Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

There is a Patriza Stefanoni that is a real doctor with a Ph.D and everything. That one has a web page with all the particulars including when and where the degrees were earned, lists of publications, the whole works. But the good Doctor Stefanoni does not work for the forensics lab in Rome. Perhaps you got confused. When you can link to verifiable information for the achievements of your fake doctor we'll discuss it.

No. I already linked information, reliable news sources that reported how Stefanoni held the title of "dottore di ricerca" insofar as she was covering a post of researcher at the University Federico II of Naples for eight years.
And it's not me the one who has a burden of proof. It's you who don't have information, while you falsely state that you have.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, you of course have read Nencini's motivation report in the Italian. Does it contain the word "amica" (feminine)? If so, do you see anything else in that sentence or paragraph that suggests it may be a typo? That he meant "amico"?

amica = a single female friend

amiche = multiple female friends

Nencini clearly refers also to Meredith's "normal sexual activity" (note how this is worded so to not to limit it to one person) and mentions "some ragazzo" (some male friend).

But the most - I repeat the most important part - is tha Nencini states that the number, sex and complete list of contributors is completely irrelevant, and he is obviously not trying to draw any complete list of possibilities.

 

[Desert Fox]

amica = a single female friend

amiche = multiple female friends

Nencini clearly refers also to Meredith's "normal sexual activity" (note how this is worded so to not to limit it to one person) and mentions "some ragazzo" (some male friend).

But the most - I repeat the most important part - is tha Nencini states that the number, sex and complete list of contributors is completely irrelevant, and he is obviously not trying to draw any complete list of possibilities.

and the forensic scientific community (with one exception) disagrees with the argument that the DNA on the bra clasp of Sollecito shows guilt does not give you any pause?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

No. I already linked information, reliable news sources that reported how Stefanoni held the title of "dottore di ricerca" insofar as she was covering a post of researcher at the University Federico II of Naples for eight years.
And it's not me the one who has a burden of proof. It's you who don't have information, while you falsely state that you have.

-

I really don't care if Steffi is a Doctor or not. If she's considered a Doctor in Italy, that's fine with me.

I personally think the whole Doctor thing is funny, and it seems the American public does too. It's an ongoing underlying joke of a lot of TV sitcoms here in the US (specifically "Two and a Half Men", and "The Big Bang Theory"), not the least of which is the question, what's a real Doctor, and most people think colloquially and think of a physician, and that's where the joke is.

Especially chiropractors, they seem to get the most laughs, even when they tell people they've been to medical school, I laugh even louder... and I don't know why?

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

During the murder it was all Rudy Guede.

Absolutely unproven, and contrary to the physical evidence.

You keep saying this, and I keep reposting page 394 of the Massei report where he says,

"The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view
of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have
been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and
cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single
person."​

You offer nothing to refute this.... not even going into what Massei goes on to say (because he believes in multiple attackers, obviously). No matter that Massei contradicts himself....

 

[Bill Williams]

amica = a single female friend

amiche = multiple female friends

Nencini clearly refers also to Meredith's "normal sexual activity" (note how this is worded so to not to limit it to one person) and mentions "some ragazzo" (some male friend).

But the most - I repeat the most important part - is tha Nencini states that the number, sex and complete list of contributors is completely irrelevant, and he is obviously not trying to draw any complete list of possibilities.

So in other words, even Nencini has not ruled out contamination.

 

[Kauffer]

No. I already linked information, reliable news sources that reported how Stefanoni held the title of "dottore di ricerca" insofar as she was covering a post of researcher at the University Federico II of Naples for eight years.
And it's not me the one who has a burden of proof. It's you who don't have information, while you falsely state that you have.

"Dottore di ricerca" is actually a real title. Where is the proof Stefanoni earned this? As far as I am aware, this "dottore" is not something you get for time served, as you seem to be suggesting.

What was her thesis? Who was her doctoral supervisor? And where, incidentally are her publications and work history? A CV perhaps?

As I understand it, Italians with undergraduate degrees call themselves "dottore" routinely.

When I was an undergrad, teaching Italian kids one summer, the kids all called me "professore". It was very flattering of course and rather polite but it didn't reflect my then academic record or work history.

 

[Dan O.]

Just a moment. You are not giving any solution.
You are basically admitting you have none.

Machiavelli, suppose that the semen stain on the pillow had been tested and it turned out to be attributed to Rudy. How would you explain it.


This is a very simple request that everyone can understand. But Machiavelli is not going to answer it. He cannot answer it. It goes to the very core of who Machiavelli is.

 

[Dan O.]

...
You place 5 bloody shoeprints on the pillow. You place them there at a time that you consider prior to placing the pillow under the body. But the pillow was indeed placed under the body (which was clean etc.) at a certain subsequent point. Hence, you need to have Guede doing some other activity during this time in between, between the two moments of stepping on the pillow first, and then lift her body, pick the pillow from where it was and place the pillow under her body next. He needs to walk somewhere, he needs to make some step, to move to perform this operation.

We note that, in this scenario, he must have his shoes already dirty with blood (since he left the prints on the pillow).

So where is the evidence of other steps? Where are his other shoeprints? he didn't take any other step in the room, except the five shoeprints on the pillow.
There is not even a shoeprint of him walking towards the bathroo, where you believe he washed himself.

You are starting to ask the right questions but you are trapped by an initial premis that prevents you from finding a solution. I am not the one that put the evidence there. The evidence is what it is.

 

[Kauffer]

You need to study. I mean exactly what I said.
Reversal and annulment are institutions not applicable to final verdicts.

The ECHR cannot revert nor annul verdicts.

There is an institute called trial review, but it is extremely rare that this follows to a finding of violation of the ECHR, almost no violations are followed by trial review, and the trial review anyway is not an annulment and mostly does not end with a reversal.
Anyway no trial review is being granted nor us going to be granted soon, no matter what ECHR will find. So assuming that would premature to say the least.

I explained that it us not true.

It is not the ECHR that will "revert" (sic) or "annul verdicts". Who has suggested that here?

You are entirely wrong with regard to your assertions in respect of ECHR findings of violations. An Article 6 violation will result in the cancelling of any conviction as a result of the interaction between the Council of Europe and the Italian authorities - changing the law in Italy.

It started with this:

"In 2005, article 175 of the CCP was reformed so to allow for the re-opening of the criminal process – if conducted in absentia – when the convicted affirms that he/she never received notice of the proceedings against him. In addition, more significantly, the Court of Cassation, since 2005 (the so-called Cat Berro Decision), has adopted a new line of interpretation, under which no conviction can be executed, nor sentence served, if the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had declared that the process violated, in at least one provision, article 6 of the ECHR."

Michele Cainiello - Associate Professor, Department of Law - University of Bologna

http://www.legalaidreform.org/crimi...download/153_6ac3f292a1634cefcd0d407bacca0209

Page 6 and note 16.

The European Convention stands above ordinary Italian law, following decisions made at the constitutional court level in 2007. Italy has no discretion in these matters. It must comply.

There is more to say on this subject, but this is a direct refutation of your statement that finalised verdicts cannot be over turned and a clear recitation of the effects of findings of Article 6 violations on verdicts from trials where these violations were found by the European Court.

 

[Dan O.]

...
But there are no drips. I mean, especially there are no drips that follow his steps.

It was in his shoeprints that I first noticed the drips. But this was so long ago, it may even be in the initial thread.

There are actually not even his steps: because he was barefoot, and the only bloody footprints that you allow are on the bathmat. Why nowhere else?
Then, given that he put on his shoes again, one should wonder why the shoes are still dirty with blood.

In America, children learn to tie their own shoes. Is this different in Italy?

Did he get his shoes dirty with blood twice? The first time, before placing the pillow under Meredith's body, and the second time after he entered the room again after he washed himself up in the bathroom?

The evidence is what it is. Why do you have difficulty accepting it?

And, as for the drips, how did he manage to prevent his trousers from dripping bloody water, which would have been detected by luminol, as he walked out? Bear in minde that in your scenario he wouldn't be able to prevent even his bare foot from dripping on the bathmat. Yet you postulate that his trousers were not dripping around. Despite he just washed them udner the shower.

Rudy himself claims that his trowsers were wet when he left. Did Stefanoni make a complete survey of the areas tested with Luminol? If so, where are the rest of the Luminol photos? If she only recorded those areas that showed bare footprint like prints, that would explain why we don't see the other known shoeprints or isolated drips. Why were all the Luminol prints edited with Photoshop the next day?

 

[Samson]

You keep saying this, and I keep reposting page 394 of the Massei report where he says,

​

You offer nothing to refute this.... not even going into what Massei goes on to say (because he believes in multiple attackers, obviously). No matter that Massei contradicts himself....

Bill, I like this, so I will add a voice requesting a very specific response from Machiavelli.
Machiavelli, Bill has reminded us that Massei said

this on page 394 of his report, maybe you can tell us where the translation may be misrepresenting his meaning, because if the translation is good, there are problems going forward for the prosecution.

"The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of viewof forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could havebeen a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed andcutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single
person."

Thank you Bill for being the agent of repetition of crucial matters, I know it may seem a thankless task.

 

[Dan O.]

...
The trail of bloody shoeprints is very, very clear. By the way, it is also clear that you even "forgot" how one of the shoeprint was visible only by half, the other half - close to Merediht's door - was only visible through luminol, this factually showing that a washing up of the floor did take place.

Did I forget? Or did I make an extensive exposé of this print complete with comparative photos and a discussion of how this print gives us a field comparison of the sensitivity of luminol vs TMB.

Where have you been Machiavelli, I've been talking about this for a couple of years.

(oh, what is that to the right of the shoe print? It doesn't match the ring pattern of the bottom of the shoe. Could it be... a... drip?)

 

[Desert Fox]

"Dottore di ricerca" is actually a real title. Where is the proof Stefanoni earned this? As far as I am aware, this "dottore" is not something you get for time served, as you seem to be suggesting.

What was her thesis? Who was her doctoral supervisor? And where, incidentally are her publications and work history? A CV perhaps?

As I understand it, Italians with undergraduate degrees call themselves "dottore" routinely.

When I was an undergrad, teaching Italian kids one summer, the kids all called me "professore". It was very flattering of course and rather polite but it didn't reflect my then academic record or work history.

If she did a good job, I would not care exactly what her degrees were.

 

[Samson]

If she did a good job, I would not care exactly what her degrees were.

A good observation, there is adulation of legal process on boards that discuss this case. The praised individuals have legal qualifications. I propose that they should have science degrees first, so they are unable to be hoodwinked by legal niceties.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's Pellero's expert report about the phones and towers etc if anyone wants to have a look. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...07-17-Report-Pellero-Sollecito-Cellphones.pdf

 

[Planigale]

This is just false.
This is not the first time you seem to believe a misquote from Stefanoni's testimony.

Her report says clearly that epithelial cells and blood were "presumed", not found.

Thanks Mach, as you note I explicitly said 'as memory serves' most people here are aware that memory is fallible and so will take such statements as implying a level of uncertainty. I am happy to accept that Stefanoni stated presumed epithelials and presumed blood. I still think this is an insufficiently neutral statement of facts. Her job is to state the findings. The prosecution should then come back with the interpretation, e.g. 'this would be compatible with someone touching the bra as in attempting to remove it?' to which PS could agree then this could be challenged by the defence. The problem is PS acts as a prosecution advocate not as a neutral expert. See next post.

 

[Planigale]

Thanks P, for the further info. At the risk of sounding to appear poorly informed, does "epithelial cells" mean skin cells?

My impression was that the quantity of Raf's DNA attributed to be on the bra clasp was something like 4-5 skin cells. Is that visible to the naked eye? By what means did Stefanoni reportedly observe it? And why not take a photo in any event?

And how could anyone think that some schmutz found on a filthy bra clasp lying under a rug, after being moved around a room, 47 days after it should have been collected, is somehow reliably traceable to that same schmutz being in place or deposited at the time of the murder?

and btw, is there any record of the lab processing Raf's DNA at some point before processing the bra clasp? Seems like there was a pretty good case to be made that the finding of Meredtih's DNA on the knife was a residual trace from an earlier run of Meredith's DNA on the same equipment.

In other words, it sure looks like Stefanoni is 'salting' the samples, not directly, but through a deliberately induced contamination event, through prior runs of target profiles, poor controls, and incomplete or misguided protocols.

OK this is slightly technical but important. Stefanoni implies that epithelials are synonymous with 'skin' and this implies touch. As a biologist she probably knew this was a partial truth. Epithelial applies to the outer covering of an animal. The origin is embryological, as memory serves we devlop from a three layered blastocele, a hollow ball the outer layer becomes epithelium. The inner endothelium and the middle mesothelium - essentially all the filler stuff like muscle, cartilage bone. For the purposes of anatomy the gut and lungs are external surfaces, as is the bladder. Epithelial cells can arise from any of these sources. The best source is mucosa say the lining of the mouth (still epithelial), which is why mouth washes and cheek swabs are used inDNA tests. Tears may contain epithelial cells from the covering of the eye, phlegm when coughed up is full of epithelials from the airways, spit has epithelials from the mouth. In general shed skin e.g. from hands is a poor source of DNA, in becoming the hard waterproof outer layer we call skin it becomes keratinised, full of tough protein, the same stuff nails and claws and hair is made of. At the same time the nuclear material - DNA - is digested apoptosis, so shed skin cells are dead and contain little analysable DNA. Thus if Sollecito sneezed in the bathroom where the bra was hanging up to dry he would have deposited epithelials. Epithelials do NOT imply touch.

 

[Diocletus]

OK this is slightly technical but important. Stefanoni implies that epithelials are synonymous with 'skin' and this implies touch. As a biologist she probably knew this was a partial truth. Epithelial applies to the outer covering of an animal. The origin is embryological, as memory serves we devlop from a three layered blastocele, a hollow ball the outer layer becomes epithelium. The inner endothelium and the middle mesothelium - essentially all the filler stuff like muscle, cartilage bone. For the purposes of anatomy the gut and lungs are external surfaces, as is the bladder. Epithelial cells can arise from any of these sources. The best source is mucosa say the lining of the mouth (still epithelial), which is why mouth washes and cheek swabs are used inDNA tests. Tears may contain epithelial cells from the covering of the eye, phlegm when coughed up is full of epithelials from the airways, spit has epithelials from the mouth. In general shed skin e.g. from hands is a poor source of DNA, in becoming the hard waterproof outer layer we call skin it becomes keratinised, full of tough protein, the same stuff nails and claws and hair is made of. At the same time the nuclear material - DNA - is digested apoptosis, so shed skin cells are dead and contain little analysable DNA. Thus if Sollecito sneezed in the bathroom where the bra was hanging up to dry he would have deposited epithelials. Epithelials do NOT imply touch.

"Epithelial cells" in stefanoni-speak simply means that she couldn't confirm it to be blood and it wasn't semen.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. I already linked information, reliable news sources that reported how Stefanoni held the title of "dottore di ricerca" insofar as she was covering a post of researcher at the University Federico II of Naples for eight years.
And it's not me the one who has a burden of proof. It's you who don't have information, while you falsely state that you have.

At least you're consistent. Reversing the burden of proof.

It would seem that if Stefanoni was a "Ph.D.", there'd be a link. That would be easy to point to.

Yet you want someone else to point to every of the multitudinous academic institutions in Italy proving a negative.

There are people reading this thread who know, but who do not post. Who are they laughing at?