Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I agree with this as for the November 2007 hearing but I am not certain it applies as the sole reason in the appeal hearing but you may be correct as I am not going by having read the appeal motivations in full but rather going by memory of what I have read in journals (which I sometimes can misremember).

Which appeal hearing? Nemcini even in convicting them in 2014 saw no reason to pull them, either of them, back into preventative detention.

Nencini specifically cited that Amanda was legally abroad, given that his finding needed confirmation by ISC to be final. He issued no extradition request to the foreign affairs part of Italian gvt.

Similarly he did not order Raffaele into detention. Even though Raffaele was in Austria on the day of Nencini's verdict, Nencini only ordered revoking of his travel documents. Raffaele came back into Italy where the Carabinieri siezed them the next day.

No appeals court thought preventative detention necessary. IMO that was a slap to the original detention order, and made it all the more suspicious why Raffaele had been originally tossed into solitary.

 

[christianahannah]

Which appeal hearing? Nemcini even in convicting them in 2014 saw no reason to pull them, either of them, back into preventative detention.

Nencini specifically cited that Amanda was legally abroad, given that his finding needed confirmation by ISC to be final. He issued no extradition request to the foreign affairs part of Italian gvt.

Similarly he did not order Raffaele into detention. Even though Raffaele was in Austria on the day of Nencini's verdict, Nencini only ordered revoking of his travel documents. Raffaele came back into Italy where the Carabinieri siezed them the next day.

No appeals court thought preventative detention necessary. IMO that was a slap to the original detention order, and made it all the more suspicious why Raffaele had been originally tossed into solitary.

The Matteini hearing and the motivations (May 2008) confirming cautionary arrest (which Methos references upthread).

 

[acbytesla]

Wrong. Conti & Vecchiotti are in disgrace for perverting the course of justice. They were ordered by a court to test the DNA in question (i) and they declined without making a legal application to the court to do so, falsely claiming (a) it was potato starch, and (b) too low LCN.

The Rome laboratory demonstrated beyond doubt, it was not only testible, it was a clear DNA of Amanda. C&V attempted to pervert the course of justice with rogue judge Hellmann's complicity (and he wonders why his nickname amongst the judiciary is "Pontius Pilate").

Nencini's report was annulled because there was a bent element in the Cassazzione. Avv Bongiornio IMV perverted the course of justice by strategically diverting the case away from First Supreme Court.

The acquittal is a Mickey Mouse verdict by a Minnie Mouse court.

The motivation report will read like Donald Duck: a whole load of quackery.

Wow!!!!! That was all lies. Absolutely none of it was true. You're batting a thousand. How do you do it? If the facts and evidence is nonexistent, fabricate it? Is that your motto?

Conclusion of Conti-Vechiotti:

Based on the considerations explained above, we are able to respond as follows to the inquiries posed at the assignment hearing:

“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

1. whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification”

– The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.

– The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample “H”, present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.

– The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.

– In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.

2. “if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.”

Having examined the record and the relevant documents, we are able to report the following conclusions regarding the laboratory analyses performed on Item 36 (knife) and Item 165B (bra clasps):

ITEM 36 (KNIFE)

Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.
2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.
3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;
4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;
2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;
3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;
4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

 

[bagels]

As is Raff's...distinctive size 42 hammer-toed bloody footprint is on the bathmat.

It obviously wasn't distinctive or he and Amanda would be sitting in jail right now

 

[acbytesla]

Alibi?

He corroborated that he was always there. What time did the kiosk close that night? How would the guy remember Curatolo being there that specific night since he didn't see anything?

Exactly. Can you imagine being able with certainty a non-event 6 months to year after? The bum was always there even when he wasn't! ?? Would you really be able to remember when he wasn't ? That's more absurd than Curatolo's testimony.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with this as for the November 2007 hearing but I am not certain it applies as the sole reason in the appeal hearing but you may be correct as I am not going by having read the appeal motivations in full but rather going by memory of what I have read in journals (which I sometimes can misremember).

Which appeal hearing? Nemcini even in convicting them in 2014 saw no reason to pull them, either of them, back into preventative detention.

Nencini specifically cited that Amanda was legally abroad, given that his finding needed confirmation by ISC to be final. He issued no extradition request to the foreign affairs part of Italian gvt.

Similarly he did not order Raffaele into detention. Even though Raffaele was in Austria on the day of Nencini's verdict, Nencini only ordered revoking of his travel documents. Raffaele came back into Italy where the Carabinieri siezed them the next day.

No appeals court thought preventative detention necessary. IMO that was a slap to the original detention order, and made it all the more suspicious why Raffaele had been originally tossed into solitary.

The Matteini hearing and the motivations (May 2008) confirming cautionary arrest (which Methos references upthread).

Apologies, I misunderstood what you meant by "appeal hearing". I thought you meant the formal, 2nd Grade Appeals trial(s).

The Matteini hearing, IIRC, granted precautionary detention solely on the grounds of flight risk. This may have been relevant to Knox who held a US passport, and theoretically could have headed to the US Embassy in Rome, "flight" risk does not explain (fully) how it was applied to Raffaele - specifically why he had to be put into solitary confinement.

 

[Antony]

Factually incorrect. They were ordered by the Supreme court to test the specific sample 36(i).

What? C&V were ordered to test by the CSC? That's nonsense - C&V were appointed by Hellmann, and their task was completed long before the Supreme Court sat. The order to test the 36i sample was issued to the Nencini court, and carried out by a different laboratory - whose conclusions agreed with C&V.

The Mez DNA on the knife had been accepted by Massei, Nencini and Chieffi. Cannot be rescinded by the ISC without remitting it back to a lower Merits (fact finding) court.

ISC do not have the jurisdiction to reject evidence already found by two courts.

I think you'll find that it does. It's no good repeating over and over again what Nencini illegally concluded. His conclusion was not supported by evidence - and the Marasca Cassazzione was correct to unull his bogus findings.

Actual falsehood. C&V claimed it was LCN and untestable and probably potato starch.

"Claimed"? If you are suggesting that the C&V findings were incorrect, then you need to provide proper scientific reasons. As for Nencini and Chieffi, they are not scientists and they cannot arbitrarily go against what the scientists present in evidence.

Incorrect. In a forensic investigation where perps have gone to great lengths to eradicate evidence, a trace of highly significant evidence is permissible, taken as a whole with overall evidence.

"Perps"? Actually, the people who went to "great lengths to eradicate evidence" were not the defendants, but the scientific police!

There is no innocent explanation for Mez' DNA to be on that knife.

Completely delusional statement. There is a plethora of innocent explanations. Amanda and Raff were with Meredith the same day, and would have many times more of her DNA scattered on their clothes and hands from social contact, than the fraction of a grain of dust that was claimed by Stefanoni to be on the knife.

But by far the likeliest explanation is contamination in Stefanoni's laboratory, or during the test itself - we know that she did not take adequate precautions to preclude contamination. Then there is the possibility of deliberate fraud, which is strongly suggested both by her refusal to provide the full scientific results of the test, and by the implausible conjuring trick by which the knife was originally brought into the case.

The least likely "explanation" of all is that the knife was used in the murder. Even Massei had to invent a completely implausible piece of unsupported speculation, just for it to have been brought from Raff's flat to the cottage and back again. You really do have to suspend any kind of rational thought to give this any credance whatsoever.

Raff and Amanda went to some lengths to preclude this evidence. They knew what could be found. Amanda's involuntary Autonomous Nervous System went into nervous breakdown overdrive when cops took her to look through a knife drawer.

What? This was when she burst into uncontrollable sobbing, right? Her friend had just been murdered in the bedroom adjoining hers! How can any humane person put a different interpretation on that, than extreme grief and fear for her personal safety?

Mez' DNA on the blade is a scientific fact. As is Raff's extremely strong DNA evidence is on the bra clasp,

Oh yes, the other conjuring trick pulled by the investigators. Both of these implausible results have been completely discredited.

and his distinctive size 42 hammer-toed bloody footprint is on the bathmat.

Unfortunately for you, I've seen the footprints and the bathmat print is nothing like Raff's and the big toe in particular resembles Guede's.

DNA and footprint analysis is not "pseudo-science" (you wish!).

Well, of course I didn't say that DNA was pseudo-science - but the claim that you can determine how a knife was being used, from the position of DNA prints on the handle, most decidedly is.

It is remarkably strong physical evidence of the pair's presence at the murder scene, together with their multiple changing alibis, which no-one can verify, witnesses who saw them and their numerous lies in their self-serving books.

There are no "multiple changing alibis". There are no lies in Amanda and Raff's books. The lies make up most of what you continue to post in this forum.

 

[Desert Fox]

Andrew Hodges is one sick mofo. There's talk of reporting him to the Alabama State Board of Medical Examiners. The man is a fraud.

[qimg]https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/s480x480/11742791_10207872901366201_7575281087230911887_n.jpg?oh=d6bff332a621b5357e13b1a87640c31c&oe=561E83DD[/qimg]

I have his book as a PDF that I can upload if anyone wants to see how deranged he is.

I am sure judge David Burnett would accept that kind of testimony.

 

[zotz]

Mez' DNA on the blade is a scientific fact.

The word "science" implies that the testing of a hypothesis follows scientific rules. When you don't do that you get pseudo science. You saw her wearing dirty gloves while swabbing blood samples. The "scientific" police videoed her methods in order to preserve for posterity her techniques. You saw how they collected the bra clasp. Why would the conditions in her lab be any better? She lied when asked if there had ever been contamination problems with her lab equipment. She fought hard to prevent the defense from getting the raw DNA data from her tests. Who would do that? Would a scientist that is proud of her work do that or someone that is hiding something? She was so afraid of the truth that she even defied the judge that ordered her to hand over the raw data. If someone here did that to a US judge they would be behind bars and I assume it is the same in the UK.

 

[Bill Williams]

What? C&V were ordered to test by the CSC? That's nonsense - C&V were appointed by Hellmann, and their task was completed long before the Supreme Court sat. The order to test the 36i sample was issued to the Nencini court, and carried out by a different laboratory - whose conclusions agreed with C&V.

The Mez DNA on the knife had been accepted by Massei, Nencini and Chieffi. Cannot be rescinded by the ISC without remitting it back to a lower Merits (fact finding) court.

ISC do not have the jurisdiction to reject evidence already found by two courts.

I think you'll find that it does. It's no good repeating over and over again what Nencini illegally concluded. His conclusion was not supported by evidence - and the Marasca Cassazzione was correct to unull his bogus findings.

Please note the basic contradiction of Vixen's argument - and it is actually nice to see her actually making one - rather than simply asserting.

"ISC do not have the jurisdiction to reject evidence already found by two courts." Note that the Chieffi court, then, has no jurisdiction, even by Vixen's standards, to reject the Conti-Vecchiotti findings. The Chieffi ISC panel, instead, cited Hellmann's alleged error in-law (not in finding) in letting the scientists, rather than himself as the judge, determine whether or not 36I was to be tested. For the Chieffi panel, they are ruling on the process, not the evidence before the Hellmann court.

Once the Nencini court received the RIS Carabinieri report on 36I, that "process" complaint is now fixed. The Nencini court now knows that there is no additional Meredith-material on that knife; other than what was claimed about 36B.

And the criticism of 36B that Conti-Vecchiotti levelled at Stefanoni still stands. The Chieffi court did not remand to Nencini's court any further analysis of 36B, and had (by Vixen's implied admission) no authority to do so anyway.

What the Marasca ISC panel corrects, then, is the Nencini conviction based on...... what? The Marasca M.R. will basically have one "process" statement in it.

*************

The Nencini court made an illogical finding of guilt, inconsistent with what the Chieffi court found as deficient in the Hellmann court. The Chieffi panel was not competent to rule on the evidence which Conti-Vecchiotti brought to the Hellmann court, but the Chieffi panel WAS competent to rule on the process by which Hellmann wrongly decided not to test 36I

So the Nencini court rightly tested 36I as directed by the senior court-body which issued the remand. But the results simply re-confirmed the over-all evidentiary weight of the Conti-Vecchiotti report as well as the conclusions Hellmann drew from it.

Nencini's court illogically used this to convict. Nencini wrongly - in process - reinterpreted the DNA evidence in total, when the only DNA evidence rightly before it was the nature of 36I.

The Nencini court acted illegally as if it were an appeals court against the ruling of the Hellmann court, which only the ISC can be.

Nencini acted both illegally and illogically by in effect nullifying evidence which had been confirmed by a former court, and not remanded to it by a senior court.

 

[Vixen]

What? C&V were ordered to test by the CSC? That's nonsense - C&V were appointed by Hellmann, and their task was completed long before the Supreme Court sat. The order to test the 36i sample was issued to the Nencini court, and carried out by a different laboratory - whose conclusions agreed with C&V.

That is factually untrue. C&V abnegated the court instruction to test 36(i), they claimed it was starch and LCN. It was contempt of court on their part. Rome tested it and it was Amanda's DNA.

Erratum: C&V were ordered to test the knife samples and failed to test 36(i) in contempt of court. That is why Rome tested it instead, for the Nencini court.

