Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
sept79 said:
It seems to me that there are only a few remaining questions to be answered:

Did Stefanoni manufacture fraudulent evidence against Knox/Sollecito on her own or was she pressured into manufacturing evidence in order for 'Italian Justice' to convict the two defendants?

In either case, why is Stefanoni not being prosecuted? Maybe it's an attempt to save some Italian face?
Click to expand...

All three questions are truly bonkers.

When did you last beat your wife?
 
zotz said:
Let's be civilized and call it "prevarication". Mach uses anger as a prosecution tactic as we saw so many times in the prosecution's closing arguments.



...and the sky is green and water runs uphill! LOL!!!

I have rarely never seen any poster make such an angry attack on another and then get shot down in flames so dramatically. Mach may be a master at "prevarication" (I didn't say liar) but that tactic only works when the facts are muddled, which certainly is not the case here.
Click to expand...


You really don't understand how a court works. Mach is correct.
 
acbytesla said:
Oh, I've called Mach a liar before. But it's been a very long time. Not short term. But that of course is a subjective term.

I really feel sorry for Mach. It's incredibly clear that Amanda and Raffaele are not only innocent but good people. I don't think they are perfect but who is? His suggestion that they aren't is born out of ignorance and stubborn confirmation bias. The police don't come to their homes for domestic violence or drunk and disorderly. No one has ever complained that either of them are violent in any way.

Both completed their studies. Both speak multiple languages.

While I do agree with Grinder that this alone doesn't make them innocent. The evidence does. Nevertheless it shows that they are good people.
Click to expand...


Logical fallacy: Raff and Amanda are not A, therefore, they are not B.

Think Leopold & Leob, Lizzie Borden, Ted Bundy, Dahmer.
 
carbonjam72 said:
As much as some of the case has been astoundingly incompetent, dishonest and corrupt, I don't believe it is thoroughly representative of the Italian system as a whole, but rather persistent problems among a significant portion of the practitioners.

Italian scientists are just as capable of solid work as any others, and I think the judiciary has solid judges as capable as any legal scholars from any other country, and are fully capable of writing first class judicial motivation reports.

That's what I think is happening now. I think they wanted to make real sure they put forward a solid analysis and justification for closing out the process without requiring another trial.

I'm guessing they will put out a report that Italy can be proud of. And I think this is what has Mach in a lather. Its almost as if Mach is empathically linked to the judiciary, and can sense that the motivation report will be released on July 30th or so, just before the Italians break for the summer, avoiding a media scrum and giving people a chance to digest over the break.

Mach has to get in his last hysterical comments before the fever breaks, and every one of the false claims over the years is dismantled, bit by bit, by Marasca and Bruno.

And when ECHR forces Italy to vacate the calunnia conviction, Mach will probably blame it on "racism" against Italy in Europe, or something of the kind. Anything, but admit to making a mistake.
Click to expand...


<fx theme tune Fantasy Island>
 
moije2 said:
Originally Posted by moije2 View Post

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. (...)​






You did get my point, in that I see you have avoided use of the word "liar" in this response. My comment was directed at AC refraining from lowering himself to call you a lair in his response to you. In English language usage the use of that word is packed with emotion and anger and thus your writings come off as emotional, and thus are not taken as seriously as they might. For that reason English speakers often hold that word in reserve.
With respect to your comments about raw data requests, my reading of your responses is that you are parsing words and not looking at the over all context and purposes. I will let you argue that the "defense" did not request data, and at what point of proceedings, and tell me/us that justice was or was not served.

Why would an honest person of science show any resistance - whatsoever - in turning over every darn thing in his/her possession? The obvious conclusion - sum of all the circumstantial and contextual information - is that Stefanoni in this case was not acting as a person of science, but as a player in the prosecution of this case. Was this an example of teleological ethics? A concept you say is commonly employed by your community? (I don't say "Italians" because your prior comments may not have intended the broader Italian society. Maybe just the academics?)

Anyway, maybe you could help me with that concept, if you think it is applicable there.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is banned from the House of Commons and courts frown on it, as otherwise the debate or testimony soon descends into shouts of, "liar!"

True scotsman logical fallacy.
 
Vixen said:
<fx theme tune Fantasy Island>
Click to expand...

