Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[sept79]

The desperation here is tangible. This makes me think that the motivation report is to be released very very soon, imminently, like tomorrow.

Here's my confession: I do believe people can be empathically linked to events, not necessarily because they are right, just because they are. I think Mach is linked into this, not even consciously, but linked nonetheless. Vixen also seems on the verge of desperation. It's like they've both gone simultaneously bonkers. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

No doubt that they have both gone simultaneously bonkers . . .

 

[Machiavelli]

I've said it before. She was more than satisfied with what Stefanoni gave her, because even that proved that Stefanoni's conclusions were junk. Read the Conti & Vecchiotti report, and quit lying about what Vecchiotti said. You are engaging in pure spin. AKA lying.

At that point she was not interested in seeing the raw data, because the only thing the raw data was useful for was to confirm DNA results which showed guilt. To Vecchiotti they showed nothing.

Is it possible that you fail to see the catastrophic contradiction in what you say?
I've tried to lead you to see what the problem is. Possible that you don't see the cul-de-sac where you are getting into? (I point out that you even tend to admit Vecchiotti didn't ask for raw data, said she wasn't interested in them, and said she obtained all what she requested).

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway.
But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.

You are kidding, right? You're not ruling out that the glove could have contaminated the bra-clasp.... did you REALLY mean to say that? I do not think you did. And there is nothing "abundant" about 165B.

You still have not accounted for the remaining Y-haplotypes presence on the clasp.... which is pure suspect-centric reasoning on your part.

Naked.

Suspect.

Centric.

Reasoning.

The only reason that you also do not similarly accuse the other men whose presence is on that clasp, is because you do not know who they are. So you have no other suspects to centre on.

And besides, acc. to Nencini, two of them are probably women anyway.

I really do not believe you think this through. Was Meredith's room forensically sterile before the crime? You do know that Monica Napoleoni admitted that the medical staff who came to attend the body, four of them, entered Meredith's room without forensic protection - booties and/or gowns?

But the real is that you now concede that it may have been the glove which contaminated the bra-clasp.

Your guilter world is really falling apart, isn't it.

 

[Ken Dine]

Vecchiotti was not asked to evaluate if Stefanoni's work was "standard" or "substandard".

She was asked to: 1. search for DNA on the bra fastener and on the knife (something she refused to do, causing the anger of the Supreme Court). ;

2. evaluate the DNA profiles found under the aspect of possible contamination (which is something quite different, and also much quite more specific, than search about concept of "standard" of someone's work).

That's not quite Conti-Vecchiotti's assignment:

Conti-Vecchiotti PAGE 3:

ASSIGNMENT

[1] On January 22, 2011, the undersigned Prof. Stefano Conti and Prof. Carla Vecchiotti, Specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the University of Rome – La Sapienza, were appointed by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann of the Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia, Criminal Section, to conduct laboratory investigations relative to criminal case no. 10/2010 R.G. in order to provide answers to the following inquiries:

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

• “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”

• “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.”

https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

Whatever your spinning mind will try to do to rationalize Vecchiotti's position in a way that "saves" your theories, anyway you are forced to conclude that this implies, at least, that claims that Stefanoni "refused" to turn over raw data are false; and also, implies that there must be something wrong with Vecchiotti's claim that "negative controls" were missing despite she (according to her) had requested them, since she openly states she is not interested in raw data (and negative controls are recorded there);

Everyone had requested the negative controls but Stefanoni never coughed them up, despite the fact the defense should have received them as a matter of course.

Chances are, Stefanoni's negative controls had revealed laboratory contamination (which is their purpose), so Stef had likely buried the negative controls, along with every other bit of exculpatory evidence in this case.

and then, despite your spin, yet some poster already pointed out that Vecchiotti would be a "fool" if she stated that the raw data were "not interesting" to search for contamination. Yet this is what she stated.

I said that sarcastically!

After all, Conti & Vecchiotti were charged by Hellmann with determining whether Stefanoni's results could be due to contamination (see above highlight), and negative test controls are intended for that purpose, which Conti & Vecchiotti explained in great detail in their report.

What logical reasoning could explain why Conti & Vecchiotti wouldn't want to see the negative controls? It's utterly ABSURD to claim they didn't want the negative test controls!

Rather, it likely became obvious to Conti & Vecchiotti that Stefanoni wasn't going to provide her negative test controls, so they critiqued Stefanoni's sloppy contaminated work using other methods.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it possible that you fail to see the catastrophic contradiction in what you say?
I've tried to lead you to see what the problem is. Possible that you don't see the cul-de-sac where you are getting into? (I point out that you even tend to admit Vecchiotti didn't ask for raw data, said she wasn't interested in them, and said she obtained all what she requested).

There is no contradiction. At that point she probably WASN'T interested in them, because she has seen Stefanoni's work, and realized the whole thing is junk. Whereas it once was Stefanoni's legal obligation to hand them over without being asked, once Stefanoni's work was seen for what it was - read the C&V report!!!! - she did not need the EDFs.

Once again, you have proven nothing. You are quoting out of context and imposing your own meaning on to a short snippet of testimony, which other Italian speakers say does not say what you say it says.

 

[Ken Dine]

It's not "under her terms", it's within sessions where all parties can take part.
Stefanoni cannot dictate "her terms", btw.

The idea that one party should have the right to take away raw data and review them at home, without nobody knowing what they do, what kind of actions or elaboration process, seems to me highly disputable. I'm not saying for sure it isn't right, but I can't say for sure it's right either. In the context of this legal procedure, it's understandable that the request seemed questionable.

YET, in America and the UK (and likely in many other countries), the EDFs are routinely given to the defense to do with as they like.

Stefanoni would keep her original copies of the EDFs, so sharing them with the defense doesn't destroy the data.

BTW - your paranoia is showing!

 

[acbytesla]

YET, in America and the UK (and likely in many other countries), the EDFs are routinely given to the defense to do with as they like.

Stefanoni would keep her original copies of the EDFs, so sharing them with the defense doesn't destroy the data.

BTW - your paranoia is showing!

In Italy as well. The RIS Carabanieri tech produced them without being asked for them in the Nencini trial.

 

[davefoc]

Rudy Guede left in the room:
2 DNA instances certainly attributable (one certainly LCN, and defined "minimum" by Stefanoni)
2 instances of Y-haplotype alone (compatible; thus, attribution by inference)
(two of the DNA traces were collected 46 days after the murder)

1 attributable fingerprint (belonging to a palm print)

a small number of shoeprints only compatible with one of a pair of shoes possessed by Guede's (therefore, attributed only by inference); the shoeprints are not around the room floor, nor close to spot where the victim was stabbed, but only by the exit of the room, apparently only linked with the final exit trail. (shoeprints on pillow, not certainly attributed, can be considered basically all in one single spot; linkable with the exit trail as well, lead to contradiction if Guede alone scenario is drawn)

I would call the magnitude such amount of physical evidence, definitely comparable with the physical evidence of various kinds attributable to the other two.

[minor spelling corrections were made in the quote above]

This is a list of the evidence against Guede from the Amanda Knox site:
Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

Be sure to check the picture of Guede's hand showing the wounds. Interesting the way they look like they would have been created by the same kind of knife that made the stab wounds in Kercher's neck and the same kind of knife that seems to have made the stains in the sheets on Kercher's sheet. *

Rudy admitted he was with Meredith at the cottage and in the murder room;
Rudy in the presence of his two attorneys admitted having his hands at Meredith’s neck as she died;
Rudy said Meredith let him inside the cottage about 8:30 pm [30 minutes earlier than Meredith’s arrival home at 9:01 pm]
Rudy’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s vagina; [There is also a semen stain on the pillow case]
Rudy’s DNA was found on Meredith’s jacket and bra;
Rudy’s shoe prints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the bedroom and hallway;
Rudy’s palm print in Meredith’s blood were found on the pillow case underneath her body;
Rudy’s DNA along with Meredith’s blood, was found on Meredith’s purse;
Rudy admitted being in Meredith’s bathroom; [Where a bloody footprint was left on a bathmat / He also said he had wet trousers when he left the cottage]
Rudy’s excrement was found in the toilet and his DNA on the toilet paper;
Rudy had a long cut on his right hand that was still visible when he was arrested two weeks later;
Rudy admitted being in Filomena’s bedroom; [The break-in window]
Rudy fled the country two days after the murder;
Rudy said Meredith screamed around 9:20 pm; [Meredith’s empty duodenum suggests she died by 9:30 pm] [At that time Raffaele and Amanda started a Naruto cartoon at 9:26 pm at Raffaele’s place]
Rudy had a history of burglary with a knife and stealing credit cards and phones; [Meredith’s phones and credit cards were stolen]
Rudy told a fanciful story about being at the cottage on a date with Meredith when someone else killed her while he was in the bathroom; [This is a known criminal excuse called the bushy haired stranger excuse]
Rudy was seen by witnesses dancing at a nightclub after murdering Meredith.

* I understand that Machiavelli disputes that the stain on the bed was made by a small knife. I remember Machiavelli's long posts claiming that it was conceivable that the stains were made by a knife similar to Sollecito's Kitchen knife. I thought Machiavelli's arguments on this were pushing the envelope on what was plausible. I'd concede that the stains do not unequivocally eliminate other kinds of knives but the simple solution and the most likely solution by far is that the stains were made by the same knife that was used to stab Kercher's neck. The stains are a pretty good match for that kind of knife.

As I understand the evidence at least one of the stab wounds on Kercher's neck absolutely could not have been made by Sollecito's knife because it is too wide and it would have caused a wider wound than was present. So any argument that Solecito's knife was the murder weapon includes the bizarre element that two knives were used to murder Kercher. Further it requires that AK/RS carried the knife back to Sollecito's apartment and cleaned it well enough to remove all traces of human blood but not all traces of kitchen detritus or Knox's DNA.

One other thing to note about the list of evidence against Guede from Knox's site is that other evidence against Guede was probably suppressed. In particular, the reasons put forward for not testing the apparent semen stain are transparently ridiculous, the evidence from downstairs seems to have been misrepresented with the goal of suppressing it and the results from the rape test kit were not released entirely. It is a hard thing to believe that the prosecution actually suppressed evidence against Guede but it is also hard to imagine other plausible reasons for the failure of evidence relating to the three things I mentioned above to not have been released.

 

[moije2]

Is it possible that you fail to see the catastrophic contradiction in what you say?
I've tried to lead you to see what the problem is. Possible that you don't see the cul-de-sac where you are getting into? (I point out that you even tend to admit Vecchiotti didn't ask for raw data, said she wasn't interested in them, and said she obtained all what she requested).

Where does she say "she wasn't interested in them"? I don't see that in the passage you cited. That is completely different that "not necessary".

And what about: "... ritengo che si possa anche esprimere una valutazione con quello che loro ci hanno fornito. questa e una mia valutazione." ? Doesn't that clearly imply that they were "making do" with what materials were given? As opposed to everything they wanted.

I still don't see the black and white picture you assert with respect to her testimony here. Seems like a lot of vaguery that allows for interpretation contrary to your statements. After all, if the word "praticamente" is vague and nearly meaningless, and inartful in speech as you describe, perhaps the rest of her speech could be inartful and lack precision?

 

[moije2]

YET, in America and the UK (and likely in many other countries), the EDFs are routinely given to the defense to do with as they like.

Stefanoni would keep her original copies of the EDFs, so sharing them with the defense doesn't destroy the data.

BTW - your paranoia is showing!

It is impossible to look at Stefanoni's resistance to release of information as an independent professional. She was part and parcel of the prosecution, and refusal to give anything - especially with purported legal justifications - shows that she was a PLAYER in the prosecution. That reeks.

With this mentality self-evident, it is also impossible to question what other actions she has done to further her cause. Conspiracy thinking? Nope, just an observation of attitudes.

 

[moije2]

Intellectual dishonesty

Machiavelli, you have stated repeatedly that C-V were deemed to be "intellectually dishonest". Is the following quote from the Chieffi report, the reference you describe?

The Court’s modus operandi, which with an unacceptable delegation of duty left the final decision of whether or not to test the new trace to the judgement of the expert, leaves it open to understandable and justifiable criticism, given that the test – ordered by the Court – needed in any case to be carried out, since it fell within the task assigned to the expert, subject to the result being called into question if not considered reliable. In any event, one member of the expert panel could not take [sole] responsibility for the decision to downgrade the scope of the task received, a task which had to be performed without hesitation or reservation, with full intellectual honesty, giving an account of the possibility of inadequate data or an unreliable result.​

 

[Planigale]

A few objections.
First, I would object the general address of your considerations: the knife is not "unique", there is no "uniqueness" of the item actually, not even within the borders of this trial. I have the feeling that your adress of a "uniqueness" may an ideological rationalization meant as a prelude to justify the plan of putting aside, "not considering" the evidence.

In the merits:
1) it's incorrect. First, as for testimonies, the imprint was not considered the imprint left by a "small clasp knife", and second, the officers had been specifically briefed about that a wound appeared as if it was caused by a "large" knife (Finzi's testimony).
2) Sollecito's flat was searched on Nov.6 by my knowledge, that is basically the day of his detention.
3) According to Finzi, the knife was picked primarily because it appeared as potentially fitting the victim's wound, as it had been described to Finzi (he did not see the wound, was briefed about it).
4) the knife was repackaged, but: a) it was hardly exposed to contamination from Meredith's DNA, since Meredith's biological fluids had no reason for being present in the environment during re-pacakging; b) contrarily to your statement, there was a good reason to re-package the knife in a hard cardboard box, an obvious security reason, so that the blade could not poke through the envelope, to provide for security of the object and of the people who would handle it.
5) the "mark" appeared as a potentially useful element because it was a scratch on the metal, therefore had some chance of retaining cells despite cleaning. It was quite interesting also because it looked as if the knife had been energically cleaned with a scratching sponge.
6) IIRC the test was recorded correctly, but at preliminary hearing Stefanoni didn not remember correctly about having used Qbit fluorimeter alone on A,B,C rather than PCR quantification. Prof. Potenza anyway was there.
7) sample B anyway had a DNA content and that was extracted.
points 8 and 9 are questions and would be good points for a cross questioning, which is defence's work; this would have required prof. Potenza to document the work, in a way that it could bring that to the attention of defence lawyers. But Potenza failed to provide any type of observation on the point. He observed the work and didn't think these details were worth to be documented.

Thank you for your reasoned response I'll reply when I have more time.

 

[Kauffer]

ROFLMAOABAG This was not found by any court.

Lol! That's because they withheld the evidence. Can't you even come close to understanding these really really simple but devastating points in favour of the defence?

 

[Kauffer]

This comment is really strange.

Vecchiotti says she is not interested in the most explicit way.
Besides saying they didn't talk about it, and pointing out she asked something else, she says she has all what was of her interest.

I don't understand how someone could possibly read Vecchiotti's answer in some other way, and I fail to imagine what you read in her words.

I am seriously surprised by you people's failure to see implications of things.

We read words for meaning here and you have failed to provide a citation for Vechiotti making the very specific comment that she was not interested in the raw data. You posted a copy of a transcript purporting to contain such a statement, but it did not say this. We know that raw data is of particular interest to real forensic scientists - like Berti for example, and we know that Conti wrote to Hellmann asking for the CD raw data. So, it would be particularly strange if Vechiotti would believe something else to be true. But of course, since we always embrace evidence here, if you can produce a direct statement from Vechiotti, we will embrace it. But so far, what you have produced does not come close.

 

[Kauffer]

Sooooooo ignorant!

Do you mean Dwyer, Balding or me?

 

[Kauffer]

ROFLMAOABAGASOTS This guy's a stand-up comedian right?

Yeah Jamieson's really funny. He's so on the money with the evidence, that juries believe him.

 

[Kauffer]

It turns out what?
Vecchiotti stated she wasn't interested in raw data and was more than satisfied with what Stefanoni gave her.
What do you think the transcript says?

There is no "statement" from Vechiotti with this language in it. She says other things from which you infer this meaning.

Try to appreciate what a statement is, please.

 

[Kauffer]

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway.
But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.

As Diocletus pointed out, the lab records prove contamination with regard to the clasp testing.

 

[Kauffer]

Is it possible that you fail to see the catastrophic contradiction in what you say?
I've tried to lead you to see what the problem is. Possible that you don't see the cul-de-sac where you are getting into? (I point out that you even tend to admit Vecchiotti didn't ask for raw data, said she wasn't interested in them, and said she obtained all what she requested).

Conti asked for the data, not Vechiotti. They're colleagues right? Doing the same job.

 

[Antony]

This just shows that when you choose to make up your own facts, you can convince yourself of anything you like. All your so-called "evidence" is either invented or meaningless, as has been explained here numerous times.
On the other hand, there is massive genuine evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct (such as destruction, concealment and fabrication of evidence) and corrupt judicial procedure.

1 Logical fallacy: appealing to the [biased] crowd.

On the contrary, it's pointing out that most of Mach's claims are not based on any reality, and where they are, they do not support his conclusion of guilt.

2 Logical fallacy: having applied logical fallacy 1, no.2 is ipso facto a logical fallacy.

Pardon? How does (2) relate to (1)? The point about the prosecution antics are over and on top of the fact of the faulty evidence. We know that:

• the investigators' own videos show them disregarding any precautions against contamination;
• the defendants' rights were grossly trampled at the time of their initial detention;
• the convicting courts made a series of arbitrary decisions in order to hamper the defence and to bolster a guilty verdict.

All of the above is beyond dispute. The only way you and Mach are able to argue about it is by making up stories.