than a highly planned conspiracy that is, I believe, responsible for much of the official misconduct in this case. The team players fudge their actions or statements to accommodate and preserve the cheating of a very few primary conspirators.

-

It's also known as "group think", which is more of a social phenomenon than a purely psychological one, although psychology does play a large part in it, and some people even consider it an instinct. I like to call it, "the gathering together of the forces" to fight the enemy. In most "group think" scenarios, there almost always is an enemy to "gather together" against.

It's a very interesting phenomenon.

With Law Enforcement, it's known as the tin blue line, but the official meaning is actually different from what a lot of people think, which I think is a lot like a Three-Musketeers kind of mentality. One for all and all for one. It makes sense in a way, because one thing Law Enforcement needs (which is one of the reasons they band together like they do) is a lot of credibility.

I think what's going on in Italy is that there is no real smoking gun showing that they're innocent, so to outright disbelieve the police would be a major blow to LE's credibility, which I don 't think any judiciary really wants to do, so they're kind of stuck with the LE case until a smoking gun comes along.

Because, all that's out there is an ongoing debate, like the ones here. A debate that includes (but is not limited to) staged break-ins, alleged lies, wavering alibis, a precision DNA cleanup, the number of attackers, coerced confessions, a serial-witness heroin addict, odd behavior, contamination issues and arguements, disappearing DNA and missing EDF files, controversial luminol hits, suspicious pizza eating, hip swiveling, lingerie and bleach buying, a midnight scream and mysterious running feet, and oh yes, finally (this is for you Platonov), the cartwheel.

Neither side has convinced the other side of anything, and as for myself, I have my doubts about many things from either side, but in the end, I believe they are probably innocent.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it anyway. One of my biggest problems with them being guilty is the three attacker hypothesis. It's much more probable that Raffaele and Amanda would kill Meredith together (the odds are better), than if you throw Rudy into the mix, and then they become astronomically improbable to me, and that's just one of my many problems with them being guilty,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

Just saw the end of the Italy v Ireland rugby international, with Ireland (by far the stronger rugby nation) winning 26-3 (2 converted tries and 4 penalty goals to just 1 penalty goal).

In the last few minutes, Italy pressed hard and scrambled a bouncing ball down for a would-be try (touchdown), but the decision had to go to the TV replay. It became clear, unfortunately, that an Italian player reaching for the ball had just fractionally knocked it forward with his fingertips, nullifying the try before it went loose for another Italian player to scoop it up and get it down.

Of course the disappointed crowd booed and whistled, but the boos and whistles started not when the decision was announced but as the TV images - also visible in the ground - revealed the dreaded fact of the fingertip contact. Sadly, the team didn't have the Italian Supreme Court on their side to make up their own facts. In sport, objectivity and video recordings take precedence over national pride.

Italy plays rugby? Who knew. Where did they find 11 guys who don't live in mama's basement?

 

[jsfisher]

Please keep the topic of this thread in mind as you compose your posts. If needed, I have a supply of yellow markers that can be deployed to guide people away for making each other the subject, but it would be best if you stayed on topic without moderator assistance.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hammer strikes the nail

I would quite like to know why the bra clasp was not collected with sterile gloves or tweezers on the first day, along with the rest of clothes she was wearing. What sort of training had Stefanoni received that told her it was OK not only to leave that stuff behind but also to have it all jumbled up with other stuff?

anglolawyer,

It is bad enough that they missed it, but it is inexcusable to allow evidence into a case after this much time in a location where good forensic protocol had been abandoned. It is also beyond the pale that the clasp was allowed to rot and rust.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Y-chromosomal data are unambiguous

Anyway, even if it was any of the other handlers, it was a mixed gender group, right. In other words, the other handlers were both male and female?

That would prove contamination also if one of them is one of the profiles.

My understanding of forensic techs is that their DNA is on file, so if any of the evidence found had their DNA on it, that part of evidence could be eliminated as evidence,

d

-

Good practice demands keeping records of the DNA profiles of forensic lab workers, but we are talking Stefanoni's rules here, so it is anybody's guess.

There are clearly 2-4 additional male profiles in addition to one that could be from Raffaele (he is not excluded as a donor) on the bra clasp based on the YSTR data. I would be reluctant to draw firm conclusions about the gender of the extra contributor based solely on the standard (autosomal profile). Nencini just conjures up Giacomo's profile without actually having evidence that he is not excluded as a donor. This is risible, and it also only explains one extra profile. There is at least one more profile beyond that, and if you score peaks below 50 RFU (which Stefanoni did for the knife), then you can get up to four donors, beyond Raffaele.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hank Skinner's jacket

Even in Texas or Virginia, the "oops, I destroyed it" would look pretty bad.

Desert Fox,

What about the jacket in the Hank Skinner case? That has been lost, yet it might be very exculpatory for Mr. Skinner if it belonged to the deceased uncle, as it may well have. BTW, Skinner is the subject of a dead thread here, which could be resurrected. This might or might not be noble cause corruption. More generally it is difficult to distinguish between biased forensics and outright fraud. The Lindy Chamberlain case is one example.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

special dispensation

I previously asked if Stephanoni had any training to investigate a crime scene, her background was as a laboratory scientist.

Planigale,

I am not sure, but there was one report (in Darkness Descending IIRC) that she had to apply for special permission to be doing the collecting. Ordinarily these two operations are performed by separate teams IIUC.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm quite interested in this phrase "noble cause corruption", which I haven't really encountered before. It seems to me that this might explain quite a lot of what is sneered at as "conspiracy theorising" in relation to miscarriages of justice.

*Goes off to google it*

 

[Numbers]

If a tie, the defense wins

-


-

It's also known as "group think", which is more of a social phenomenon than a purely psychological one, although psychology does play a large part in it, and some people even consider it an instinct. I like to call it, "the gathering together of the forces" to fight the enemy. In most "group think" scenarios, there almost always is an enemy to "gather together" against.

It's a very interesting phenomenon.

With Law Enforcement, it's known as the tin blue line, but the official meaning is actually different from what a lot of people think, which I think is a lot like a Three-Musketeers kind of mentality. One for all and all for one. It makes sense in a way, because one thing Law Enforcement needs (which is one of the reasons they band together like they do) is a lot of credibility.

I think what's going on in Italy is that there is no real smoking gun showing that they're innocent, so to outright disbelieve the police would be a major blow to LE's credibility, which I don 't think any judiciary really wants to do, so they're kind of stuck with the LE case until a smoking gun comes along.

Because, all that's out there is an ongoing debate, like the ones here. A debate that includes (but is not limited to) staged break-ins, alleged lies, wavering alibis, a precision DNA cleanup, the number of attackers, coerced confessions, a serial-witness heroin addict, odd behavior, contamination issues and arguements, disappearing DNA and missing EDF files, controversial luminol hits, suspicious pizza eating, hip swiveling, lingerie and bleach buying, a midnight scream and mysterious running feet, and oh yes, finally (this is for you Platonov), the cartwheel.

Neither side has convinced the other side of anything, and as for myself, I have my doubts about many things from either side, but in the end, I believe they are probably innocent.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it anyway. One of my biggest problems with them being guilty is the three attacker hypothesis. It's much more probable that Raffaele and Amanda would kill Meredith together (the odds are better), than if you throw Rudy into the mix, and then they become astronomically improbable to me, and that's just one of my many problems with them being guilty,

d

-

If the prosecution does not have a case established beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendants are to be found "not guilty". One failure in the Italian judiciary, with the exception of the Hellmann court, is that none of the judges actually understands this concept.

 

[Numbers]

The way it's supposed to be

Planigale,

I am not sure, but there was one report (in Darkness Descending IIRC) that she had to apply for special permission to be doing the collecting. Ordinarily these two operations are performed by separate teams IIUC.

The proper procedure is for the specimen collection on the crime scene to be done by a persons who do not do the DNA quantification and profiling. Those who do the DNA quantification and profiling ideally should be "blind" to whether they are testing a suspect, a victim, or someone else.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would quite like to know why the bra clasp was not collected with sterile gloves or tweezers on the first day, along with the rest of clothes she was wearing. What sort of training had Stefanoni received that told her it was OK not only to leave that stuff behind but also to have it all jumbled up with other stuff?

anglolawyer,

It is bad enough that they missed it, but it is inexcusable to allow evidence into a case after this much time in a location where good forensic protocol had been abandoned. It is also beyond the pale that the clasp was allowed to rot and rust.

Add to all this the allegation from a poster here on this thread - someone very familiar with the first prosecution - that the bra-clasp itself was dirty enough to contaminate Stefanoni's gloves.

No innocentisti has been cheeky enough to suggest that contamination went in that direction. Usually the claim is that the obviously dirty gloves contaminated the bra-clasp as Stefanoni held it by the hooks.

The claim upthread is that the clasp was dirty enough to make Stefanoni's otherwise clean gloves dirty - as seen in the photos.

I am not sure you can make this up.