The fantasy is thinking that any normal rational person that has ever read Massei or Nencini or Chieffi has walked away thinking anything but what a dysfunctional ludicrous medieval farce the Italian courts are. Hellmann was straight forward, concise, and closed the matter for the rational world years ago. Marasca officially closed it in Italy with their final exoneration. For some reason you post as if we are still in 2014 or something. The case is closed, Amanda and Raffaele can never be tried for the murder again, and the reason C&V eviscerated Stefanoni is not because two of Rome's top professors decided to help free an American murderer for no reason.
 
Machiavelli said:
what lie?
Click to expand...

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

On May 23, 2009 (pp 54-55) Stefanoni testified as follows:

PM Mignini: Listen, how many years have you been doing this work?
Stefanoni Nearly 7 years.
PM Mignini: Approximately 7 years. Have you worked on cases similar to this?
Stefanoni Yes. Yes, yes.
PM Mignini: Many similar cases?
Stefanoni: Yes, various cases of similar complexity, basically, yes.
PM Mignini: Do you remember if you’ve always followed the same method?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: In the way you basically collected the samples and then in the analysis?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: Right, do you remember any confirmed contamination of samples? Stefanoni: No, such a problem has never been highlighted to me. PM Mignini: So you have absolutely no recollection [of such a thing]… and you have always followed this same method that you have described to us today? Stefanoni: Yes.
This is a lie.
 
davefoc said:
I am not sure what the value of a response to this post is. It seems strange on several levels.

Obviously, it is reasonable to expect that a detailed report does not selectively contain only the details that support the premise of the report writer. Did Stefanoni include the fact that there was DNA on the clasp from males other than Sollecito? If she didn't include that fact then it is reasonable to assume that Stefanoni wrote a biased report with the goal of making her results support a particular point of view. That is not an appropriate goal for a forensic examiner as I understand it. The standard idea is that they are a neutral party analyzing the evidence and presenting the results objectively without being influenced by a particular agenda.

Even if Stefanoni wrote a detailed report, so what? A case where the verdict is to be decided on an objective basis requires that the raw results that underlie the report be available for analysis so that the work of the forensic examiner can be verified. Before this case, I thought that would have been a requirement for forensic examiners in all parts of the world where western style court procedures are in force.

Can you point to where in Stefanoni's report she describes the control tests she did for the concentration of the DNA sample she did on the knife? What does it matter if a report is detailed if the most important details are not present and those details can't be validated with underlying data if the details are challenged?

As to why she should discuss her education:
Wow, do you and I live on the same planet? Do you think expert witnesses walk in to court and take the stand and start testifying about their conclusions without their qualifications being described? Do you think their education isn't one of the factors in their qualification as an expert witness?

As to the issue of whether Stefanoni had a PhD:
This has never been much of an issue to me. It seems like a bit of an issue that nobody can point to a document or testimony that clearly states the nature of her higher education.

The bigger issue for me is whether Stefanoni's results are reliable and not tainted by an unidentified agenda and/or incompetence. IMO, Stefanoni's actions suggest both an unidentified agenda and less than normal competence for a forensic examiner specializing in DNA collection and analysis. So even if Stefanoni had a PhD, I would still hold a low opinion of her actions with regard to this case.
Click to expand...

Questions are fair. When you talk about Stefanoni's including male alleles in her "report", you should consider that Stefanoni deposited the charts of electropherograms too before preliminary hearing, and was cross questioned about them in her testimony before pre-trial judge.

Now, whatever we think about procedure, I note that within the procedure chosen by the prosecution, it is provided that the place where the work of the forensic examiner can be verified is the incidente probatorio. This could be a shortcoming that lies within of the Italian procedure, or maybe it would be better for laboratories and investigators to improve the documentation of their work.
This doesn't change some basic mechanism anyway, such as the effect of defence choices, and quality of initial documentation may well be irrelevant to our conclusion about evidence.

It is also good to remind that Stefanoni is not the only prosecution DNA expert. Novelli, for example, is largely ignored by this thread, as if he didn't exist.
 
zotz said:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

On May 23, 2009 (pp 54-55) Stefanoni testified as follows:

PM Mignini: Listen, how many years have you been doing this work?
Stefanoni Nearly 7 years.
PM Mignini: Approximately 7 years. Have you worked on cases similar to this?
Stefanoni Yes. Yes, yes.
PM Mignini: Many similar cases?
Stefanoni: Yes, various cases of similar complexity, basically, yes.
PM Mignini: Do you remember if you’ve always followed the same method?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: In the way you basically collected the samples and then in the analysis?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: Right, do you remember any confirmed contamination of samples? Stefanoni: No, such a problem has never been highlighted to me. PM Mignini: So you have absolutely no recollection [of such a thing]… and you have always followed this same method that you have described to us today? Stefanoni: Yes.
This is a lie.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you say so?
 
zotz said:
There were four male DNA profiles on the bra, five when you count Rudy's which was found on the bra fabric. So that makes five. Add to that the fact that Raffaele's DNA was a LCN amount which Stefanoni's lab was not qualified to process.

If we are being logical and consistent and we rule out contamination as the source, we must conclude that there were five men in Meredith's room that handled the bra and logically they must have participated in her rape and murder.
Click to expand...

Not DNA profiles, random sets of allelles, well below legal standards of a profile.

Raff's DNA is not cancelled out by Rudy's DNA also found.
 
Vixen said:
Not DNA profiles, random sets of allelles, well below legal standards of a profile.

Raff's DNA is not cancelled out by Rudy's DNA also found.
Click to expand...

I already answered this one up thread. It was planted.

1. the chance it was randomly contaminated on the bra clasp of all places is astronomically low
2. raff couldn't have touched it because he was not close to meredith.


that really leaves only one possibility.
 
zotz said:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

On May 23, 2009 (pp 54-55) Stefanoni testified as follows:

PM Mignini: Listen, how many years have you been doing this work?
Stefanoni Nearly 7 years.
PM Mignini: Approximately 7 years. Have you worked on cases similar to this?
Stefanoni Yes. Yes, yes.
PM Mignini: Many similar cases?
Stefanoni: Yes, various cases of similar complexity, basically, yes.
PM Mignini: Do you remember if you’ve always followed the same method?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: In the way you basically collected the samples and then in the analysis?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: Right, do you remember any confirmed contamination of samples? Stefanoni: No, such a problem has never been highlighted to me. PM Mignini: So you have absolutely no recollection [of such a thing]… and you have always followed this same method that you have described to us today? Stefanoni: Yes.
This is a lie.
Click to expand...

It seems Vecchiotti & Conti disagree with the pro-Knox "experts" opinions, and deny that what pro-Knox site shows could be "evidence of contamination":

Conti & Vecchiotti report, p. 94:



"... One should always expect to observe a few drop-in alleles in negative controls."
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
I am not sure what the value of a response to this post is. It seems strange on several levels.

Obviously, it is reasonable to expect that a detailed report does not selectively contain only the details that support the premise of the report writer. Did Stefanoni include the fact that there was DNA on the clasp from males other than Sollecito? If she didn't include that fact then it is reasonable to assume that Stefanoni wrote a biased report with the goal of making her results support a particular point of view. That is not an appropriate goal for a forensic examiner as I understand it. The standard idea is that they are a neutral party analyzing the evidence and presenting the results objectively without being influenced by a particular agenda.

Even if Stefanoni wrote a detailed report, so what? A case where the verdict is to be decided on an objective basis requires that the raw results that underlie the report be available for analysis so that the work of the forensic examiner can be verified. Before this case, I thought that would have been a requirement for forensic examiners in all parts of the world where western style court procedures are in force.

Can you point to where in Stefanoni's report she describes the control tests she did for the concentration of the DNA sample she did on the knife? What does it matter if a report is detailed if the most important details are not present and those details can't be validated with underlying data if the details are challenged?

As to why she should discuss her education:
Wow, do you and I live on the same planet? Do you think expert witnesses walk in to court and take the stand and start testifying about their conclusions without their qualifications being described? Do you think their education isn't one of the factors in their qualification as an expert witness?

As to the issue of whether Stefanoni had a PhD:
This has never been much of an issue to me. It seems like a bit of an issue that nobody can point to a document or testimony that clearly states the nature of her higher education.