I think you'll find that it does. It's no good repeating over and over again what Nencini illegally concluded. His conclusion was not supported by evidence - and the Marasca Cassazzione was correct to unull his bogus findings.

You have a poor grasp of the facts of the case.

"Claimed"? If you are suggesting that the C&V findings were incorrect, then you need to provide proper scientific reasons. As for Nencini and Chieffi, they are not scientists and they cannot arbitrarily go against what the scientists present in evidence.


"Perps"? Actually, the people who went to "great lengths to eradicate evidence" were not the defendants, but the scientific police!


Completely delusional statement. There is a plethora of innocent explanations. Amanda and Raff were with Meredith the same day, and would have many times more of her DNA scattered on their clothes and hands from social contact, than the fraction of a grain of dust that was claimed by Stefanoni to be on the knife.

But by far the likeliest explanation is contamination in Stefanoni's laboratory, or during the test itself - we know that she did not take adequate precautions to preclude contamination. Then there is the possibility of deliberate fraud, which is strongly suggested both by her refusal to provide the full scientific results of the test, and by the implausible conjuring trick by which the knife was originally brought into the case.

The least likely "explanation" of all is that the knife was used in the murder. Even Massei had to invent a completely implausible piece of unsupported speculation, just for it to have been brought from Raff's flat to the cottage and back again. You really do have to suspend any kind of rational thought to give this any credance whatsoever.


What? This was when she burst into uncontrollable sobbing, right? Her friend had just been murdered in the bedroom adjoining hers! How can any humane person put a different interpretation on that, than extreme grief and fear for her personal safety?


Oh yes, the other conjuring trick pulled by the investigators. Both of these implausible results have been completely discredited.


Unfortunately for you, I've seen the footprints and the bathmat print is nothing like Raff's and the big toe in particular resembles Guede's.


Well, of course I didn't say that DNA was pseudo-science - but the claim that you can determine how a knife was being used, from the position of DNA prints on the handle, most decidedly is.


There are no "multiple changing alibis". There are no lies in Amanda and Raff's books. The lies make up most of what you continue to post in this forum.

You are either deluded or in denial.

 

[analemma]

The police had Amanda's phone tapped since shortly after the murder, so all I'm saying is that the police must have known Edda would be in Perugia on Nov 6th, and that Edda would likely try to rush Amanda out of Italy.

If the police had hoped to force a confession from a lawyerless Amanda in the wee-hours of Nov 6th before mom arrived, then they had to do it that night, and they had many detectives on hand that night to do the job (12?), and even Mignini was still there. Something out of the ordinary was surely in the works that night.

.........

What happened that night isn't very hard to reconstruct, and it was clearly a brutal interrogation, which is why the police had to suppress the recordings.

Ken
I can agree with your analysis, but I was asking a specific question:
Are you saying that the cops said these actual words in this interview?
They actually said "From tapping Amanda’s phone the police knew that Amanda’s mother was arriving the next morning."
Did any of the cops say anything to this effect during this interview?
Yes or no?

 

[bagels]

That is factually untrue. C&V abnegated the court instruction to test 36(i), they claimed it was starch and LCN. It was contempt of court on their part. Rome tested it and it was Amanda's DNA.

all's well that ends well, they tested it in the next court hearing despite C&Vs refusal, and luckily for Amanda, miracle girl, the results weren't incriminating.

 

[analemma]

The Daily Fail has a new article about AK and her birthday, saying:
Italian judges were supposed to reveal the reasoning behind the shock absolution within 90 days but the deadline passed last week without explanation.
It is thought that the judges are having trouble agreeing on the wording of the motivation, which is likely to cause huge embarrassment to the Italian justice system, given it put the pair on trial for seven years before declaring them innocent

 

[Ken Dine]

We have a photo of the lying bum sitting on his park bench around 3pm on November 2.

The image's caption is wrong since the cottage (villa) can't even be seen from that park.

I just verified that using Google's Street View, and interestingly, they now have a barricade erected across Vie Della Pergola to prevent thru traffic in front of the cottage.

 

[Mr Fied]

Erratum: C&V were ordered to test the knife samples and failed to test 36(i) in contempt of court. That is why Rome tested it instead, for the Nencini court.

Do you know what Rome found when they tested the knife?

 

[analemma]

The Daily Fail has a new article about AK and her birthday, saying:
Italian judges were supposed to reveal the reasoning behind the shock absolution within 90 days but the deadline passed last week without explanation.
It is thought that the judges are having trouble agreeing on the wording of the motivation, which is likely to cause huge embarrassment to the Italian justice system, given it put the pair on trial for seven years before declaring them innocent

This is the first birthday in eight years where she was not pursued by italian and British authorities screaming that she weighted the same as a duck.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is factually untrue. C&V abnegated the court instruction to test 36(i), they claimed it was starch and LCN. It was contempt of court on their part. Rome tested it and it was Amanda's DNA.

Erratum: C&V were ordered to test the knife samples and failed to test 36(i) in contempt of court. That is why Rome tested it instead, for the Nencini court.

Your erratum is mainly untrue, it really is hard to tell if you are lying.

Neither Conti nor Vecchiotti were in contempt of any court. It is astounding you'd even claim such, even if what you're really saying is that they should have been, yet weren't.

IIRC C&V said to the Hellmann court that it would not yield any further interesting data to have 36I tested. The issue for the Chieffi ISC panel was that they regarded that as Hellmann, in effect, transferring his judicial responsibility to the scientists. He allowed them, in effect, to make the judicial decision for him.

Chieffi's panel was ruling on the law - not on the science or the evidence.

The required testing of 36I by the RIS Carabinieri was presented to the Nencini court. Being that 36I was Amanda's, there was nothing about 36I that added any evidence to the original Hellmann finding, or the original Conti&Vecchiotti science.

That knife had nothing to do with the murder - and 36I would only bolster that, and could not possibly negate it.

This is what it means to let verdicts be led by evidence.

Be that as it may, your erratum itself needs and erratum.

 

[Methos]

[...]

Since you have recently be blessed with wildly creative mind perhaps you can figure out why Amanda being arrested because her mother was arriving would be mentioned in the hearing in May.

I don't see why, if true, the mother's arrival would have anything to do with denying house rest in May.[...]

Sorry for being a nitpicker here. The document I've linked to is not a transcript of a hearing. It is the Judge Matteini's reasoning for the decision to deny the request of the defense of Amanda Knox to put her under house arrest (i.e. another motivations report).

I think that there never was a hearing on this request and everything was done by paperwork. Actually I think the only glimpse judge Matteini got on Knox was at the Nov 8th, 2007 hearing and that one was over very quickly...

Perhaps there are other truths in Matteini.

Methos where did you find it or how? Is the whole hearing available for cut and paste translating?

What christianahannah said:

This and other documents were recently added to the Meredith Wiki and I would imagine by now to the the Amanda Wiki. New is Amanda's Matteini hearing among other documents. Look at both wikis for new information.

There was a notice in the comments on TJMK yesterday so I went there for a look and the file I've linked to showed up on "the Amanda Wiki" this morning (CET).
I don't care where those documents come from as long as they are recognizable as the real deal. The problem with this latest batch of documents (and those before) is that the scans are of such a poor quality that text recognition is almost impossible

 

[Ken Dine]

The word "science" implies that the testing of a hypothesis follows scientific rules. When you don't do that you get pseudo science. You saw her wearing dirty gloves while swabbing blood samples. The "scientific" police videoed her methods in order to preserve for posterity her techniques. You saw how they collected the bra clasp. Why would the conditions in her lab be any better? She [Stefanoni] lied when asked if there had ever been contamination problems with her lab equipment. She fought hard to prevent the defense from getting the raw DNA data from her tests. Who would do that? Would a scientist that is proud of her work do that or someone that is hiding something? She was so afraid of the truth that she even defied the judge that ordered her to hand over the raw data. If someone here did that to a US judge they would be behind bars and I assume it is the same in the UK.

Just to add, apparently Stefanoni's lab is the only DNA lab in the world that (according to her) has never had a problem with contamination. Whereas, contamination in all DNA labs is a constant battle, which is why the need for both positive and negative test controls for every DNA test.

Stefanoni's lab wasn't even designed to process LCN-DNA!

Even when a lab is designed to process LCN-DNA, since contamination is much more of a problem with LCN samples, collection of LCN samples in the field must be more carefully done to avoid contamination before the sample is even brought into a specially designed LCN-DNA lab.

Clearly, neither the knife nor bra-clasp were collected using ultra-clean collection methods since the Keystone Kops didn't even use adequate collection methods for use with regular DNA analysis.

Just as clearly, putting aside her dirty lab environment that wasn't designed to process LCN-DNA, Stefanoni's lab equipment back in 2007 also wasn't designed to process minute LCN-DNA quantities.

Junk in, junk out!

Stefanoni belongs in jail!