Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

yeah I just read that too and honestly didn't remember how clearly Vortuna (sp?) stated he had ask specifically about both of them with picture and buying bleach.

That segment reduces the value of his "memory" of her shopping in the cleaning section to as close to zero as one can get, an infinitesimal number.

Just curious if someone has the translation of his testimony not from Hellmann's summary.

From the WWW.AMANDAKNOXCASE.COM website.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Testimony-of-Marco-Quintavalle.pdf

 

[Grinder]

From the WWW.AMANDAKNOXCASE.COM website.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Testimony-of-Marco-Quintavalle.pdf

Thanks - from the PGP wiki

In practice the first investigative task that I carried out was as regards two containers of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after the seizure I went around the shops in the environs of Raffaele Sollecito’s place of residence trying to understand from where they could have been purchased from, and for this purpose I was showing people the photograph of Raffaele Sollecito, the photograph of Amanda Knox. After a couple of days we tracked down the shop which was a Conad-Margherita shop situated right at the start of Corso Garibaldi, where both the owner and the shop assistants were to identify, from the photographs that we placed before them, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a usual customer of this shop, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company.

Yes, yes, in his company. In this shop we asked also if by chance they had noticed in the days immediately prior to the murder or straight after if they remembered whether these persons had acquired this product, although they didn’t remember. I have to preface this with the shop is subdivided into two levels, one is higher up where the entrance is and the other is lower down. The one higher up is where all the products are that people take and then go straight to the cashier, while the one below is the delicatessen, cheeses, etc etc where there were two girls working, in addition to the owner, who I think I remember was called Quintavalle. One in particular, an Ecuadorian girl, at the time I recall that it was interesting, she said to us that she had a friend who was doing the cleaning at Raffaele Sollecito’s house and she indicated the cellular device with which we then contacted her, although as for the bleach nothing came out of it, either a person or a mention of something. We were checking that…
​

Well clearly he ask and they answered in the negative. Toss him as a witness!

ETA - Quintavalle that is. Don't want no Mensa person questioning grammar

 

[Bill Williams]

Well clearly he ask and they answered in the negative. Toss him as a witness!

ETA - Quintavalle that is. Don't want no Mensa person questioning grammar

It is amazing the contortions that the lower, convicting courts went to, to make Quintavalle seem like anything other than what he was - a witness of no value to this case.

One hopes that what is happening right now in Italy, is that investigations into these lower-judicial-farces are being proposed, if not being initiated. Are average Italians safe when Massei and Nencini are able to write what amounts to fiction (with regards to Quintavalle) in condemning two innocents?

 

[Vixen]

It's not if he told police shortly after the incident that he saw nothing (or didn't say anything) but several months later comes forward with an implausible tale that doesn't hold up under cross examination, which is the case with both Curatolo and Quintavalle. Hellmann rightly discarded that worthless testimony that ought to have impugned the integrity of the prosecution for ever relying upon it and caused everyone to look askance at Massei for holding it credible in the first place.

As linked above, the Cassation quashing Motivations shows just how dishonest and/or incompetent that Cheffi court was, something that you must address if you wish to maintain there was something justifiable about the quashing of Hellmann's decision because of anything regarding those two pathetic clowns. You have Hellmann's motivations, you have Cheffi's motivations, one of those two must make more sense, are you saying it was Cheffi? If it was then tell me why.

Which of the two makes more sense? Well, I got as far as page 37 so far with Cheffi, and then lost the will to live when I saw how many more pages there were. Is there a right or wrong answer?

I have to say, bearing in mind Cheffi's assessment of Hellmann, page 16 para 3 (about the non- existence of the staged burglary), p17 para 2, how of course, the pair would turn off their phones, to have a romantic evening in, and p 20 para 1 about "a clear violation of the law" ( amongst several others) in that defense lawyers were allowed to introduce new DNA evidence, without giving the prosecution the same opportunity, together with the denial of anything by Stefanoni, well, hey, what can one say?

Hellmann was quibbling with the conclusions the first court came to, when he should have looked at whether the reasons were within the range of a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he substitutes his own reasoning. This is fine in a philosophical debate, but in law, you need to be there at the trial, looking at the witnesses putting forward their testimony, perhaps even asking a few questions yourself. For example, "Mr Quintavalle, what made you wait a year?"

But do you know what? Hellmann is so far left field, the guy is a genius! There should be a Hellmann movie. Insofar 'Face of an Angel' is based on Barbie Nadeau, and a 'Don't Look Now' type journey through the labyrinthe alleys of Perugia, with Cara Delevinge providing the love interest against a Dante-ian Infernesque intrigue of dreams and nightmares, 'Face of Hell' should be a feel good movie.

We could have someone like Slyvester Stallone as Hellmann and Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Leonardo di Capri and Glenn Close playing the slick avocatos.

Emma Stone of Birdman fame can provide the love interest as she flits between Grant and Firth, in a reconstructed Bridget Jones-style scenario.

Amanda and Raf can play themselves, with Jodie Foster as the cruel Donnino.

The feelgood comes at the end...but then you already know.

No, seriously, Hellmann is a scream! Hopeless logic, but let's not let that get in the way.

 

[Grinder]

It is amazing the contortions that the lower, convicting courts went to, to make Quintavalle seem like anything other than what he was - a witness of no value to this case.

One hopes that what is happening right now in Italy, is that investigations into these lower-judicial-farces are being proposed, if not being initiated. Are average Italians safe when Massei and Nencini are able to write what amounts to fiction (with regards to Quintavalle) in condemning two innocents people?

Fixed for you. The court system should not allow these types of witnesses against anyone.

Yes. It is amazing that people there and here could possibly accept Q and C as witnesses. PGP arguing that Curatolo being on heroin doesn't impact his memory is beyond ludicrous. Now had Curatolo and Quintavalle come forward in the two days and picked out A & R out of a photo montage or line-up and filled in details that weren't defined already my the media then maybe. But as it occurred, no way.

 

[RWVBWL]

Who were The Instructors?

Perugia Shock,
as local as it gets:

Absent Carlo Dalla Vedova, Ghirga and Maori had in front of them the person who could destroy the most disgusting accuser of Amanda. Not a poor nuts like Curatolo who spoke out of his foolery, but a person of normal intelligence who, seduced by a local journalist, deliberately chose to remember --with one year delay and for reasons he should be called to explain-- to have seen Amanda. The attorneys had this key witness in front of them. And they didn't ask her anything.
Did you see Amanda coming to the store at the opening of November 2? Nobody made that simple question. Of course.

They know the first rule of criminal attorneys: never ask a question if you don't already know the answer. Marina could have answered No, and that would have been perfect. But she could have been instructed by the store owner or by the instructors of the store owner and she could have answered Yes. And this would have been a problem. And because a trial is not gambling they were paralyzed. They had the match ball in their hands and they couldn't shoot, they had to let her go.

But then was Massei's turn to pose questions. And Massei didn't forget about that crucial event. He made the fateful question: DID YOU SEE AMANDA KNOX COMING TO THE STORE THAT MORNING? And Marina's answer was simple: NO.

Silence when the truth emerges. The banality of Truth.

* * *

Greetings y'all,
Why do I post the above,
once again, today?

Italy,
if you really want to right the wrongs in The Amanda Knox case,
find + prosecute the probable "instructors of the store owner".

I might also add, IMHO,
please find + prosecute the probable instructors of "The Tramp",
a label that, IIRC, PM Mignini, called him, in Court,
a man named Antonio "Toto" Curatolo...

(A man who had a drug bust hanging over his head from 4 years previous,
who testified in 2 other murder trials previously,
a man who was high on heroin the night Miss Meredith Kercher was raped + murdered.)

There is your answer.

Take The Instructor(s)
him or her into that 2nd Floor of The Questura in Perugia,
a place off limits to the general public and reserved for Mafia suspects.
Please do so overnight, with many hardcore police officers present, some even from Rome.
But Please, Please Please video The Interrogation, allow the suspect to have a lawyer present, + to use the bathroom when her feminine issues arise or he has to drop the kids off at the pool, as we surfers say.

Italy,
If you find out who The Instructors were,
arrest + prosecute them, + you'll probably gain a huge amount of respect with your citizens, + The World. Kind of like what we here in The U.S.A. did with the high profile Duke Lacrosse Case a few years back, can you dig?

And let The World know of the results, OK?
My hopes+ opinion only,

RW

 

[Grinder]

I have to say, bearing in mind Cheffi's assessment of Hellmann, page 16 para 3 (about the non- existence of the staged burglary), p17 para 2, how of course, the pair would turn off their phones, to have a romantic evening in, and p 20 para 1 about "a clear violation of the law" ( amongst several others) in that defense lawyers were allowed to introduce new DNA evidence, without giving the prosecution the same opportunity, together with the denial of anything by Stefanoni, well, hey, what can one say?

Exactly what new DNA evidence was allowed? Did they check the (semen) stain? What was Stef denied? Can you explain why they would have turned off their phones before murdering Mez? Isn't it more logical to leave them on and at Raf's?

Hellmann was quibbling with the conclusions the first court came to, when he should have looked at whether the reasons were within the range of a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he substitutes his own reasoning. This is fine in a philosophical debate, but in law, you need to be there at the trial, looking at the witnesses putting forward their testimony, perhaps even asking a few questions yourself. For example, "Mr Quintavalle, what made you wait a year?"

What is the mandate of a second trial or as they call it the trial of the second instance? You do know they interviewed Curatolo and IIRC that's when he made his famous admission he was using heroin everyday including the murder night but not to worry heroin doesn't make one hallucinate.

But do you know what? Hellmann is so far left field, the guy is a genius! There should be a Hellmann movie. Hopeless logic, but let's not let that get in the way.

Not familiar with the highlighted expression. What logic excluding his calumny verdict was hopeless?

 

[Vixen]

He did complain, he never shuts up about the shoes in particular. However there's no reason for it to come up as often because his statements weren't used against him in any way. The easiest way to explain this is those statements that Amanda signed should never have had any validity at all, she should have had a lawyer who would have advised her what the gravity of her signing those statements would be and how it would affect Patrick. Those statements would not have been signed had she gotten a chance to sleep and have known they would be considered definite evidence against Patrick, a perusal of her note later in the day reveals that.

No cherry-picking half a sentence out of context, read the whole thing and tell me if you think she'd have signed a definite accusation against Patrick. The hitting, the yelling, the lying/misinforming--all of the interrogation tactics--are only relevant because the police managed to finesse the law and use that statement against Patrick and then against Amanda in the court of public opinion and eventually in the courts.

So...why were the police still using that note against Patrick (on the eighth before Matteini) when they already knew that the person that signed them recanted (completely on the seventh) and hadn't had a lawyer to advise them beforehand and who refused to repeat the accusation before Matteini? What possible worth would such a statement have against Patrick anyway at that juncture?

I don't know, really, but one thing did leap out at me - this is to do with the content rather than procedures - the blurry flashing images. Apparently, it is common for people recalling a traumatic event to not remember it fully, but to see flashing episodes. So quite chillingly accurately presented for a made up recollection.

In addition, thinking of Cheffi/Hellman. When Hellmann said Amanda's slander was not based on a real event, Cheffi logically pointed out, that therefore a calunnia ipso facto cannot exist. If Hellmann thought the comments were made just to exit an unpleasant situation and that the recollection was purely imaginary, then he had the opportunity at his disposal to dismiss the calunnia charge.

[excerpt]

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming [end of excerpt]

 

[RoseMontague]

Don't want no Mensa person questioning grammar

Too funny.

 

[RWVBWL]

I don't know,
<snip>
[excerpt]

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming [end of excerpt]

Hi Vixen,
Amanda blames it on Patrik, as you quote.
And so why was Raffaele even arrested?

No where in her signed confession does she even mention The Raff, right?

 

[Vixen]

Exactly what new DNA evidence was allowed? Did they check the (semen) stain? What was Stef denied? Can you explain why they would have turned off their phones before murdering Mez? Isn't it more logical to leave them on and at Raf's?



What is the mandate of a second trial or as they call it the trial of the second instance? You do know they interviewed Curatolo and IIRC that's when he made his famous admission he was using heroin everyday including the murder night but not to worry heroin doesn't make one hallucinate.
Not familiar with the highlighted expression. What logic excluding his calumny verdict was hopeless?

Answering in turn, the new DNA evidence was Vecchiotti & Conti, not being heard at the First Instance.

No, the semen stain test was rejected. Presumably, because the defense did not raise it at the First Instance. Prof Peter Gill anyway explained that of itself it means nothing, as it could date from any time.

Hellmann, according to Cheffi, rejected all of Stefanoni testimony and data, and this was improper, as it was a rejection of the person, rather than the data.

The Curatolo reasoning is similar, it is an ad hominem rejection, rather than a logical one, when Curatolo was accepted as a witness by the First Instance.

The mandate of the second hearing was to assess the appeals and cross appeals as submitted by defense and prosecution. These would be on points of law, procedure, new evidence (not reasonably known about as of the time of First Instance [the defense would have known of the semen stain then]), perversity or public interest, such as miscarriage of justice.

Hellmann's logic was circular, he used post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and I am sorry to have to say, it was woolly thinking, leaving aside the merits of the case.

 

[Vixen]

That's it? You claim to be equally sceptical of both sides of this case, and that's all you have to say on the lies and professional misconduct of the scientific police?

The misconduct is not a matter of speculation - there are hours of video showing their cargo cult science in living colour. Have you watched them? The lies are a matter of public record - Stephanoni lied on the stand. Have you read the trial transcripts?

Why are you so willing to give the police a free pass, but seem determined to pick apart Hellman, if you're equally sceptical of both sides? A couple of pages back you seemed to claim that there couldn't be anything wrong with the police interrogation, because "checks and balances" would be in place. As I replied then, you're right - all civilised countries are aware of how easy it is for police to step over the line, so checks and balances are a matter of law. Those checks and balances consist of recording interrogations and giving suspects access to a lawyer.

Now - what happens when those checks and balances aren't implemented? Why aren't you interested in these aspects of the case?

You really ought to be better acquainted with the source material.

AIUI the dispute over Dr Stefanoni is to do with LCN. Vecchiotti & Conti argued the traces on the Knife Exhibit 36 were too low copy number to be admissible and the fact it was not replicable, as she'd used it all up.

ISTM in a crime where perps scrupulously clean up the crime scene, knowing not to leave forensic traces behind, if a small piece of DNA turns up notwithstanding the attempts to conceal, then it's unreasonable and unfair to criticise the police for not having enough of it.

The defense had a legal right to be present during testing, and I believe they were. The defense agreed it was Mez' DNA, with 15 allelles, a particularly convincing match. In addition, at the Nencini appeal, police experts for the prosecution showed that LCN samples can be double tested accurately.

V&C had said the aforesaid sample was too small to be human matter. At Nencini, it was proven it could be done. As you know, it was Amanda's DNA and not starch.

Is Stefanoni corrupt? <shrug> I honestly have no idea.

 

[anglolawyer]

AIUI the dispute over Dr Stefanoni is to do with LCN. Vecchiotti & Conti argued the traces on the Knife Exhibit 36 were too low number to be admissible and the fact it was not replicale as she'd used it all up.

No, nothing to do with admissibility. Conti and Vechiotti aren't lawyers. They were asked to (1) reproduce Stefanoni's work if possible (it wasn't since she had destroyed some of the evidence and fabricated the rest) and (2) report on her work, which they did, condemning it roundly and exposing her as either incompetent or a liar or both.

I snipped the rest of your post and suggest you read their report, something which few (if any?) guilters seem to have done.

 

[Grinder]

Answering in turn, the new DNA evidence was Vecchiotti & Conti, not being heard at the First Instance.

Oh I thought C&V mostly reviewed the work of Steffi and the crack ICSI crew. They did recheck the knife and found what turned out to be starch when Necinni allowed new evidence into the 2nd trial of the second instance. Say how could he do that? Oh and he used C&V as well.

No, the semen stain test was rejected. Presumably, because the defense did not raise it at the First Instance. Prof Peter Gill anyway explained that of itself it means nothing, as it could date from any time.

Well IIRC correctly they did ask after one of their experts found it. Not very clear thinking my you or the ILE as NO DNA IS DATED. The dna of Amanda on the knife was not dated, the alleged dna of Raf on the clasp, or the other three or four people's dna on it, was not dated. Yet those were tested and allowed in. So if the dna came from Raf or Rudi it would mean nothing? Now that's brilliant. What if it matched Koko or some sex criminal they knew of?

Hellmann, according to Cheffi, rejected all of Stefanoni testimony and data, and this was improper, as it was a rejection of the person, rather than the data.

No he rejected her "work" and the methods used to collect, transport and test the samples. He may have also chided her for destroying the clasp.

The Curatolo reasoning is similar, it is an ad hominem rejection, rather than a logical one, when Curatolo was accepted as a witness by the First Instance.

No it was judging his mental state at the time from his own statements and from the outlandish claims made months after he had seen nothing.

The mandate of the second hearing was to assess the appeals and cross appeals as submitted by defense and prosecution. These would be on points of law, procedure, new evidence (not reasonably known about as of the time of First Instance [the defense would have known of the semen stain then]), perversity or public interest, such as miscarriage of justice.

It is basically a trial de novo using the first trials evidence which is allowed to be reassessed.

Hellmann's logic was circular, he used post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and I am sorry to have to say, it was woolly thinking, leaving aside the merits of the case.

Please the specific.

 

[RWVBWL]

No, the semen stain test was rejected. Presumably, because the defense did not raise it at the First Instance. Prof Peter Gill anyway explained that of itself it means nothing, as it could date from any time.
<snip>

Was it rejected or tested and the results not brought forth???

Here is a video, Vixen, from the Crime Scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ&app=desktop

Watch it, please, it's only a coupla minutes long
It has audio with subtitles of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni talking with her assistant Alessa in Rome
about blood and seminal fluid, presumed seminal fluid, over 24 hours later, the next day as she,
Dr. Stefanoni worked on collecting evidence in this brutal rape + murder.


I found this recently while looking for omething else,
it mentions the Crime Scene videos that I shared a link with you yesterday:
"The tape was shown to the court during the appeal and at the original trial
but with no audio – until it was played on Italian TV."

Here's what some of that Crime Scene audio shares with us:
Dr. Stefanoni wants seminal fluid, probable seminal fluid tested, cops are laughing as Meredith still lay under her duvet, murdered, naked +raped, and per The Daily Mail: "Questions about the professionalism of forensic officers in the case have emerged after they were heard joking on a crime scene video about taking cocaine to stay awake".


We know that PM Mignini did not want Coroner Luca Lali to take Miss Kercher's body temp,
even though it might have helped narrow down her time of death.

Do you really think that PM Mignini,
sometimes seen in the Crime Scene video's,
did not want that blood or probable seminal fluid tested, ASAP,
concerning the rape + murder of a foreign English Erasmus student in a college town???


Here's a doozy from The Massei Report that I did read of yesterday.
Regarding Dr Stefanoni:
Pages 180 +181

Turning to the event which is the subject of this trial, she stated that during the early afternoon of Friday, November 2, 2007, following notification of a technical inspection in Perugia due to a homicide, she went to the house at via della Pergola 7, arriving at around 19:00-20:00 pm, together with other personnel from the Scientific Police of Rome, and immediately started working on the place where the victim had been found, work which continued on the following days, and consisted of individualizing and acquiring investigative elements which could turn out to be useful.
<snip>

On November 12, laboratory testing commenced on the material acquired up to then; on November 22 a second phase of laboratory operations began, and continued on November 27. Another start was made on December 10, 2007, and continued on December 14, 2007.

Link:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/PDF/Massei_Report.pdf

* * *

You gotta be kidding' me!
With a horrible rape + murder having occurred,
with World-Wide press coverage,
with Italian police having a Press Conference stating "Case Closed"
forensic laboratory testing commenced on the material acquired up to then on Nov. 12, 2007,
10 days after Meredith Kercher was found murdered under her duvet, mostly naked, in a pool of blood?

And the laboratory testing was done
by the same woman who collected said material acquired?

How come Dr. Stefanoni did not test the presumed seminal fluid ASAP after Miss Kercher's rape + murder?
Or did she? Where are those results, Dr. Stefanoni, that you talk about discussing with Alessa tomorrow, ("even if it's written clearly near the bags"), which would have been on Nov. 4th, 2007?

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know, really, but one thing did leap out at me - this is to do with the content rather than procedures - the blurry flashing images. Apparently, it is common for people recalling a traumatic event to not remember it fully, but to see flashing episodes. So quite chillingly accurately presented for a made up recollection.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, she doesn't 'remember' the 'event' (the murder) at all, what that's based upon is the mental images she summoned of Patrick when they shoved the phone in her face and insisted she must know because they had evidence she was 'there.'

It's not the slightest bit accurate. There's no mention of a weapon, the break-in (or it being 'staged') or anything that happened outside the scream--which was fed to her. The entire thing is nothing but a bad confabulation of the bogus information they fed her and those mental images which were not related to the murder. To put it simply, they gaslit her.

In addition, thinking of Cheffi/Hellman. When Hellmann said Amanda's slander was not based on a real event, Cheffi logically pointed out, that therefore a calunnia ipso facto cannot exist. If Hellmann thought the comments were made just to exit an unpleasant situation and that the recollection was purely imaginary, then he had the opportunity at his disposal to dismiss the calunnia charge.

You're right he should have, I think he realized that later when he said he had to either convict her of that or accuse the cops.

[excerpt]
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming [end of excerpt]

Nothing about the murder and if you read her testimony you find her 'memory' of the scream was generated by asking her why she didn't hear it and her answering that her ears must have been covered.

 

[Grinder]

If the Nencini test of 36-I was Amanda's or starch makes no difference as it was a knife in the kitchen she was living in and as we all know dna can't be dated.

 

[carbonjam72]

Answering in turn, the new DNA evidence was Vecchiotti & Conti, not being heard at the First Instance.

No, the semen stain test was rejected. Presumably, because the defense did not raise it at the First Instance. Prof Peter Gill anyway explained that of itself it means nothing, as it could date from any time.

Hellmann, according to Cheffi, rejected all of Stefanoni testimony and data, and this was improper, as it was a rejection of the person, rather than the data.
The Curatolo reasoning is similar, it is an ad hominem rejection, rather than a logical one, when Curatolo was accepted as a witness by the First Instance.

The mandate of the second hearing was to assess the appeals and cross appeals as submitted by defense and prosecution. These would be on points of law, procedure, new evidence (not reasonably known about as of the time of First Instance [the defense would have known of the semen stain then]), perversity or public interest, such as miscarriage of justice.

Hellmann's logic was circular, he used post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and I am sorry to have to say, it was woolly thinking, leaving aside the merits of the case.

oh Please.

 

[Kaosium]

Which of the two makes more sense? Well, I got as far as page 37 so far with Cheffi, and then lost the will to live when I saw how many more pages there were. Is there a right or wrong answer?

Just go to the (Cheffi) sections on Curatolo and Quintavalle to start with.

I have to say, bearing in mind Cheffi's assessment of Hellmann, page 16 para 3 (about the non- existence of the staged burglary), p17 para 2, how of course, the pair would turn off their phones, to have a romantic evening in, and p 20 para 1 about "a clear violation of the law" ( amongst several others) in that defense lawyers were allowed to introduce new DNA evidence, without giving the prosecution the same opportunity, together with the denial of anything by Stefanoni, well, hey, what can one say?

There was good reason to deny the prosecution the opportunity to try to recover Low Template DNA evidence from an item they had handled improperly (think about it). It turned out it didn't matter, the item was re-tested and no DNA of Meredith was found, which just narrowed the contamination down to the lab. Thus there never was anything of Meredith's on the knife, it just got into the sample during processing, perhaps from the Speed-Vac machine.

Hellmann was quibbling with the conclusions the first court came to, when he should have looked at whether the reasons were within the range of a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he substitutes his own reasoning. This is fine in a philosophical debate, but in law, you need to be there at the trial, looking at the witnesses putting forward their testimony, perhaps even asking a few questions yourself. For example, "Mr Quintavalle, what made you wait a year?"

That was the trial, the Italian system does not work like the common law system where the appeal is just based upon points of law, that's what the Court of Cassation does. It's the trial of the second instance (like Hellmann) that really counts, Amanda and Raffaele could have been acquitted by Massei (first instance) and then convicted in the second instance and that's the one that would have counted. Both the trial of the first instance and the appeal are finders of fact, unlike the common law system.

 

[carbonjam72]

AIUI the dispute over Dr Stefanoni is to do with LCN. Vecchiotti & Conti argued the traces on the Knife Exhibit 36 were too low copy number to be admissible and the fact it was not replicable, as she'd used it all up.

ISTM in a crime where perps scrupulously clean up the crime scene, knowing not to leave forensic traces behind, if a small piece of DNA turns up notwithstanding the attempts to conceal, then it's unreasonable and unfair to criticise the police for not having enough of it.

The defense had a legal right to be present during testing, and I believe they were. The defense agreed it was Mez' DNA, with 15 allelles, a particularly convincing match. In addition, at the Nencini appeal, police experts for the prosecution showed that LCN samples can be double tested accurately.

V&C had said the aforesaid sample was too small to be human matter. At Nencini, it was proven it could be done. As you know, it was Amanda's DNA and not starch.

Is Stefanoni corrupt? <shrug> I honestly have no idea.

You're not dealing with a realistic understanding of the process. Stefanoni has to this day concealed the data that would allow a reconstruction of her actual findings, which would show lab contamination.

If you continue to insist Amanda and Raf cleaned up their DNA, fingerprints and their own footprints in Meredith's wet blood, while leaving behind only Rudy Guede's DNA, fingerprints, and wet blood, then I'm revoking your Mensa decoder ring.