Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
I told you what it means. If you intent is to understand.

(Your actual intent is to make up stuff as usual).



That title is not used.
Can you hear me?
It is not used.
People don't say "this is a dottore di ricerca". He/she would be called "laureato" in ... .
Can you udnerstand this?
Click to expand...

Once again, M., you have wasted a post. You could have used the time to prove your point. You decided to engage me instead. Good for you.

Do you care to look at the pictures DougM linked to, and comment? Or look at this picture and comment?



While you are at it - which hook was 165B found on? The one floating free, or the one clasped in Stefanoni's fingers?

ETA - apologies - you have already commented. You said that the obviously dirty clasp contaminated the glove!
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Correct. Let me correct it. The Carabinieri forensic scientists found no evidence of the victim's DNA in the lab data or on the knife blade.
Click to expand...

To be precise, they didn't found evidence of the Meredith's DNA in sample "I", the only sample from the blade they analyzed.

According to the Novelli report, Vecchiotti had found DNA on samples A, D, I (in sample "A" 90pg, of which 30pg of a male profile; in "D" an estimated total 30pg and in "I" a total esteem of 150pg).

Vecchiotti decided not to test sample "I" assuming the result would have been unreliable, in disagreement with Stefanoni, Novelli and Torricelli. The Carabinieri disproved Vecchiotti's assessment, and established that Stefanoni, Novelli and Torricelli were right.
By the way, Vecchiotti also lied in court, stating she had the agreement of the other parties on the decision not to test extract the profiles, while the other parties in fact had objected and refused to sign the decision.
 
Strozzi said:
The myth I am really alluding to is the myth that there has never been any DNA contamination in Stefanini's lab.
Click to expand...

The claim that she stated so, is a myth.

Stefanoni actually stated she never happened to see evidence that a result in her lab was the consequence of a laboratory contamination issue.
 
Bill Williams said:
Once again, M., you have wasted a post. You could have used the time to prove your point. You decided to engage me instead. Good for you.

Do you care to look at the pictures DougM linked to, and comment? Or look at this picture and comment?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

While you are at it - which hook was 165B found on? The one floating free, or the one clasped in Stefanoni's fingers?

ETA - apologies - you have already commented. You said that the obviously dirty clasp contaminated the glove!
Click to expand...

Wasn't 165B both hooks? I think I remember reading that the extraction was done on both hooks combined.
 
Machiavelli said:
The claim that she stated so, is a myth.

Stefanoni actually stated she never happened to see evidence that a result in her lab was the consequence of a laboratory contamination issue.
Click to expand...

From Massei:

Massei p.231 said:
In response to a specific question on this point, Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had
been working as a biologist for seven years, had always used the same methodology,
and had never heard that any problem of contamination of exhibits had occurred.​
Click to expand...

In other words, she said she never had a case of contamination in her lab.
 
Dan O. said:
Has anybody seen this search warrant that Machiavelli claims was issued prior to the search in which the kitchen knife was taken?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it but that doesn't mean there isn't one. As more official documents and transcripts become public it just might pop up.
 
Machiavelli said:
But this understanding is false. She must have discussed a PhD dissertation in order to be allowed to work 8 years at an Italian university. The fact is that the Italian system and custom does not attach importance to PhD as a title, and does not use it as a title. In theory it exists, some people have that title, but it is not addressed, not mentioned, not used in the common language.

I don't. And even if I had, that wouldn't affect my rational conclusion about guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I have a problem with the pro-Knox supporters' statements.
Click to expand...

We of course are looking at this from different countries' educational perspectives. In the U.S. it is very common for graduate students to earn a masters degree and work at a university or institute as a researcher, and never undertake, or, if they commence it, never complete a Ph.D. They do not by virtue of working as a researcher become a Ph.D. It often takes another 4 years beyond a masters degree to complete advanced coursework, do original research for a dissertation, write the dissertation, and defend it. In the U.S. doing research, even for many years, does not equate to writing a dissertation.

People who have earned a Ph.D. naturally defend this standard.

In the U.S. an army major is not a general, an assistant professor is not a full professor, an M.A. researcher is not a Ph.D., and Al Gore did not invent the Internet.
 
Machiavelli said:
Actually they took two knives from the apartment and one from Sollecito's pocket (all the potential weapons he possessed in Parugia). .
Click to expand...


2007-11-06 Finzi collected from Raffaele's kitchen drawer the double DNA knife (exibit 36) and from Raffaele's bedroom a knife with a total length of 18 cm and a blade length of 8 cm (Massei [99])
2007-11-12 Today will be examined by forensic of Rome, two knives and shoes seized Raffaele Sollecito (Republica (it))​


What happened to the knife from Raffaele's pocket?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Has anybody seen this search warrant that Machiavelli claims was issued prior to the search in which the kitchen knife was taken?
Click to expand...

Well I saw the minutes, with Sollecito's signature, and everything seems done by the book:

 
christianahannah said:
I haven't seen it but that doesn't mean there isn't one. As more official documents and transcripts become public it just might pop up.
Click to expand...

As you can read from the police minutes ("verbale") of the home search, the search was accomplished under the provision of art. 352 (paragraph 2).
The § 2. says the police can do searches on persons and homes on the basis of a judicial decree of arrest or police arrest, when there is some reason to act with urgency.
 
Strozzi said:
We of course are looking at this from different countries' educational perspectives. In the U.S. it is very common for graduate students to earn a masters degree and work at a university or institute as a researcher, and never undertake, or, if they commence it, never complete a Ph.D. They do not by virtue of working as a researcher become a Ph.D. It often takes another 4 years beyond a masters degree to complete advanced coursework, do original research for a dissertation, write the dissertation, and defend it. In the U.S. doing research, even for many years, does not equate to writing a dissertation.

People who have earned a Ph.D. naturally defend this standard.

In the U.S. an army major is not a general, an assistant professor is not a full professor, an M.A. researcher is not a Ph.D., and Al Gore did not invent the Internet.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my experience in my own country as well. You can work as a researcher for years without having a PhD.
 
Machiavelli said:
As you can read from the police minutes ("verbale") of the home search, the search was accomplished under the provision of art. 352 (paragraph 2).
The § 2. says the police can do searches on persons and homes on the basis of a judicial decree of arrest or police arrest, when there is some reason to act with urgency.
Click to expand...

And what was the reason to act with urgency? Does every homicide qualify?
 
Strozzi said:
We of course are looking at this from different countries' educational perspectives. In the U.S. it is very common for graduate students to earn a masters degree and work at a university or institute as a researcher, and never undertake, or, if they commence it, never complete a Ph.D. They do not by virtue of working as a researcher become a Ph.D. It often takes another 4 years beyond a masters degree to complete advanced coursework, do original research for a dissertation, write the dissertation, and defend it. In the U.S. doing research, even for many years, does not equate to writing a dissertation.

People who have earned a Ph.D. naturally defend this standard.

In the U.S. an army major is not a general, an assistant professor is not a full professor, an M.A. researcher is not a Ph.D., and Al Gore did not invent the Internet.
Click to expand...

In Italy it is not possible to work as a researcher beyond 3 years in the same field of research, unless one earns a PhD. Otherwise the contract cannot be renewd the following year.
It is also absolutely not common that one commences a work as a researcher and does not complete a PhD, and nobody starts working as a researcher without pursueing a PhD: that would be formally impossible in the system, and if you don't achieve it you can't go forward working a researcher after the first years.

Actually, it is not me who needs to look from other perspectives. The perspective and the context is the Italian system. It's you who need to look at things through that perspective.
 
Machiavelli said:
In Italy it is not possible to work as a researcher beyond 3 years in the same field of research, unless one earns a PhD. Otherwise the contract cannot be renewd the following year.
It is also absolutely not common that one commences a work as a researcher and does not complete a PhD, and nobody starts working as a researcher without pursueing a PhD: that would be formally impossible in the system, and if you don't achieve it you can't go forward working a researcher after the first years.

Actually, it is not me who needs to look from other perspectives. The perspective and the context is the Italian system. It's you who need to look at things through that perspective.
Click to expand...

These are a lot of keystrokes with surmises and lectures and assertions, when an equal number of keystrokes would have produced (if it existed) Stefanoni's Ph.D.

You had no trouble with the search warrant (minutes) which you seem to have pulled quite readily from - somewhere!
 
MDDVS said:
And what was the reason to act with urgency? Does every homicide qualify?
Click to expand...

You don't need homicide to have urgency.

Paragraph 1. says urgency is a founded reason to suspect that traces or things at the place may be altered or be lost if they wait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom