Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

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.

So, the epithelials were only presumed, not proven, acc. to even "dottore di ricerca" Machiavelli.

And add to that epithelials do not even imply touch.

It would seem that, then, Machiavelli and Planigale are in agreement - there are many reasons to doubt the route of how a DNA sample got on that hook....

Yet Raffaele faces 25 years, and it is on this that it turns?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It needs repeating because of the whack-a-mole effect. Once it is forgotten what page 394 says, someone like Machiavelli will eventually return to his point which goes something like this: "the experts all agreed and the autopsy showed that there were multiple attackers."

People like Harry Rag carpet-bomb comments' sections of on-line stories with things like this.

Make not mistake, though. Massei himself continues on from p. 394 with the thesis that even though an "action of a single person cannot be ruled out", there is reason to believe that there were, in his factoid world, multiple attackers.

He goes first to Meredith's physical strength. And then he astoundingly cites that the injuries themselves suggest multiple attackers......

...... with barely the electrons dry from his key-pressing on page 394 where he cited experts who said that was not so!!!!

So what is left for the likes of Machiavelli is that the English translation is misleading. Yet this is the PMF-crazies translation..... but don't worry, in three or four weeks, Machiavelli will be saying that the reason he believes Knox is guilty is because of the autopsy report, or some such nonsense.

And it all begins again.

 

[Numbers]

-


-

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

-

The title "doctor" in Italy, historically, indicates someone who has completed the equivalent of a 4-year college program in the US or UK. The difference is that a PhD or MD has completed additional training and education of several years beyond the BS/BA awarded after 4 years (in US). In particular, the PhD is awarded after completion of a research thesis.

In some fields such as biological science, for those seeking an academic position (professorship) there is commonly additional training beyond the PhD, post-doctoral work, which is a research position at the lab of an experienced researcher.

From Wikipedia:

Italy

The first university of Western civilization, the University of Bologna, is located in Italy, where until modern times the only degree granted was that of the doctorate,[27] and all other Italian universities followed that model. During the 20th century Italian universities introduced more advanced research degrees, such as the Ph.D., and now that it is part of the E.U. Bologna Process, a new three-year first degree, or “laurea” (equivalent to a B.A. of other countries), has been introduced. The old-style "laurea" is now known as "laurea magistrale/specialistica" (ISCED Level 6). For historical reasons, even to this day, the title of "dottore/dottoressa" (abbrev. both as dott/dott.ssa or as dr./dr.ssa ) is awarded even to those who have attended a "laurea". Upper levels of degree are anyway shown in the title, as those who obtain a master's degree can be referred to as "dottore/dottoressa magistrale" (masterly doctor) while those who achieve the relatively new program of "dottorato di ricerca" (research doctorate, equivalent of a Ph.D.), carry the title of "dottore/dottoressa di ricerca" (research doctor), which can be abbreviated as "Dott. Ric.", "Dr." or "Ph.D."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

breadth of expertise

I am well aware that top experts such as Balding and Carracedo agree with Stefanoni's results, but actually I don't expect serious scientists to publicly take sides about judicial case, in "books" or "textbooks", and I don't want them to do so.
And frankly, I explained quite clearly the multiple reasons why I don't care.

Aside, if there are experts who have something to say that would effect the guilt or finnocence of defendants, they should answer questions. I would only listen when they answers to specific questions, not to what they write in textbooks.

Machiavelli,

Dr. Balding is an expert in the statistics of DNA profiling. Dr. Gill is one of the top experts in the world in DNA profiling. His book takes Stefanoni's biased and poorly executed work to task on a number of points. Dr. Balding never answered questions at the trial Your comment is nonsense on more than one level.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

YSTR multiple contributors

Where's the logic, here?
The existence of extra alleles was known since the time of the 2008 preliminary trial discussions. It had been discussed by Sollecito's consultants (one of them even pointed to another "female contributor", implying Knox). Sollecito's defence submitted an expert's report to the Preliminary Judge on Friday Oct. 24. that dealt with this issue too, and on Oct. 27. 2008 Bongiorno herself made the argument that the bra clasp was contaminated because the DNA profile showed a mixture of different contributors.

Nencini has no need to read Vecchiotti in order to know about the multiple contributors in bra clasp DNA profile. This is was known from multiple reports, expert testimonies and defence arguments in the trial file since the preliminary hearing.

One, no one (and that includes Dr. Balding) believes that Amanda's DNA is on the clasp. Two, the more obvious contamination is on the YSTR profile. The YSTR egrams were not made public until after the first trial. I have discussed them and shown a portion of one in these threads. Two to four additional men contributed DNA to the YSTR egrams associated with the bra clasp. Your comment is pure drivel.

 

[Numbers]

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

"Presumed" means either there was no objective attempt to find any biological cellular material there, for example by microscopy, or there was an objective attempt, and no biological cellular material was detected. There is no certain way to know what is the source of the alleged DNA on the bra clasp, the only reasonable statement is that it most likely is contamination: no cellular material reported, a mixture of DNA profiles reported, any residual DNA on the clasp destroyed by improper storage - which is telling.

ETA: Ethical scientists do not destroy their evidence, but keep their records (which are complete, accurate, and faithful, not fraudulent) and specimens preserved (insofar as possible) for future reference. Stefanoni did not keep complete, accurate, and faithful records nor did she take care to preserve the bra clasp.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Will the real Patrizia Stefanoni please stand up

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.

No, you did not. What reason is there to believe that the person at Naples is the same person who worked in Rome?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Dr. Balding is an expert in the statistics of DNA profiling. Dr. Gill is one of the top experts in the world in DNA profiling. His book takes Stefanoni's biased and poorly executed work to task on a number of points. Dr. Balding never answered questions at the trial Your comment is nonsense on more than one level.

Nonsense is saying "this non-witness expressed this opinion" and bring that as an argument. This is the stupidest and most nonsense line of argumentation.
Whoever brings scientific arguments in a trial needs to answer questions by judges and parties, not to their own books.
Those same arguments were already brought up at the trial by Tagliabracci, Pascali and Vecchiotti, and they are unconvincing.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, you did not. What reason is there to believe that the person at Naples is the same person who worked in Rome?

You are kidding, aren't you?

 

[Machiavelli]

"Presumed" means either there was no objective attempt to find any biological cellular material there, for example by microscopy, or there was an objective attempt, and no biological cellular material was detected. There is no certain way to know what is the source of the alleged DNA on the bra clasp, the only reasonable statement is that it most likely is contamination: no cellular material reported, a mixture of DNA profiles reported, any residual DNA on the clasp destroyed by improper storage - which is telling.

ETA: Ethical scientists do not destroy their evidence, but keep their records (which are complete, accurate, and faithful, not fraudulent) and specimens preserved (insofar as possible) for future reference. Stefanoni did not keep complete, accurate, and faithful records nor did she take care to preserve the bra clasp.

Evidence is the incidente probatorio, not the bra clasp. Under the procedure code evidence collected this way is an event, not an object.
The test provided for by the law is unrepeatable, and no forensic is required to preserve the exhibits.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Which Stefanoni is which?

You are kidding, aren't you?

There are two people with the name Patrizia Stefanoni who work in some branch of science in Italy, yet you failed to acknowledge this.

 

[Machiavelli]

One, no one (and that includes Dr. Balding) believes that Amanda's DNA is on the clasp. Two, the more obvious contamination is on the YSTR profile. The YSTR egrams were not made public until after the first trial. I have discussed them and shown a portion of one in these threads. Two to four additional men contributed DNA to the YSTR egrams associated with the bra clasp. Your comment is pure drivel.

