Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

There is no contradiction between Il Corriere and Russell's book.

Machiavelli, you know this case so well. I do hope when it is over that you will write two books on this - your critique of the case and your experience debating this case against a large group of (foreign) commentators.

I sometimes envision you as the lion-tamer standing in the middle of a circus ring with a chair for defense on one arm and a whip in the other. . Maybe you gained experience elsewhere with unruly students. Did you ever teach at an all-boys school?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a lie. I linked the quotes, and I explained them. Then, I provided all necessary and sufficient means to verify the content, including the way to find Stefanoni's email.

I have not seen them.

This is an unverified defamatory statement. To all effects this is a lie.
You have no justification for making this arbitrary statement, neither logical or moral, and the pro-Knox argument that Stefanoni is "less qualified" stands out as made up.

Calm down. In 172 references to Stefanoni in the Massei report, not once does Massei refer to her as you indicate. Even Conti and Vecchiotti do not refer to her as you indicate.

So it turns out I do have justification.

Calm down a bit.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, do you know how the police learned of the Swiss professor? Did they learn of him from Lumumba and then identify and locate him? Or did the professor, having heard of Lumumba's arrest from news coverage, initiate communication with the Perugia police or prosecutor or with Lumumba's lawyer, and from that come to the attention of Mignini who then sought to invite him to appear in Perugia to testify what he knew of Le Chic and Lumumba on that fateful evening?

The sources are absolutely clear: the police was searching him.
Multiple Italian sources agree on this and report the same thing. News reports such as Il Corriere, as well as Paul Russell (who I consider an Italian source since he lives in Parma).
The police were seeking to locate the professor in Zurich, and they also leaked information about this to the press, they only refused to provide the name of the professor.
Paul Russell alone reports that prof. Mero was told by a friend that the police was searching him (note: not about just the arrest of Lumumba, but about the fact that the police was looking for a Swiss professor), and reportedly his friend told him "the police is looking for you", so much that Mero got scared at the beginning.

So, you see, we are talking about the police searching someone.

We can't know if Paul Russell's version is the most accurate one, and we can't know details like for example who dialled the phone number first, who called whom (if it was Mero calling as a response to the plice looking for him, or if the Swiss police found his wife). But what we can certainly say is that several sources agree that it was not an initiative of Mero, they all report that it was the police who initiated the search after the Swiss professor, and that the Italian newspapers reported that he "did not refuse to testify".
They did not reported that he offered to testified. They reported that he was detected, and he did not refuse.

(...)

I did learn from your first response to my comment that there were 3 or 4 or more witnesses who were questioned by the police whether or not Le Chic was open and Lumumba was present throughout that evening/night, and that each witness could speak of specific (limited) timeframes. No single witness could speak for the entire evening/night or vouch for Lumumba's presence throughout.

Myths can be created by either side in this case from incorrect interpretations and bias. I can be guilty of propagating nuanced interpretations and myths, too.

But the problem is, myths are created by the fact that it is wrong on principle to try analyse the communication between police and informants and draw inferences from them, or the statements of informants to the police or other aspects of police investigation, or speculate about voice or video recordings inside a police station. Those materials are secret, non-translarent by their nature. Many things are known, several details. But the Italian system is not designed to allow an "analysis" of investigation activities of this kind. The police will never tell you the exact number of witnesses they questioned. The sources reported as I said 3 or 4, and the one saying it was closed was considered interesting, but reported to be only about a too early time frame. The set of details available anyway - the true ones, not the summaries and interpretations by English speaking newspapers - within their context do not point to anything suspicious, and within the context there is no "orchestration" or "conspiracy" that would make sense.

 

[Strozzi]

-

I was thinking about the control room discussion that's been going on and off the last few days, and I just realized that unless the Perugia police only have one phone line going in and out, and no computers, there must be one room where all that electronics comes together. Chances are there's a computer in there monitoring things. And, if they have an IT guy, chances are her/his office will more than likely be where all that electronics will be.

That would be my idea of a "control room".

Also, does anyone know if the rooms where Raffaele and Amanda were interrogated had a two-way mirror in them. Most of the time, these rooms have a one-way speaker system in them so people watching through the two-way mirror can hear what's being said on the other side of the mirror.

And if you think about it, even if you're tag teaming a suspect, it's better if everyone can at least hear what's going on when they're not in the room itself.

And finally, why would any police organization tag team a witness? I would think they'd only do that with suspects,

d

-

I do not believe the interrogation rooms had one-way mirrors. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele mentioned that in their books, and it is the sort of thing that would have been mentioned.

Raffaele did write that he wanted to consult a calendar (on the wall?) as he thought he was confusing dates, and was denied this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vecchiotti's partial publication record

The molecular characterization of a depurinated trial DNA sample can be a model to understand the reliability of the results in forensic genetics.
Fattorini P, Previderè C, Sorçaburu-Cigliero S, Marrubini G, Alù M, Barbaro AM, Carnevali E, Carracedo A, Casarino L, Consoloni L, Corato S, Domenici R, Fabbri M, Giardina E, Grignani P, Baldassarra SL, Moratti M, Nicolin V, Pelotti S, Piccinini A, Pitacco P, Plizza L, Resta N, Ricci U, Robino C, Salvaderi L, Scarnicci F, Schneider PM, Seidita G, Trizzino L, Turchi C, Turrina S, Vatta P, Vecchiotti C, Verzeletti A, De Stefano F.
Electrophoresis. 2014 Nov;35(21-22):3134-44. doi: 10.1002/elps.201400141. Epub 2014 Oct 31.
PMID: 25176610 [PubMed - in process]

Select item 24727431
2.
DNA fingerprinting secondary transfer from different skin areas: Morphological and genetic studies.
Zoppis S, Muciaccia B, D'Alessio A, Ziparo E, Vecchiotti C, Filippini A.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Jul;11:137-43. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 21.
PMID: 24727431 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Select item 24062765
3.
DNA and the law in Italy: the experience of "the Perugia case".
Vecchiotti C, Zoppis S.
Front Genet. 2013 Sep 12;4:177. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00177. eCollection 2013. No abstract available.
PMID: 24062765 [PubMed] Free PMC Article

Select item 21865258
4.
The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269.
Busby GB, Brisighelli F, Sánchez-Diz P, Ramos-Luis E, Martinez-Cadenas C, Thomas MG, Bradley DG, Gusmão L, Winney B, Bodmer W, Vennemann M, Coia V, Scarnicci F, Tofanelli S, Vona G, Ploski R, Vecchiotti C, Zemunik T, Rudan I, Karachanak S, Toncheva D, Anagnostou P, Ferri G, Rapone C, Hervig T, Moen T, Wilson JF, Capelli C.
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 7;279(1730):884-92. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1044. Epub 2011 Aug 24.
PMID: 21865258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article

Select item 15166760
5.
Demonstration of a gastric bioptic specimen mix-up by laser capture microdissection (LCM) and DNA fingerprinting.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Bloise D, Brunetti E, Sciacchitano S.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2004 Jun;25(2):113-6.
PMID: 15166760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Select item 12960662
6.
DNA identification of sperm cells collected and sorted by flow cytometry.
Di Nunno N, Melato M, Vimercati A, Di Nunno C, Costantinides F, Vecchiotti C, Frezzini C, Cina S, Vimercati F.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003 Sep;24(3):254-70.
PMID: 12960662 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Select item 12877317
7.
Distribution of D3S1358, D21S11, FGA, vWA alleles in a Central Italian population sample.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Boninfante B, Di Nunno N.
J Forensic Sci. 2003 Jul;48(4):896-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 12877317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Select item 12762552
8.
Distribution of D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D18S51 alleles in a central Italian population sample.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Boninfante B, Di Nunno N.
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):690-1. No abstract available.
PMID: 12762552 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Stefanoni's publication list is limited to three 1-2 page papers that are virtually bereft of new scientific information.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's a link to a la Repubblica.It which makes reference to Patrizia Stefanoni's qualifications, education:

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8.html

Merito di Patrizia Stefanoni, 40 anni, laurea in Scienze Biologiche e già ricercatrice in genetica, dal 2000 in polizia e ora direttore tecnico-biologo della Sezione Genetica-Forense della Scientifica di Roma che riesce a respingere con decisione le osservazioni dei consulenti scientifici della difesa.​

About Patrizia Stefanoni, 40, a graduate in Biological Sciences and former researcher in genetics, since 2000 police and now technical director-biologist-Forensic Genetics Section of the Science of Rome who can firmly reject the observations of scientific advisors of the defense .​

The term "researcher" here does not refer to her degree. She is a "graduate" with the equivalent to a B.A. It is clear that the title "doctor" is conferred onto her because of the old Italian practise of conferring "Dr." to all "laurea". There is NO mention of a doctorate, nor an institution to which she attended.

ETA - all the newspaper reports which refer to her qualifications, refer to her only as a biologist. Many don't bother with the "Dr." title at all.

 

[Diocletus]

Here's a link to a la Repubblica.It which makes reference to Patrizia Stefanoni's qualifications, education:

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8.html

​

​

The term "researcher" here does not refer to her degree. She is a "graduate". with the equivalent to a B.A.

I don't know what she's been researching, but she hasn't found it yet.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Comodi on Stefanoni's degree

In The Fatal Gift of Beauty Nina Burleigh quoted Comodi as saying, "We decide if documents are necessary or not...You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

 

[Strozzi]

The sources are absolutely clear: the police was searching him.
Multiple Italian sources agree on this and report the same thing. News reports such as Il Corriere, as well as Paul Russell (who I consider an Italian source since he lives in Parma).
The police were seeking to locate the professor in Zurich, and they also leaked information about this to the press, they only refused to provide the name of the professor.
Paul Russell alone reports that prof. Mero was told by a friend that the police was searching him (note: not about just the arrest of Lumumba, but about the fact that the police was looking for a Swiss professor), and reportedly his friend told him "the police is looking for you", so much that Mero got scared at the beginning.

So, you see, we are talking about the police searching someone.

We can't know if Paul Russell's version is the most accurate one, and we can't know details like for example who dialled the phone number first, who called whom (if it was Mero calling as a response to the plice looking for him, or if the Swiss police found his wife). But what we can certainly say is that several sources agree that it was not an initiative of Mero, they all report that it was the police who initiated the search after the Swiss professor, and that the Italian newspapers reported that he "did not refuse to testify".
They did not reported that he offered to testified. They reported that he was detected, and he did not refuse.

(...)
But the problem is, myths are created by the fact that it is wrong on principle to try analyse the communication between police and informants and draw inferences from them, or the statements of informants to the police or other aspects of police investigation, or speculate about voice or video recordings inside a police station. Those materials are secret, non-translarent by their nature. Many things are known, several details. But the Italian system is not designed to allow an "analysis" of investigation activities of this kind. The police will never tell you the exact number of witnesses they questioned. The sources reported as I said 3 or 4, and the one saying it was closed was considered interesting, but reported to be only about a too early time frame. The set of details available anyway - the true ones, not the summaries and interpretations by English speaking newspapers - within their context do not point to anything suspicious, and within the context there is no "orchestration" or "conspiracy" that would make sense.

Thank you for this. I believe I have been wrong in my interpretation that after arresting Lumumba the police needed a witness to say his bar was closed that evening and just went out and "found" one to testify to that. I have helped propagate that myth, and I was wrong. The police (and Mignini) interviewed/questioned several or more individuals who each had some knowledge of Le Chic at different times that night.

Too bad they didn't exert more effort to locate the knife whose bloody outline was left on the victim's bed sheet. IIRC, one police officer at the house a day or two after Amanda and Raffaele were arrested was quoted as saying they were no longer looking for "the knife" because they already had it (referring to Raffaele's kitchen knife).

ETA: If Rudy was alone, the knife was discarded along his route that night from the cottage, past the garden where he discarded the two cell phones, to his home, or, if he hung on to it, then possibly when he discarded his bloody clothes the next day. However, I discount the second possibility (when he discarded his clothes) as a likely scenario. Since he was conscious to discard the compromising phones along his walk home, self-preservation impulses would tend to cause him to ditch the bloody knife as well.

 

[Diocletus]

... which doesn't make sense, since it's inconsistent with reality. In fact, in reality, Guede did not testify against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
He only placed half-pieces of evidence against them, and this happened only when their defences started to blame Guede.

He should have worried about that before he requested his own trial, if he even cared which I doubt. They can blame Guede or Obama or the pope in their own trial and that doesn't give them a right to raise evidence against the defendants, particularly without being cross examined. It's frankly quite surprising that Italian judges don't know about this. I don't think they bother studying the law at all.

 

[Diocletus]

In The Fatal Gift of Beauty Nina Burleigh quoted Comodi as saying, "We decide if documents are necessary or not...You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

What on earth is this woman talking about. She seems deranged.

 

[Numbers]

You may contribute to improve the quality of online two-language dictionaries if you like, but I suggest it's better if you don't, because you don't have the competence. You need to know the language in order to suggest enhancements of dictionary entries.
I suggest you to leave that job to professional translators, while if you want to better understand some statement you'd better believe Italian speakers.

I will believe the Italian speakers whose interpretations are shown to be honest and correct.

 

[Numbers]

LOL. First of all, Mach, you are persisting in using the word "coroner" for a person who is a medical and genetics (including DNA) researcher.

Here is a definition:
coroner
Houghton Mifflin
n.noun

A public officer whose primary function is to investigate any death thought to be of other than natural causes.

A coroner is NOT a medical researcher, and is not necessarily a medical expert. The "coroner" is an official in charge of overseeing the investigation of suspicious deaths, for example, by getting medical specialists such as pathologists to examine a body or samples from a body. In some jurisdictions, the coroner will by law conduct a trial (more properly, a hearing or inquiry), where the medical specialists and possibly police or other "first responders" may testify, in order to legally determine whether a suspicious death was the result of a criminal act, accident, suicide, unrecognized illness, or other cause. In the US, some jurisdictions have replaced the coroner position with a "medical examiner" who must actually have a background in pathology or medicine, with the intent of achieving better communication between the medical specialists and the authorities.

To call Carla Vecciotti a "coroner" is an absurdity. And her CV shows considerable expertise in forensics and DNA research. And you have yet to produce the CV of Patrizia Stefanoni of the Italian Scientific Police.

ETA: And despite your misstatement, "Medicina Legale" translates to Forensic Medicine, which would include DNA analysis.

I have no duty to produce anything: I am not the person who put forward an argument about an alleged Stefanoni's lesser qualification compared to Vecchiotti, and the innocentisti are those who stated that Stefanoni has only a BA degree. This "lesser qualification" is an original pro-Knox supporters argument, it was was their argument and that about the BA was their statement.
They just have a duty to verify their statement before making them. I don't have to provide anything beyond stating what is self-evident to an Italian who reads the public sources.

I thought that including the full text of my post with your response would be helpful.

Mach, no one claims you have a duty to do anything in your posts. But you are the one making a claim that Patrizia Stefanoni of the Italian Scientific Police has a PhD. All the evidence shows otherwise.

But that question of credentials is not so much relevant as that of adherence to protocols and standards, and ethics, in conducting forensic tests and reports that will be used as evidence in criminal trials.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Comodi: I am the decider

What on earth is this woman talking about. She seems deranged.

I left out several sentences because I was typing it out. Apparently addressing the jury, Comodi said, "No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn't even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says that the scientific police have to produce all that is requested. It's not proof, and we didn't need it to support our case. The prosecutor's office decides what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I do not believe the interrogation rooms had one-way mirrors. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele mentioned that in their books, and it is the sort of thing that would have been mentioned.

Raffaele did write that he wanted to consult a calendar (on the wall?) as he thought he was confusing dates, and was denied this.

-

Two-way mirrors are probably passe anyway, video cameras are all the rage nowadays... unless you have budget problems,

d

-
ETA: One of the problems I have with Raffaele is his inability to remember what happened the night before Meredith was found. But, at the same time, it also tells me their alibi was not a planned alibi. The alibi actually happened. They actually were together that night and not out killing anyone. Two lovers spending an unplanned night together. It all makes sense.

-

 

[Strozzi]

- Two-way mirrors are probably passe anyway, video cameras are all the rage nowadays... unless you have budget problems,

d

ETA: One of the problems I have with Raffaele is his inability to remember what happened the night before Meredith was found. But, at the same time, it also tells me their alibi was not a planned alibi. The alibi actually happened. They actually were together that night and not out killing anyone. Two lovers spending an unplanned night together. It all makes sense.
-

Try to remember details, including timing, of what you did 3, 4, and then 5 evenings/nights ago. Then include a ghastly and traumatic event into your past 5 days, add in dealing with (consoling) a very upset companion, and some sleepiness nights, and tell us how accurate you are. Then smoke some pot and tell me how sharp your recollections are. Oh, and don't look at a calendar. Then try it late at night at police headquarters while several detectives fire loaded questions at you and accuse you of covering for your companion.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Try to remember details, including timing, of what you did 3, 4, and then 5 evenings/nights ago. Then include a ghastly and traumatic event into your past 5 days, add in dealing with (consoling) a very upset companion, and some sleepiness nights, and tell us how accurate you are. Then smoke some pot and tell me how sharp your recollections are. Oh, and don't look at a calendar. Then try it late at night at police headquarters whie several detectives fire laded questions at you and accuse you of covering for your companion.

-

I understand the arguement and I have to add that since I've never been in that type of situation, I can't know for sure what I would have done if I had been.

My problem with Raffaele is just a gut feeling, and nothing more,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

I left out several sentences because I was typing it out. Apparently addressing the jury, Comodi said, "No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn't even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says that the scientific police have to produce all that is requested. It's not proof, and we didn't need it to support our case. The prosecutor's office decides what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

The statement from Comodi and the court agreeing to it is a clear violation of ECHR case-law. It is the defense with the consent of the judge that gets to decide what evidence is relevant. The interference by the prosecution is a violation of Article 6.

 

[Strozzi]

- I understand the arguement and I have to add that since I've never been in that type of situation, I can't know for sure what I would have done if I had been.

My problem with Raffaele is just a gut feeling, and nothing more,

d. -

Raffaele did not endear himself to the police listening to his phone conversations when his father cautioned him in a phone conversation not to carry his (ever-present) pocket knife into the police station and Raffaele replied "they're too stupid".

The police are both clever and crafty.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought that including the full text of my post with your response would be helpful.

Mach, no one claims you have a duty to do anything in your posts. But you are the one making a claim that Patrizia Stefanoni of the Italian Scientific Police has a PhD. All the evidence shows otherwise.
But that question of credentials is not so much relevant as that of adherence to protocols and standards, and ethics, in conducting forensic tests and reports that will be used as evidence in criminal trials.

La Repubblica has printed that Stenfanoni is a "laurea" in biology. There is not one reference I can find, not in Massei, not in a news report, not in C&V which refers to Stefanoni as..... "dottorato di ricerca" (research doctorate, equivalent of a Ph.D.), which would carry the title of "dottore/dottoressa di ricerca" (research doctor), and which can be abbreviated as "Dott. Ric.", "Dr." or "Ph.D."

The only reference is to "laurea". However, I withdraw the allegation that Machiavelli is a liar on this point. However, he is certainly mistaken... and like you say, Numbers, Stefanoni's qualifications is not the point.