Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[christianahannah]

It's also possible that the reason is the same for every other request that stefanoni and commodi refused to respond to: they didn't want the defense to have information that could be used to undermine the prosecution.

Well they did respond to requests, in July 2009 (this is the information you and I and many others have seen), during Hellmann and possibly others.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes there is. It was submitted during the Hellmann court. Or maybe do you mean there isn't a report because Hellmann was annulled?

No. You're talking about testimony that he gave to Nencini about the "gap". No report.

 

[Diocletus]

This is a bit of a big blunder.

If there is a report about his "gap" testimony to Nencini, which I don't think there is, then maybe you can get it from your friend Maresca.

 

[carbonjam72]

Diocletus,

I think that they might be experiencing cognitive dissonance. They cannot imagine that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, because of the implications that innocence would have for their actions.

Ok, I'm open to this argument. Wonder if it would show up on an MRI?

 

[Bill Williams]

One has to wonder about the argument of special Italian science. . . .There is only one way to do science though.

This is a trial, not a scientific research.

This is obviously the mistake the convicting judges have made. They have ignored science over a predetermined result to preserve, "judicial truth".

It is like Stefanoni told the judges "2+2=5", and the judges could see no reason why she would lie. And further, that any criticism of her (eg. turning over her calculator to see if it was faulty) would result in a calunnia/defamation charge simply because someone said she might be mistaken.

Or as Chieffi would have said, "If we accept that 2 plus 2 does not equal 5, this will throw into doubt all trials dependent on arithmetic since 1986."

 

[Diocletus]

Well they did respond to requests, in July 2009 (this is the information you and I and many others have seen), during Hellmann and possibly others.

Not really. What they did was fail to comply with a court order, and instead make a half-assed production of selected information not fully responsive to the order or the underlying request.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. You're talking about testimony that he gave to Nencini about the "gap". No report.

You are really convinced.

Hearing of Sep. 6. 2011, p. 77:



"We put in the record that also Prof. Novelli submits his own report"

 

[Machiavelli]

This is obviously the mistake the convicting judges have made. They have ignored science over a predetermined result to preserve, "judicial truth".

(...)

Silliness. Science research is free, has infinite updates, while a trial is a decision making process.

 

[carbonjam72]

If I were a defense attorney, and the guy already convicted of the crime had told his friend my client was not part of the murder, I would want that evidence seen by the court. The question raised was why would Maresca NOT want it seen? Because it might go toward exonerating Amanda, that's why.

And Raf.

Raf can pay the civil judgement, which is all Maresca wants. It is as depraved as any ISIS kidnapping and ransom. A total disregard for the lives of others. Maresca and Rudy Guede share the same lack of empathy for their victims, equally inhumane, IUAM.

 

[Diocletus]

You are really convinced.

Hearing of Sep. 6. 2011, p. 77:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454e2b14eccb84.jpg[/qimg]

"We put in the record that also Prof. Novelli submits his own report"

Nice try, but we've already established that we're talking about his testimony to nencini in 2013 or 2014 about his review of the "gap" profiles, so this 2011 "report" is worthless.

 

[Diocletus]

Silliness. Science research is free, has infinite updates, while a trial is a decision making process.

Perfect. Italian trials are infinite as well.

 

[Dan O.]

Patrizia Stefanoni is a real doctor and anyone who states the contrary should be aware of the rebound of his unproven statements on his own credibility.

The paragraph that you refer in your comment might be at page 70 of Stefanoni's testimony of May 22. 2009.

This is what Stefanoni actually says:



Translation:



What Stefanoni states is not that different from what she says on Nov. 2. 2007 after all. But let's note that the words torn and cut are both subjective. In fact the fabric was apparently neither torn nor cut, it was unsewed. And I don't think a scientific analysis of the thread was perfored. Some people presented different ideas about the way how it was unsued: with one naked hand, or with two hands, or with a hand and the help of a blade. I think Maresca believed the murderer used a blade to help himself on unseing the clasp bit, others had various theories.

Are you accusing the Stef of waffling?

Anybody that has closely examined this bra and the detached clasp can clearly see that none of the fabric is cut and the threads are torn and pulled. Why does Stefanoni talk about anything being cut?

Furthermore, you have access to all of the same information that I do. Why are you deferring to Stefanoni when you could examin the evidence for yourself? I have given a detailed description of how I have interpreted this evidence. I have defended this interpretation against many of the posters here. Why are you not directing your efforts to attack this interpretation directly instead of attempting to undermine it by attacking my person?

 

[Diocletus]

And Raf.

Raf can pay the civil judgement, which is all Maresca wants. It is as depraved as any ISIS kidnapping and ransom. A total disregard for the lives of others. Maresca and Rudy Guede share the same lack of empathy for their victims, equally inhumane, IUAM.

Raf will have disposed of all assets, I'm sure.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is obviously the mistake the convicting judges have made. They have ignored science over a predetermined result to preserve, "judicial truth".

Silliness. Science research is free, has infinite updates, while a trial is a decision making process.

This response is a complete non sequitor.

 

[Diocletus]

Are you accusing the Stef of waffling?

Anybody that has closely examined this bra and the detached clasp can clearly see that none of the fabric is cut and the threads are torn and pulled. Why does Stefanoni talk about anything being cut?

Furthermore, you have access to all of the same information that I do. Why are you deferring to Stefanoni when you could examin the evidence for yourself? I have given a detailed description of how I have interpreted this evidence. I have defended this interpretation against many of the posters here. Why are you not directing your efforts to attack this interpretation directly instead of attempting to undermine it by attacking my person?

Is stefanoni a textile expert, too? Where does shoe find the time. Oh, that's right, she doesn't write papers.

 

[Numbers]

This is a trial, not a scientific research.

And that is why the forensic police in Italy are called the "NOT Scientific Police".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maresca's view of forensic science

One has to wonder about the argument of special Italian science. . . .There is only one way to do science though.

Desert Fox,

After the 2009 verdict Mr. Maresca said, “We are teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyse and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case.”

Does Mr. Maresca also believe that they are teaching the world how to store evidence? How about the analysis of computers?

 

[christianahannah]

Nice try, but we've already established that we're talking about his testimony to nencini in 2013 or 2014 about his review of the "gap" profiles, so this 2011 "report" is worthless.

But wasn't it during Hellmann that Novelli testified about the gap? And visited the lab and looked over the samples which had been tested prior to the gap?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Novelli paradox

Consider the Busco case: “According to Professor Giuseppe Novelli, ordinarius of genetics at Tor Vergata, ‘There were contaminations among items and for [=of?] the analyses on the corsage and on the bra. The chain of custody of the items did not respect national and international standards for the conservation of items.’” I find it...interesting...that Dr. Novelli acknowledges national and international standards.

A review article coauthored by Giardini, Spinella, and Novelli stated, “Thus in these conditions [less than 100 picograms of DNA] there is a greater probability of artefacts, partial profiles with fewer alleles, contamination, preferential allele amplification, the complete absence of one allele (allele drop-out) in heterozygous loci and the nonspecific generation of extra alleles (allele drop-in) [78,79]…. Very few laboratories perform low template DNA typing properly, because it requires dedicated facilities and great experience, although there are several published methods for the interpretation of such profiles [80-82].” (highlighting mine)

And yet Novelli has no criticisms for a lab that was not yet accredited to perform standard DNA profiling, let alone low template profiling.

 

[Desert Fox]

One has to wonder about the argument of special Italian science. . . .There is only one way to do science though.

This is a trial, not a scientific research.

So it is perfectly acceptable to you to imprison somebody using bad science?
Why don't you just go back to looking for a third nipple?