The bigger issue for me is whether Stefanoni's results are reliable and not tainted by an unidentified agenda and/or incompetence. IMO, Stefanoni's actions suggest both an unidentified agenda and less than normal competence for a forensic examiner specializing in DNA collection and analysis. So even if Stefanoni had a PhD, I would still hold a low opinion of her actions with regard to this case.
Click to expand...


If you are introduced as a cop, then you might say a few words about your position and experience. Few will mention academic results.

Stef outlined in great detail how her lab worked. I feel sure she would have been introduced by her role and position. People with doctorates are rarely asked what their PhD was about. However, as it's relevant, Stef probably did mention her extensive research experience.

As an example, you go to court, you see the judge. You assume he or she is qualified and proficient.

What's your problem with Stef?
 
Vixen said:
What's your problem with Stef?
Click to expand...

Well Vixen her forensic work took a murder victim with measurable stab wounds and a bloody imprint that clearly identified the murder weapon as a small hilted knife, and turned it into a large chefs knife that never left its kitchen, helping ruin two young peoples lives for the sake of her own career.
 
Planigale said:
Mach you are making yourself look foolish. The members of ENFSI are institutions not individuals. This is a bit like saying that Italy is a member of the UN. Stef is an Italian state employee, therefore Stef is a member of the UN. Stef is as much a member of ENFSI as any other employee of Central Anticrime Directorate of Italian National Police, Forensic Science Police Service (DAC-SPS). That is to say the jnitor or secretary is as much a member of ENFSI as stef is. If you claim she is a member by vurtue of her employer the this says nothing about her as an individual. Claiming she is a member vs. Conti says nothing.
Click to expand...

Of course the members are institutions, but I think it was clear I meant the laboratory; when Stefanoni pointed that out at trial said "our laboratory", "we are members of ENFSi" as opposed to "Vecchiotti". She meant institutions, obviously, but colloquially she talked using the person's name saying "Vecchiotti is not" (to imply: her institution is not). That was the same way I was using it.

You say this tells nothing. Well, DNA analysis are done by an institution after all, and what I mean is there is not just academy, with its academic peer-review publications and citations as the only entity that grant for someone's scietific quality, there are also other institutions. Stefanoni takes part to ENFSI conferences as an appointee for her institution, is appointed by an institution in a responsability function for her work and trusted by the same institution that is part of ENFSI.

In my opinion all this is a credential, something she wouldn't have if she were an employee of some obscure and unrecognized private business. Clearly, a trust for Stefanoni's quality of work goes through a trust for an institution, which belongs to ENFSI.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Logical fallacy: Raff and Amanda are not A, therefore, they are not B.

Think Leopold & Leob, Lizzie Borden, Ted Bundy, Dahmer.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you didn't read my post. The evidence exonerates them. In addition, they are quality people who have NEVER EVER EVER been violent toward anyone. But character matters. That there are rare exceptions does not mean that usually people of their backgrounds do not commit senseless murders. And no one commits this type of actions with veritable strangers. Which Rudy was. None of these people knew each other well enough to trust the others and here we are 7 years later and none of them say that the others killed Meredith.
 
Vixen said:
Bongiorno and Vedova gave Stefanoni a very hard time in the witness stand. They were rude, insulting, called her a liar, questioned her competence. Stefanoni kept a cool head.

Anyone would think Stefanoni had topped her roommate.
Click to expand...

You are referring to the crime of which the defendants were wrongly accused. No, there is no question of Stefanoni setting out physically to take the life of someone; she was merely trying to destroy the lives of 2 innocent young people (and btw cruelly deceive the family of the murder victim) by falsifying and concealing evidence in a rigged trial.

She and the other corrupt agents of this travesty belong in jail.
 
Posted by sept79:

It seems to me that there are only a few remaining questions to be answered:

Did Stefanoni manufacture fraudulent evidence against Knox/Sollecito on her own or was she pressured into manufacturing evidence in order for 'Italian Justice' to convict the two defendants?

In either case, why is Stefanoni not being prosecuted? Maybe it's an attempt to save some Italian face?



Posted by Vixen:

All three questions are truly bonkers.

When did you last beat your wife?


Excuse me. All three questions are pertinent and valid
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom