Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

Since Vixen has told us that Amanda's clothes were all dirty and thrown on the floor and that Meredith wouldn't wear her own dirty bra perhaps MK took one of Amanda's that had some of her recent boys' DNA on it.

No DNA should have been there if she had a clean bra on. DNA can easily transfer dry or wet. They got Rudi's DNA from a tooth brush that was unused for three weeks. Might have dried out.

There are several plausible ways in which Meredith's DNA and the DNA of 4 others including Raffaele could have been deposited on the hooks of Metedith's bra clasp.

1. The DNA was on Meredith's fingertips and she spread it to the hook as she fastened and unfastened her bra several times over several days of wearing it.
2. Some of the males' DNA was spread to her bra hook by Meredith over several days and the DNA of several additional males was deposited on the hooks by Stefanini directly when she wiped her dirty/contaminated glove finger on the hook, as seen on video.
3. A combination of 1 or 2, above, combined with DNA contamination when the clasp was moved along the floor of the bedroom over six weeks before collection.
4. Any of the above plus contamination in Stefanoni's lab equipment.

 

[Machiavelli]

Suspect-centred investigation and trial. Stefanoni, acc. to Machiavelli, is immune from crticism because she's, "not on trial here".

(...)

No, she is not immune from criticism. Nobody is immune from criticism.

But the focus of a trial is the defendant, and discussion must never shift away from defendants. Every discussion must be directly related to evidence and to defendant. Only topics that have a recognizable, direct relation with a piece of evidence are trial topics.
Something generic like "competence" of an expert witness itself cannot be an object of discussion.

 

[Machiavelli]

What can it possibly matter? Further, what could it possibly matter to you?

The case is over and cannot be reopened. Even the Kercher lawyer, Maresca conceded that.

You should be moving on with your life instead of spinning wild conspiracy theories.

Why do you ask questions to me then, and why are you here, if you really think there is nothing to discuss, and that I should not be here?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, she is not immune from criticism. Nobody is immune from criticism.

But the focus of a trial is the defendant, and discussion must never shift away from defendants. Every discussion must be directly related to evidence and to defendant. Only topics that have a recognizable, direct relation with a piece of evidence are trial topics.
Something generic like "competence" of an expert witness itself cannot be an object of discussion.

That last sentence is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You're better than this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why do you ask questions to me then, and why are you here, if you really think there is nothing to discuss, and that I should not be here?

This must be a language issue. However, answering a question with another question is a particularly dumb and obvious way to avoid answering a question.

No matter.

 

[Diocletus]

Just a moment. If we talk about incidente probatorio, we talk about findings and activities that are in the records and are deposited within the investigation files. There is a clear track of the sessions. Otherwise it's another kind of investigation.
It may be within incident probatorio or may not. Both possibilities would be legitimate and there would be nothing strange in them.

Oh, so now it is incidente probatorio . . . or not.

Bottom line is that she took data off of her computer disk to make evidence, but denied the defendants the right to do the same. Shameful and dishonest.

 

[Diocletus]

Something generic like "competence" of an expert witness itself cannot be an object of discussion.

So if an expert isn't an expert, but rather, a charlatan, it's not ok to mention that?

 

[acbytesla]

If it's over then go away from this thread.

You are lying. Hellmann never ordered any raw data disclosure.

No, and yes he he did. But as I said earlier. I'm not going to jump through hoops to present evidence that you'll dismiss or ignore. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. A couple of young good kids will be able to live their lives without the fear of the corrupt Italian judiciary persecuting them any longer.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Your argument that it is not necessary to leave footprints in wet blood in a room where a murder has been committed, is negated by the fact that such evidence was left in this case, but only for Rudy Guede.

Seems to me a very stupid observation. Looks like you don't notice precisely how few shoeprints Guede left.
A repeated print from only one, single half shoe, and only one single trail outside the room.
Very few of those shoeprints inside the room, on the other hand, all of them from the same half shoe, so clearly from the same moment when he was leaving, from the same trail. A trail that he left when he was walking out.

But where was he walking before then?

And, look at the trail in the corridoor. Straight, walking out. Yet the door is locked.
But try to lock a door without turning your feet towards the door.

And the bathmat print. Some murderer washed his feet - at least his feet - in the small bathroom.

Yet Guede was wearing shoes.
Wearing shoes is inconsistent with having wet bloody feet and with a need to was your feet.

And the bathmat: besides the fact that the print is comptible with Sollecito but not with guede, and that there is a smaller print in the middle, just think at the fact that these bathmat prints are only two. Isolated.
There is no trail that leads to the bathmat. Isn't that strange?
Don't you think a lone burglar taking a shower or washing his bare feet, would tend take some step more, into that bathroom?

Your irrational unsupported bias against two innocent people is a burden you would do well to relieve yourself of.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are two murderers, there is abundant evidence of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, and they are also disgusting charachters because of their actions also independently from murder. But as for legal staidpoint, it happens that Amanda Knox is not innocent but a convicted liar, and under trial. While the only judicial truth existing from the Kercher murder case is the definitive finding that Guede was not holding the murder weapon.
So please don't offend my intelligence.

Anyway, I will be interested to hear your analysis of Marasca's report, if you care to share it when the report comes out.

One more question that's come up Mach: Regarding the conviction for calunnia against Amanda. Does Calunnia require one to "know" that someone is innocent and accuse them anyway? Or would that be "aggravated calunnia"?

Calunnia always requires to know about innocence. As for what "knows" means, there may be jurisprudence and doctrine discussion. Mostly intended as "know" subjectively, that means to "assume" or to "think".

Does the cassation finding of innocence on the murder charge, make it impossible for Amanda to "Know" that Patrick was innocent, since cassation (5th section) is saying Amanda wasn't there?

No. But there is no finding of innocence. As for now, we know there is a conclusion subjected to 530.2, that means there can't be a factual finding of innocence.

Is this calunnia conviction AND the murder acquittal, a conflict among the cassation panels?

Theoretically this should depend on what Cassazione writes. But in fact, in my opinion yes. Not only the 5th section is at risk of conflicting with calunnia conviction, but in fact is at high risk of creating a contrasto di giudicati with whole 1st section ruling (which is definitive about all 16 points) and also with Guede's definitive verdict.

In my opinion there is a serious conflict and will be a real mess.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, and yes he he did. But as I said earlier. I'm not going to jump through hoops to present evidence that you'll dismiss or ignore. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. A couple of young good kids will be able to live their lives without the fear of the corrupt Italian judiciary persecuting them any longer.

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, so now it is incidente probatorio . . . or not.

As was before.

 

[acbytesla]

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

What I see is much different than what you see. I see obfuscation and dietrology. Conti and Vechiotti asked the judge for the EDFs and she told Stefanoni to produce them. But somehow Stefanoni ignored them and CV did without them

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are two murderers, there is abundant evidence of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, and they are also disgusting charachters because of their actions also independently from murder. But as for legal staidpoint, it happens that Amanda Knox is not innocent but a convicted liar, and under trial. While the only judicial truth existing from the Kercher murder case is the definitive finding that Guede was not holding the murder weapon.
So please don't offend my intelligence.

You must have no intelligence because you have committed defamation within Italy with this very post.

I am not sue why you do this. You must believe yourself to be immune from the law.

 

[zotz]

Why do you ask questions to me then, and why are you here, if you really think there is nothing to discuss, and that I should not be here?

There is a lot to discuss. We can discuss Italian judicial procedures as they relate to this case.

We can discuss scientific methods and the rules for collection, testing, and full disclosure of methods and results. Why isn't it a law for the prosecution to be required, request or no request, to hand over all exculpatory evidence (i.e. Brady disclosure rule)? I want to know more about the "judicial truth" concept in regards to using a judicial ruling about a specific crime from a separate but related case as an unassailable fact which can be used against completely different defendants in a different case. This is definitely something to talk about.

We can discuss why Italian journalists and periodicals are threatened with defamation lawsuits and even jail for merely seeking the truth. This is clearly a matter of the state abusing its power to control public opinion. Why are the privacy rights of defendants routinely violated and police-gathered information routinely spoon fed to the press in order to manipulate public opinion? What about how complaining of police abuse leads to additional criminal charges.
If you are under my official control and any complaint you make about me results in additional punishment for you, what kind of justice system will this lead to?

There is a lot to discuss. As to the question of Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt or innocence, Tesla is right, there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[zotz]

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are two murderers, there is abundant evidence of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, and they are also disgusting charachters because of their actions also independently from murder. But as for legal staidpoint, it happens that Amanda Knox is not innocent but a convicted liar, and under trial. While the only judicial truth existing from the Kercher murder case is the definitive finding that Guede was not holding the murder weapon.

What other European countries have this "judicial truth" rule? Don't you see that it makes a farce of the constitutional right to a fair trial?

 

[acbytesla]

Seems to me a very stupid observation. Looks like you don't notice precisely how few shoeprints Guede left.
A repeated print from only one, single half shoe, and only one single trail outside the room.
Very few of those shoeprints inside the room, on the other hand, all of them from the same half shoe, so clearly from the same moment when he was leaving, from the same trail. A trail that he left when he was walking out.

But where was he walking before then?

And, look at the trail in the corridoor. Straight, walking out. Yet the door is locked.
But try to lock a door without turning your feet towards the door.

And the bathmat print. Some murderer washed his feet - at least his feet - in the small bathroom.

Yet Guede was wearing shoes.
Wearing shoes is inconsistent with having wet bloody feet and with a need to was your feet.

And the bathmat: besides the fact that the print is comptible with Sollecito but not with guede, and that there is a smaller print in the middle, just think at the fact that these bathmat prints are only two. Isolated.
There is no trail that leads to the bathmat. Isn't that strange?
Don't you think a lone burglar taking a shower or washing his bare feet, would tend take some step more, into that bathroom?

Never mind that most of this is debatable. The idea that the bath mat print was compatible with Raffaele and not Rudy is simply NOT true. Just as the prosecution expert couldn't count the rings on a sneaker, they could also not measure the fuzzy bath mat print accurately.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are two murderers, there is abundant evidence of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, and they are also disgusting charachters because of their actions also independently from murder. But as for legal staidpoint, it happens that Amanda Knox is not innocent but a convicted liar, and under trial. While the only judicial truth existing from the Kercher murder case is the definitive finding that Guede was not holding the murder weapon.
So please don't offend my intelligence.

What you consistently do is not apply your intelligence without massive confirmation bias. Your bizarre belief that Rudy was not holding the knife that killed Meredith is NOT based on even the tiniest shred of evidence but instead on biased speculation.

What is really sad is your willful ignorance to look at Amanda and Raffaele for what they really are. Two talented and intelligent people who despite all that has happened managed to successfully earn their degrees. Two people that have been upstanding citizens their entire lives where the worst thing either has ever done is play music too loudly.

Calunnia always requires to know about innocence. As for what "knows" means, there may be jurisprudence and doctrine discussion. Mostly intended as "know" subjectively, that means to "assume" or to "think".

No. But there is no finding of innocence. As for now, we know there is a conclusion subjected to 530.2, that means there can't be a factual finding of innocence.

Theoretically this should depend on what Cassazione writes. But in fact, in my opinion yes. Not only the 5th section is at risk of conflicting with calunnia conviction, but in fact is at high risk of creating a contrasto di giudicati with whole 1st section ruling (which is definitive about all 16 points) and also with Guede's definitive verdict.

In my opinion there is a serious conflict and will be a real mess.

Not sure I understand what any of this means. But I for one, hope that there is a big mess. Perhaps it will lead to an honest review of the dysfunctional farce that was this whole affair.

 

[Planigale]

By saying "successful" I was mainly thinking about: A. Caglià, P. Stefanoni, A. La Rosa, Cold cases: New technologies for DNA analysis allow the reopening and solution of unsolved cases, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, Volume 3, Issue 1, December 2011, Pages e230-e231

Still today (2015) listed in the "top 25" in Forensics Gentics of "sciencedirect.com". It was hit #1 by the end of 2012. It was seller #4 through 2012, and currently (2015) still in the top 25 in place 17.


http://top25.sciencedirect.com/

I can't tell about the academic value of "sciencedirect.com" placement list. I just take it as a clue that the publication has some success.
(note: Stefanoni anyway is a member of ENFSI, Vecchiotti is not).

This is pretty much what would be regarded as the lowest level of scientific report. It is a series of (brief) case reports presented at a conference. It is not a research publication, it does not report anything novel. I can find only one citation. It is the sort of thing one produces to justify going to a conference (24th International ISFG Congress).

I have corrected you on this before. Stefanoni is NOT a member of ENFSI. ENFSI is the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. There are two Italian members*, neither of which is Stefanoni. Interestingly Prof. Brian Caddy is an honorary member (one of a very select group of individuals), he is very critical about the use of LCN DNA in forensic cases.

*Central Anticrime Directorate of Italian National Police, Forensic Science Police Service (DAC-SPS), Rome, Italy.
Forensic science laboratories of Carabinieri Force (RaCIS), Rome, Italy

 

[Planigale]

Another point where would become very tyring to argue with pro-Knoxes conspiracy theorists, as we have to point out that we apparently start from two different viewpoints of the world.

The whole narrative expressed by Bill Williams in the paragraph before is basically false. It appears to me as made by warping the nature of each single piece of reality. It's inconsistent with reality and also makes very little sense (backed away "because" of the judge's "illegal" ruling - what does that mean?)

One of the gems - that reveal Bill's brain at work - in the paragraph above, for example, is the word "inexplicably".

I'm afraid such "inexplicability" lies in part at the bottom of the building of the pro-Knox campaign. It's the quality of being "inexplicable" that you see in a text written in a foreign language you don't know well.

To me, things appear completely differently. There is nothing "inexplicable", everything is in "my language", it's understandable. Has a very readable meaning, to those who are familiar with criminal procedure within the Italian criminal justice system.

The judge himself actually explains part of the issue to the defence lawyers. They are reminded that the scientific tests were made through a certain procedure.

A person who "understands" the trial, at this point knows that witness Stefanoni will not provide any further scientific information within the preliminary hearing. And someone who knows principles of trial debate, and possibly what "incidente probatorio" is, would also know that evidence discussion may not be "re-opened" whenever one party likes, and further information at this point won't be easilly allowed so to re-draw a scientific conclusion.

I urge you to have a look at an Italian source of that time, like this article of Nov. 9. 2007

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

Read a detail by the end:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b2da7082ed4.jpg[/qimg]





Contrarily to what many here seem to think, most news sources in Italy provided basically accurate and balanced information on the case. And information had nouances that could be understood by all educated newspaper readers. When Italian readers read an article like this one, they would understand and be familiar with what the journalist Bonini anticipates: the procedure chosen to carry on scientific tests won't allow a subsequent re-opening of a scientific discussion in court.
Thus, so the journalist explains it, indicente probatorio "prepares the grave" to any court debate about the scientific evidence findings.

By the closure of incidente probatorio, basically the scientific discussion will be over. Incidente probatorio is like a court hearing, at the end of which evidence will have the shape of just the information and the findings that are put in the record at the conclusion.

Stefanoni is actually not expected to bring further information to discuss about, such as quantification or else.
You can imagine if, after this procedure, the day before court hearing, Stefanoni won't be perplexed by the demand by a defence expert of having raw data files that he intends to elaborate alone at his own home. To produce maybe evidence (image files or whatever) that is not deposited in the investigation file, that was not produced together with other parties within the incidente probatorio, and that other parties may not even have.

It's logical that Stefanoni tells the judge: something strange with this request, I need your permission, I'll do it on your order and we may need a procedure.

Mach I understand the point you make.

As a non Italian could you enlighten me as to what the process is if the defence disagree with what happens during an incidente probatorio? Can they redo the test in the way they want? Can they veto a test? Or are they just passive observers? Can they video the process as evidence to present in court of an error? Are they allowed to take copies of laboratory records?

 

[Mike1711]

No, she is not immune from criticism. Nobody is immune from criticism.

But the focus of a trial is the defendant, and discussion must never shift away from defendants. Every discussion must be directly related to evidence and to defendant. Only topics that have a recognizable, direct relation with a piece of evidence are trial topics.
Something generic like "competence" of an expert witness itself cannot be an object of discussion.

Good heavens. This is an outrageous statement or Italy has an outrageous legal system (perhaps both). The belief that experts can give evidence in court without rigorous cross-examination including their own credibility is absurd.

The Reeva Steenkamp case is a case in point where defence "expert witnesses" had their credibility torn to shreds by the prosecution in court and live on South Africa television.

I've been summonsed to court as an expert witness about half a dozen times and believe me it's no walk in the park being cross-examined.

Full disclosure of experience and cv is standard introduction for expert witnesses in SA courts. Not so in Italian courts?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>While the only judicial truth existing from the Kercher murder case is the definitive finding that Guede was not holding the murder weapon.<snip>

Huh? When did they find the murder weapon?