• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
Raffaele's expert was there for the knife tests. His report calls Stefi's results worthless and of no scientific value. For the shoe print, one of Raffaele's family members pointed out the error the cop's "expert" had made.
Click to expand...

Raffaele's family knew the shoeprint attributed to Raffaele had to be wrong because they believe Raffaele was not involved in the murder. (That they believe on faith.)

Raffaele's father, sister, and uncle searched stores in Perugia, Rome, and around their hometown of Bari in southeast Italy to find a shoe whose sole pattern matched the shoe from the shoebox the police recovered from Guede's closet. The Sollecitos looked for quite some time checking stores all over. Finally, Raffaele's uncle located the shoe in a store near Bari. The Sollecito's discussed their long search a number of times by phone. Once they found it, Raffaele's father arranged (by phone) with a leading TV news talk show to go on the show to expose the police's shoe accusation against Raffale as false.

The police were secretly listening to the Sollecito family's phone conversations and knew that the family had managed to purchase a copy of Rudy's exact shoe and was making plans to go on Italian TV in January to show the world the police error. The shoeprint was the only evidence the police had to "claim" Raffaele was present at the crime. This, it appears, is what caused Dr. Stefanoni to go back to the cottage 46 days later to recover critical evidence to connect Raffaele to the crime - the bra clasp. She recovered it December 18 (2007).

On the very day in January 2008 when Raffaele's father went on the TV news show to disprove the police's shoeprint allegation against his son, the prosecution (that morning) told the media that they had the bra clasp with Raffaele's DNA on it.

That's how the Perugia police and prosecutor Mignini do things.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
She claimed that Diaz had the report and she most likely had a copy after calling me a guilter.

The tunnels completed are about 22' versus Bertha which 56' - see a difference?
Click to expand...

Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi, Mignini's footprint consultant, measured them and says they are a match. :p
 
Last edited:
I thought it would be useful to revisit Machiavelli's reasons why the presumed semen stain was not tested.

It's because any of the four possible outcomes of that testing would be irrelevant.

If it was found to be Raffaele's, then that would be irrelevant because (acc. to Machiavelli) Raffaele is proven guilty on other issues.

If it was found to be Guede's, that is irrelevant to the trial against AK and RS, and Rudy has already been found guilty.

If it was someone else's, that, too, would be irrelevant, because that would be the only indication of this (perhaps) unknown person. And besides, they are not on trial here, only AK and RS.

If it tests for some other substance, then that would make the whole exercise irrelevant.

See: Continuation #11, Post #1962.
 
extraction buffer and the bra clasp

Vecchiotti and Zoppis wrote, "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty." I looked up the contents of extraction buffer one time, but I don't have it handy. It is definitely acqueous, and I think that one of the substances that is present is EDTA.
 
RoseMontague said:
She also told the court that the TMB test on the knife was negative and that meant without a doubt it was not blood. Different story with the footprints revealed by Luminol. She's just a mass of contradictions.
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed some people who will find 'contradictions' (real or imagined) in anything Raffaele, Amanda or innocentisti say cannot bring themselves to admit it when Stefanoni, the prosecution or Bunnydom United clearly contradict themselves, their colleagues, the facts of the case or the academic literature?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Not really unsubstantiated, Antony, as the highest judges in the land tore Hellmann to bits. It's no good having the right vetdict if your reasoning does not work.
Click to expand...

They didn't "tear Hellmann to bits". The March 2013 ISC ruling was a complete, illegal, travesty which demonstrates that the corruption behind the prosecution of the 2 students ran to the highest levels.

We know the ISC is restricted to ruling on matters of law, not evidence. Unfortunately, this is not totally clear-cut, as there is scope for them to overrule "arbitrary" or "perverse" interpretations of evidence. In the event, they intruded deeply into all of Hellmann's rulings on the evidence, imposing their own blatantly perverse interpretations on Hellmann's rational ones.

For example, the March 2013 court reinstated Curatolo's testimony on the grounds that indications that it referred to October 31 (rather than the evening of the murder, November 1) should be disregarded, because it was known that the 2 defendants were not in the area on October 31.

So Curatolo was to be considered reliable that he had seen 2 people (who at the time he would have no reason to recognise), but not reliable that there had been buses and students dressed for Hallowe'en!

I suggest you read the Chieffi report critically before you dismiss Hellmann.
 
Antony said:
They didn't "tear Hellmann to bits". The March 2013 ISC ruling was a complete, illegal, travesty which demonstrates that the corruption behind the prosecution of the 2 students ran to the highest levels.

We know the ISC is restricted to ruling on matters of law, not evidence. Unfortunately, this is not totally clear-cut, as there is scope for them to overrule "arbitrary" or "perverse" interpretations of evidence. In the event, they intruded deeply into all of Hellmann's rulings on the evidence, imposing their own blatantly perverse interpretations on Hellmann's rational ones.

For example, the March 2013 court reinstated Curatolo's testimony on the grounds that indications that it referred to October 31 (rather than the evening of the murder, November 1) should be disregarded, because it was known that the 2 defendants were not in the area on October 31.

So Curatolo was to be considered reliable that he had seen 2 people (who at the time he would have no reason to recognise), but not reliable that there had been buses and students dressed for Hallowe'en!

I suggest you read the Chieffi report critically before you dismiss Hellmann.
Click to expand...


Vizen already indicated he only read 37 pages of the Cheffi motivation. Probably got the rest through osmosis.
 
Bill Williams said:
I thought it would be useful to revisit Machiavelli's reasons why the presumed semen stain was not tested.

It's because any of the four possible outcomes of that testing would be irrelevant.

If it was found to be Raffaele's, then that would be irrelevant because (acc. to Machiavelli) Raffaele is proven guilty on other issues.

If it was found to be Guede's, that is irrelevant to the trial against AK and RS, and Rudy has already been found guilty.

If it was someone else's, that, too, would be irrelevant, because that would be the only indication of this (perhaps) unknown person. And besides, they are not on trial here, only AK and RS.

If it tests for some other substance, then that would make the whole exercise irrelevant.

See: Continuation #11, Post #1962.
Click to expand...

I can see that if it were, say, her boyfriend's then discretion might be to protect his privacy.
 
Vixen said:
I can see that if it were, say, her boyfriend's then discretion might be to protect his privacy.
Click to expand...


The protection of Silenzi's privacy should have been of no importance whatsoever in this case.

Even if it were not fully acknowledged that Silenzi and Kercher were in a sexual relationship (which was indeed fully acknowledged), the stain should clearly have been tested (and DNA-matched if possible). If it had turned out to be Silenzi's semen, then what "embarrassment" would that have caused Silenzi? He was in a sexual relationship with the victim, and in any case he had a cast-iron alibi for the whole time period around the murder.

As others have said, there are huge red flashing lights that this stain might very well have been probative evidence had it been properly tested. As has been said, if it had been Sollecito's semen, then this would have been a terminal blow to Sollecito's (and probably also Knox's) defence. If it had been Guede's semen (as I think it was), then this indicates a far higher escalation of sexual activity than Guede ever admitted to - indeed, it would point in the direction of an extremely unpleasant conclusion related to peri-mortem or post-mortem sexual activity. If it had been the semen of another male, then it's obvious to see how this would be very important in several different ways to the investigation. If it had been Kercher's saliva, or even vaseline, then it would have had little or no evidential value, but at the same time nothing would have been wasted by testing it and establishing that fact.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Vecchiotti and Zoppis wrote, "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty." I looked up the contents of extraction buffer one time, but I don't have it handy. It is definitely acqueous, and I think that one of the substances that is present is EDTA.
Click to expand...


Thanks Chris. I had a feeling this was the case.

It's actually astonishing how much (if not all) of the physical evidence in this case was appallingly handled by the forensics team, led with aplomb by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni. It almost reaches a breadth and depth where it can no longer be explained by sheer abject incompetence. To recap:

1) The clasp was sealed in a container with moisture or liquid from the buffer solution, thereby ensuring that the metal parts - the parts that were critical to the investigation - would rust and become useless for any further analysis.

2) The blood-soaked towels found in Kercher's room were stored in a clump, ensuring that the moisture and bacteria from the blood caused the towels to rot. This meant that these towels were never able to be subjected to any analysis whatsoever.

3) Sollecito's kitchen knife was, for an inexplicable reason, removed from the paper envelope into which it had been placed when it was removed from Sollecito's apartment, when it was at the police station en route to Stefanoni's lab. It was then placed into a cardboard box that happened to be at hand in the office, which had previously contained a desk diary.

4) A mop found in the girls' cottage - a potentially very important item of evidence at that point - was wrapped up using a roll of wrapping paper that the forensics team found lying in a cupboard in the girls' cottage.


I think there are more along these lines, but I can't recall them right now. In any case, these four examples are sufficiently incredible and jaw-dropping as to constitute a damning indictment of the "crack" forensics team involved in this case.
 
Antony said:
They didn't "tear Hellmann to bits". The March 2013 ISC ruling was a complete, illegal, travesty which demonstrates that the corruption behind the prosecution of the 2 students ran to the highest levels.

We know the ISC is restricted to ruling on matters of law, not evidence. Unfortunately, this is not totally clear-cut, as there is scope for them to overrule "arbitrary" or "perverse" interpretations of evidence. In the event, they intruded deeply into all of Hellmann's rulings on the evidence, imposing their own blatantly perverse interpretations on Hellmann's rational ones.

For example, the March 2013 court reinstated Curatolo's testimony on the grounds that indications that it referred to October 31 (rather than the evening of the murder, November 1) should be disregarded, because it was known that the 2 defendants were not in the area on October 31.

So Curatolo was to be considered reliable that he had seen 2 people (who at the time he would have no reason to recognise), but not reliable that there had been buses and students dressed for Hallowe'en!

I suggest you read the Chieffi report critically before you dismiss Hellmann.
Click to expand...

Problem with studying a case on paper, is that it is not the same as being at a trial, where what seemed easy to solve on paper, can take on a very different complexion. That is one reason the higher appeal courts leave the evidence & facts found in the First Instant alone.

And, of course, defendants are entitled to habeus corpus.

If there is a question mark, then more witnesses/evidence issues are called, as though it were an extension of the trial.

Am still revisiting the docs. I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments.
 
Vixen said:
Bras are designed to withstand numerous washings. Probably human error, not to consider the metal bits might go rusty.
Click to expand...


I'd say it certainly was "human error" that Stefanoni stored important iron/steel evidence in a sealed plastic tube (which in turn was within a sealed plastic bag) in the presence of liquid buffer solution. I'd go further in fact: I'd say it was gross professional misconduct.
 
Vixen said:
Problem with studying a case on paper, is that it is not the same as being at a trial, where what seemed easy to solve on paper, can take on a very different complexion. That is one reason the higher appeal courts leave the evidence & facts found in the First Instant alone.

And, of course, defendants are entitled to habeus corpus.

If there is a question mark, then more witnesses/evidence issues are called, as though it were an extension of the trial.

Am still revisiting the docs. I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments.
Click to expand...



Once again, you're wrongly assuming that the appeals-level process in Italian criminal justice is similar to that in England & Wales (or US) criminal justice. It is not the same at all.

The appeal-level trial in Italy in cases such as this is essentially a retrial. It reconsiders all the evidence and testimony placed into the record in the first-level trial, and can introduce new evidence and testimony as required. There is an entirely new set of arguments from the prosecution and defence, and the court reaches a definitive verdict (i.e. it's not a case of either upholding the first court's verdict or dismissing the first court's verdict.) The appeal-level court will naturally take the opinion of the first court into consideration, but the appeal-level trial is, in a very real sense, a trial of the facts (and ALL the facts) as well as the law.

As many have said, this system actually, in practice, renders the role of the first court pretty unimportant in the wider scheme of things. In fact, one might almost consider the role (and the verdict) of the first court as equivalent to a habeas corpus hearing (or perhaps a Grand Jury investigation in the US). The actual verdict that counts, in terms of findings of fact, is the appeal-level verdict. It's this verdict (and its reasoning) which then goes up to the Supreme Court for final analysis.
 
RoseMontague said:
I don't believe much of anything you say anyway. Nor do I believe you believe it. It's just a game you are playing. <shrug>
Click to expand...


I don't have any problem with addressing the points raised. I think there is a cogent and watertight case to be made for acquittal (and probable total innocence), and I see no issue with addressing any challenges or requests for clarification.

And besides that, if any questions were raised that were difficult to address, I'd be very interested in such an occurrence in and of itself. I have no problem in having my position tested - in fact, I welcome it - regardless of what one might suspect the motivation of the inquisitor to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom