Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

But Mignini didn't have anything to do with the appeal in Florence nor has he anything to do with the hearing before the SC.

As for Stefanoni I'm not sure your conclusions are correct. Can you explain what you mean by an independent expert?

Conti-Vecchiotti were appointed by the Hellmann court as independent DNA analysts. Even though it had been requested at the first-grade trial to appoint experts independent of the police, Massei refused that request. Hellmann allowed it, and that is the difference in the DNA analysis of this case.

From the Idaho Innocence Project, to Chris Halkides on this board (who can speak for himself, and perhaps to this issue) there is no one on the planet who would do forensic DNA analysis the way Stefanoni did. To most, as I understand it, they believe contamination is almost certain.

Machiavelli upthread now uses the rhetorical escape route that this is not a DNA case anyway. He's invoking the guilter strategy of "all the other evidence". There is no other evidence once the DNA is debunked.

We've been around that merry-go-round dozens of times, which is why ISF is on it's 13th Continuation of this thread.

For instance, AmyStrange points out to Machiavelli - if you'll still say Amanda had something to do with the murder with NO forensics in the murder room, how can you then turn around and claim Rudy did not climb in through Filomena's window on similar grounds - that Stefanoni's scientific police did not find any of Rudy's Forensic presence in that room?

And now Machiavelli is also implying that the reason why Stefanoni would not do a full forensic sweep of Filomena's room, was because she was not ordered to, and cannot look for things on her own initiative.

However, AmyStrange's analogy stands. Machiavelli has no answer.

ETA - re: Mignini - this case became "political" when Rocco Girlanda threatened an inquiry about this case after the Hellmann acquittals. There are some who believe that regardless of whether or not Mignini was involved with the Florence case or even the Supreme Court, that (as Hellmann said) the power of the PMs was at stake with this case.

Truly I do not know what to make of that, except to put it out there. It is infinitely better than Machiavelli's counter-conspiracy theory that The Perugian President of the Appeals Court manipulated things to appoint Judge Hellmann to the first second-grade trial, because of Masonic and American media manipulation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sheesh.

There you go again. You misrepresent Raffaele. You misrepresent what he said in his book.

He said he became unsure about whether or not Amanda had left, because the cops kept telling him she did. But he worked it out on his own - in solitary confinement.

(...)

I have read his book, and I disagree, but even in the event that your argument was true, the conclusion would be the same: in his book, he is sure Knox never left his apartment (how and why he becomes sure doesn't change that his firm position is that he is sure).
In his interview, and in his current defence position, he is not.
And this is basically what his defensive line points out.

 

[Machiavelli]

Conti-Vecchiotti were appointed by the Hellmann court as independent DNA analysts. Even though it had been requested at the first-grade trial to appoint experts independent of the police, Massei refused that request. Hellmann allowed it, and that is the difference in the DNA analysis of this case.

From the Idaho Innocence Project, to Chris Halkides on this board (who can speak for himself, and perhaps to this issue) there is no one on the planet who would do forensic DNA analysis the way Stefanoni did. To most, as I understand it, they believe contamination is almost certain.

Machiavelli upthread now uses the rhetorical escape route that this is not a DNA case anyway. He's invoking the guilter strategy of "all the other evidence". There is no other evidence once the DNA is debunked.

We've been around that merry-go-round dozens of times, which is why ISF is on it's 13th Continuation of this thread.

For instance, AmyStrange points out to Machiavelli - if you'll still say Amanda had something to do with the murder with NO forensics in the murder room, how can you then turn around and claim Rudy did not climb in through Filomena's window on similar grounds - that Stefanoni's scientific police did not find any of Rudy's Forensic presence in that room?

And now Machiavelli is also implying that the reason why Stefanoni would not do a full forensic sweep of Filomena's room, was because she was not ordered to, and cannot look for things on her own initiative.

However, AmyStrange's analogy stands. Machiavelli has no answer.

(...)

There is an answer, if you go back in the thread where you picked Planigale's argument, you will find it.

 

[Samson]

There are basically two possibilities.
The first, is that the knife was at the cottage or in Raffaele's car together with cooking items (fish, foot, coutelry) for innocent reasons.
What makes me inclined to think so is that Raffaele talks in his book about cooking elaborate meals at Meredith's while testimonies say that they never did so. Also, Sollecito talks about using a similar knife at the cottage and even of pricking Meredith on her hand with the point. On the other hand, at the beginning Sollecito talked about being at a little party that night. Amanda Knox talks about Sollecito cooking an elaborate fish meal that evening. Based on those hints there is a good chance to place the knife at the cottage or inside Sollecito's car (parked there) just as a cooking tool.

The second option is that someone fetched the knife at some point during the evening in order to carry out some questionable plot (a prank or a hazing). This is not impossible if we take in account Knox's precedents, that include a terrifying burglary prank on her housemate in Seattle.
It is possible also because Meredith's housedoor and Sollecito's apartment are only 400 meters apart, therefore you would need about 7-8 minutes to go fetch the knife and come back.
Even in this event however there wouldn't be premediatation as for jurisprudence. Premeditation is a charge that requires a plan of a specific crime and a significant time lapse, it must be planned in some context and situation that is clearly different from the circumstance of the crime.

So in conclusion there is no evidence of premeditation, and there is no information as for why the knife was carried at the cottage.

Well, some anchor points, obviously I can't agree because of the digestive and break in evidence.
But this is a question that I feel you are the only one who might answer.

If it were possible to scientifically eliminate all three of the knife bra clasp and bathmat print, would this introduce reasonable doubt for you, or even change your mind to a view of probable innocence?

 

[Bill Williams]

This is not impossible if we take in account Knox's precedents, that include a terrifying burglary prank on her housemate in Seattle.

There you go again, Machiavelli.

It was an April Fools prank. Is THIS how you build a case against someone? No matter, you also believe that the reason no one had heard about this is because all of Seattle practised the Mafia concept of Omertà to keep this April Fools prank out of common knowledge.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, I think so. I don't think that the concept of an independent expert is diificult to understand though.

You used the term "any" however

We have in the course of this discussion showed a lot of cases of secondary DNA contamination but it seems useless. It seems like there is no evidence we can present which has any value.

Just have to hope the ECHR and the US Department of State decide to do the right thing. . . .I honestly think that for the moment Raff is screwed however.

 

[Machiavelli]

Circular rhetoric.

none of them was able to offer convincing arguments to dismiss Stefanoni's conclusions.​

Convincing to whom? Dismissed by whom? Obviously this is what you believe. So much for precision, though: the statement still stands, no DNA expert who is independent of the Italian court system believes as Stefanoni does. Indeed, you cannot name one, which is why you engage in circular rhetoric.

The category of "no DNA expert who is independent of the Italian court system" is itself a product of circular rhetoric.
It's like saying no flying pig ever laid eggs in that nest.
It's pure nonsense.

And also, the illusion that without DNA there is no evidence, is another plain innocentisti delusion, probably the most severe one.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have read his book, and I disagree, but even in the event that your argument was true, the conclusion would be the same: in his book, he is sure Knox never left his apartment (how and why he becomes sure doesn't change that his firm position is that he is sure).
In his interview, and in his current defence position, he is not.
And this is basically what his defensive line points out.

Machiavelli. It is you being deceptive.

In his book, he recounts how he spent the first part of his solitary confinement wondering if it could be true what the cops had told him, that Amanda had gone out. He describes how he became sure, at least to the point where he became convinced of her innocence.

Which brings it up again.... why would a guilty Raffaele become convinced of her innocence? Ok, you've answered that, you said because it would make no difference, there is judicially no place for him to go with now claiming that she might have gone out...

... which brings up your deception, which is now beginning to look wilful on your part. Read his Appeals document. He is saying, "If you are saying that Amanda went out, then what's this got to do with me?"

I don't know if it does any good to repeat that, because you will wilfully simply misrepresent it as Raffaele saying something else.

 

[Bill Williams]

The category of "no DNA expert who is independent of the Italian court system" is itself a product of circular rhetoric.
It's like saying no flying pig ever laid eggs in that nest.
It's pure nonsense.

And also, the illusion that without DNA there is no evidence, is another plain innocentisti delusion, probably the most severe one.

Please read your post again, particularly your analogy.

 

[Numbers]

Doesn't Stefanoni's boss sign off on it?

Wasn't her boss a lawyer, with no DNA analysis credentials? Please correct if otherwise.

 

[Diocletus]

And also, the illusion that without DNA there is no evidence, is another plain innocentisti delusion, probably the most severe one.

Really? Then why would the Supreme Court have ordered a potentially "decisive" dna test? Just stupid, I guess.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, some anchor points, obviously I can't agree because of the digestive and break in evidence.
But this is a question that I feel you are the only one who might answer.

If it were possible to scientifically eliminate all three of the knife bra clasp and bathmat print, would this introduce reasonable doubt for you, or even change your mind to a view of probable innocence?

It's rather difficult for me to understand this question, because you seem to point to a non real scenario. What do you mean exactly with "eliminate"? Because, you know, in order to "eliminate" the bathmat print, in my view, you would need to phisically eliminate the bathmat, or phisically delete the stain from it. Which is not real. So you cannot eliminate the existence of that bathmat print, and I don't see how your question could make sense in a realistic perspective.
I would never abandon the multiple assailant scenario, of this I am absolutely sure in any event.

A further thing: in any event it would be impossible for me to have reasonable doubt about the charge of calunnia.

 

[Machiavelli]

Really? Then why would the Supreme Court have ordered a potentially "decisive" dna test? Just stupid, I guess.

Because, the concept of "decisive element" in legitimacy judgements means that would have affected the decision process of the judge.
Decisive is meant as decisive from the point of view of the thought process of the judge who wrote the report.

So prom the point of view of a judge like Hellmann that would have been potentially decisive, since Hellmann believed it was the only piece of evidence.

On the other hand, Massei found that there was an "evidentiary picture with no holes" on every aspect of the case, and from that point of view it wouldn't be decisive.

 

[Diocletus]

Because, the concept of "decisive element" in legitimacy judgements means that would have affected the decision process of the judge.
Decisive is meant as decisive from the point of view of the thought process of the judge who wrote the report.

So prom the point of view of a judge like Hellmann that would have been potentially decisive, since Hellmann believed it was the only piece of evidence.

On the other hand, Massei found that there was an "evidentiary picture with no holes" on every aspect of the case, and from that point of view it wouldn't be decisive.

Nope. What they meant was that a dna match would be decisive of guilt. Which necessarily implies that all of the other "evidence" then before the court was not decisive.

 

[Machiavelli]

ETA - re: Mignini - this case became "political" when Rocco Girlanda threatened an inquiry about this case after the Hellmann acquittals. There are some who believe that regardless of whether or not Mignini was involved with the Florence case or even the Supreme Court, that (as Hellmann said) the power of the PMs was at stake with this case.

(...)

There isn't anything like a "power of the PMs", the Public Minister is a function, not a body. All prosecutors depend from the Supreme Council of Magistracy (CSM), so much as Appeals judges like Hellmann. And it is the CSM who appoints all of them, and decides who will cover a post in any function (the CSM placed Hellmann at a labor tribunal in tiny Spoleto, they could have placed him to cover a public prosecutor's post if they thought he was fit for that work).

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. What they meant was that a dna match would be decisive of guilt. Which necessarily implies that all of the other "evidence" then before the court was not decisive.

It means exactly what I say instead (not what Luca Cheli believes). And this can be documented.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill on DNA transfer via latex gloves

As for Stefanoni I'm not sure your conclusions are correct. Can you explain what you mean by an independent expert?

Chapter 5 in Peter Gill's book shreds Stefanoni's argument about the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife handle, and he proposes experiments to show how this strange hypothesis of hers could be tested. A similar situation holds for the lack of blood on the blade of the knife. He also notes the importance of changing one's gloves (pp. 148-149) and discusses a recent paper of Szkuta (2013). He concludes by saying, "...but the principle of cross transfer mediated by latex gloves is demonstrably high risk."
EDT
Nothing in Peter Gill's book should come as a big surprise to anyone who read the Conti Vecchiotti report. Nothing in their report should come as a big surprise to anyone who read the 2009 Johnson-Hampikian letter, which was cosigned by 7 first-rate forensic scientists. There is also Mehul Anjaria's excellent blog to help guide one through the problems of the prosecution's case.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Doesn't Stefanoni's boss sign off on it?

-

Yes, I think you are correct and wasn't he a respected expert, if I remember correctly,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Doublethink

Really? Then why would the Supreme Court have ordered a potentially "decisive" dna test? Just stupid, I guess.

It was only decisive when the court thought Meredith's DNA might be present. Once it was shown not to be present, it wasn't decisive anymore.

 

[carlofab]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that when the ISC convenes on March 25th it will not review the entire Nencini motivation; it will only address complaints by the appellants in addition to any constitutional issues raised by them.

If the above is right -- and with Nencini translated, and summaries of the appeals by Amanda and Raffaele available -- I wonder if any here have a sense of how this should go down. If the case is completely political at this point then of course the court will simply do whatever it wants. But suppose the judges are sincere. How then ought they rule on the points of appeal and on what grounds?

I'm not an attorney but FWIW my sense is that other than a fix there is no way the ISC can confirm Nencini. I think they will most likely sent it back to the second level, possibly retrying the defendants separately. Less likely is that they will simply dismiss the charges. But I see now way they can confirm Nencini.

Anybody willing to venture an opinion?

Thanks.