First, there has been indeed one Sollecito's consultant who hinted at contamination from Knox's DNA on the clasp.
Second, but more important, the Y profile chart was available to Sollecito's defence since before the beginning of October 2008, if we believe Bongiorno when she said, on Oct. 4., that the defence had finally managed to obtain the charts the requested.
There was a defence report submitted on Oct.24. about that.
But then there was a subsequent request, from Prof. Pascali to the judge, by which he requested to have also the electronic data files, that he called "log files". Stefanoni answered to the judge saying she was ready to make the electronic data files available to the defence just like she did with the image files, but she put the condition that basically can only be interpreted as follows: that the defence would analyse those data files through the same computer, software and settings ("parameters") that the Scientific Police used, which implies: analyze them in her laboratory or under their supervision.
So Stefanoni said yes to this request too, she only put a condition on this.
After that, the judge decided the data were not indispensable to his decision, and the defence did not go forward with their request (they didn't go to the lab).

 

[Machiavelli]

There are two people with the name Patrizia Stefanoni who work in some branch of science in Italy, yet you failed to acknowledge this.

I know who I am talking about. The other Patrizia Stefanoni is 57 year old medical doctor. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who appeared in an article, with references to Scientific police, photo and everything. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who used to publish scientific research articles on Genetics with the University of Naples since the nineties.

 

[Numbers]

Evidence is the incidente probatorio, not the bra clasp. Under the procedure code evidence collected this way is an event, not an object.
The test provided for by the law is unrepeatable, and no forensic is required to preserve the exhibits.

Your statement above is not consistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as CPP 190, Right to evidence, which states in part:

1. Evidence shall be admitted upon request of a party.

By your argument, a gun or knife alleged to have been used in a crime could be destroyed after an initial examination by the prosecution and its experts, and the defense not allowed to later view or test it. This would not satisfy equality of arms as required by the Convention and ECHR.

 

[tsig]

What a condescending attitude. And why don't the pro-Knoxes learn the penal procedure code and a bit of jurisprudence, and the language of court documents, before joining an adult conversation?

None of that matters since we know Amanda was beaten into submission while being interrogated in a foreign language until she broke and gave them what they wanted. Then the entire Italian Judiciary swung into line to back up this travesty and all the techs jumped on the bandwagon and falsified evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your statement above is not consistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as CPP 190, Right to evidence, which states in part:

1. Evidence shall be admitted upon request of a party.

By your argument, a gun or knife alleged to have been used in a crime could be destroyed after an initial examination by the prosecution and its experts, and the defense not allowed to later view or test it. This would not satisfy equality of arms as required by the Convention and ECHR.

No, not by the prosecution and its experts, but after an examination by the experts of the parties. The incidente probatorio is not an prosecution-lead test, it is an adversarial procedure. It can be opened upon a request of the parties. But then is carried on under art.360 cpp.

 

[tsig]

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.

This would be a good time for you to list your science degrees lest you be hoodwinked by legal niceties.

 

[Mr Fied]

What a condescending attitude. And why don't the pro-Knoxes learn the penal procedure code and a bit of jurisprudence, and the language of court documents, before joining an adult conversation?

Is there any adult out there, who understands the language of court documents, who can point me in the direction of any material evidence that proves the presence of Knox and/or Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder?

Much obliged.

 

[Strozzi]

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."


End of Sampson comment
Beginning of Strozzi comment

The paragraph cited directly above is an English translation of Massei's report (p. 394). The English includes several double negatives which are direct translations of Massei's report as written in Italian. Please allow me as a native English speaker to re-write the paragraph in a more proper English with each set of double negatives corrected to a positive. An intermediate version is presented next, with a final (clean) copy after that.

Intermediate version -
"The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, itcannot 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."

The above paragraph edited by me with the double negatives corrected to positives is presented below as clean copy with strike-outs and yellow highlighting omitted.

Clean version -
"The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are in themselves compatible with the action of a single person."

I wonder if Massei wrote his paragraph in Italian with double negatives because he likes double negatives as a matter of personal writing style, or because double negatives help obfuscate in his motivation report the statements in his court of the consultants and forensic scientists that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker.

 

[Diocletus]

None of that matters since we know Amanda was beaten into submission while being interrogated in a foreign language until she broke and gave them what they wanted. Then the entire Italian Judiciary swung into line to back up this travesty and all the techs jumped on the bandwagon and falsified evidence.

It happens. Has happened before and will happen again.