Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Turns out she really didn't need them. All she had to do was shown the clown video.

She should have had them, though. For that matter, there would have been no need for C&V if stefanoni and the prosecution had been forthright and honest the first time around.

Turns out that she used them as fundamental argument instead. She used an inference about negative controls as fundamental argument, after admitting she didn't ask them and wasn't interested in them.

 

[Strozzi]

You don't like their work on the case?

Why specifically?

This bit is good:

"It is not explicitly indicated in the report (Stefanoni's) whether the environment where the sampling was carried out (particularly the work bench surfaces as well as all the equipment present) was preemptively decontaminated with suitable substances (e.g. sodium hypochlorite or similar), whether sterilized instruments were used, and the method by which these were sterilized. With regard to the samples taken from the exhibit, it is not specified whether these were performed using sterile swabs, with changes of gloves for each individual sample, and with the wearing of lab coats and masks by the operatives."

Interesting. I would like to know if Stefanoni or her assistants handled anything at the crime scene or in the lab that might have had Raf's DNA on it and then handled the bra clasp.

Why should I assume that they dd not when I see them touching surfaces and handling items at the crime scene without changing gloves or using sterile tweezers?

 

[Machiavelli]

I find this whole line of reasoning interesting if not disingenuous. There is plenty of documentation that C&V requested the raw data files multiple times and yet Stefanoni didn't turn them over. Now you wish to turn the tables and somehow suggest C&V were dishonest and claimed they didn't need the raw data files? It's clear they were eventually able to discredit the DNA "evidence" even without the raw data files because some many other precautions and procedures were violated, but that doesn't mean they didn't want the raw data.

Perhaps the conversation should shift towards why Stefanoni repeated refused to comply with requests from C&V as well as the court to turn over the raw data files, which would include data from the negative controls supposedly run. THAT would be a legitimate discussion. Attempting to discredit C&V, just as the pro-guilt crowd has tried to do to every expert who has weighed in on this case, is dishonest and pointless.

There is full evidence from Vecchiotti's own words that Stefanoni complied with all her requests (says Stefanoni complied to the point of providing ever more documentation than she requested), that Vecchiotti had all what she requested, that the Scientific Police never refused, she objecting to the judge by pointing out she asked other things (not rae data) and that all that could be interesting is what she has, and - as acknowledged by the judge - we have Vecchiotti basically declining the suggestion that she may ask something else.

After that, we would see Vecchiotti drawing inferences from the absence of negative controls.

Let's point out - should be unnecessary since it's obvious - that there is no evidence Vecchiotti requested raw data at all. The only "evidence" of expert mentioning raw data is Conti's letter to Hellmann, where he asks the judge to see what's in the file, and intercede for what's missing. Then we have Hellmann's response, acknowledged generic, urging parties and Stefanoni to take contact and cooperate directly.

After that, we have Vecchiotti's testimony of May, where she recollects steps of cooperation and says she obtained complete cooperation.

Where are those "repeated requests" by C&V and "plenty of documentation?". There is nothing.
The documentation says Stefanoni said "yes" to Pascali if the judge thought so, and that the defence did not make any request during the Hellman trial (they backtracked at the preliminary hearing already).

 

[Bill Williams]

So, in part, this is Conti & Vecchiotti's evaluation of Stefanoni's work. IMO this formed a basis for what became the eventual exoneration of the pair.

Stefanoni's opinion about the nature of the substances she testd was wholly arbitrary.

Despite the negative result of the blood identification test and the failure to carry out cell identification tests (and therefore the failure to identify the material removed from Exhibit 36) the Technical Consultant hypothesized the presence of “presumed exfoliated cells” on the material sampled from the knife handle (traces A-D-F) and of “presumed biological material” of another nature (presumably blood, considering the tests aimed at the detection of haematic peroxidases) on the material sampled from the blade (samples B-C-E-G).

The hypotheses formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material analyzed are wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any scientifically objective confirmation.​

Further, C&V go on to say that Stefanoni reports positive quantities for some samples, but negative (zero) quantities for other samples despite Stefanoni listing "no numerical value" for the ones she claimed were positive. Further, C&V catch Stefanoni in a lie, and report it as such with the phrase, "From this, it can be inferred that what is reported on page 78 of the RTIGF (and confirmed in the GUP questioning, page 178, where it is claimed that quantification was performed using Real Time and that quantification of the Y [chromosome] was not carried out) is not consistent with what was performed in reality."

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).​

Reading the C&V report in full, gives the reader some indication why Vecchiotti might say, at trial, that she was - at the end of the day - disinterested in the raw data files.

The raw data files may have been of some interest IF Stefanoni had proven something, they would have been the necessary check on her work.

But Stefanoni's work was bogus. C&V's evaluation of Stefanoni's work was that it, "is not consistent with what was performed in reality."

 

[Strozzi]

Do you agree the DNA found on the sweater is also therefore suspect, for the same reasons?

Yes, I know Meredith's sweater was collected late, had been moved in the room, had its sleeves turned, and was ultimately stuffed in a hamper with other personal items. I would rule DNA on it potentially contaminated and of no value as DNA evidence.

Rudi has of course acknowledged being in Meredith's flat with her, although there is disagreement as to the true nature of the interaction he had with her. According to his version, he and Mez engaged in consensual non-intercourse sexual activity. So I don't need to know if Rudi deposited his DNA on her sweater In order to prove that he was with her and in very close touching.

The sweater has no probative value or importance as evidence against Rudi. Finding his DNA on the sweater would not itself tell me of his innocence or guilt in the murder. It would tell me about the scientific police's management of forensic evidence collection.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is full evidence from Vecchiotti's own words that Stefanoni complied with all her requests (says Stefanoni complied to the point of providing ever more documentation than she requested), that Vecchiotti had all what she requested, that the Scientific Police never refused, she objecting to the judge by pointing out she asked other things (not rae data) and that all that could be interesting is what she has, and - as acknowledged by the judge - we have Vecchiotti basically declining the suggestion that she may ask something else.

After that, we would see Vecchiotti drawing inferences from the absence of negative controls.

Let's point out - should be unnecessary since it's obvious - that there is no evidence Vecchiotti requested raw data at all. The only "evidence" of expert mentioning raw data is Conti's letter to Hellmann, where he asks the judge to see what's in the file, and intercede for what's missing. Then we have Hellmann's response, acknowledged generic, urging parties and Stefanoni to take contact and cooperate directly.

After that, we have Vecchiotti's testimony of May, where she recollects steps of cooperation and says she obtained complete cooperation.

Where are those "repeated requests" by C&V and "plenty of documentation?". There is nothing.
The documentation says Stefanoni said "yes" to Pascali if the judge thought so, and that the defence did not make any request during the Hellman trial (they backtracked at the preliminary hearing already).

Machiavelli, you are simply lying in saying all this, and awkwardly lying. Although not directly associated with Vecchiotti per se, here's a letter from just before the first conviction in 2009, saying that the raw data files have not been disclosed.

This point is so obvious, it's hard to know how to respond to lies like yours.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf

Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D. Forensic Biology/DNA expert Professor and Director of the Thousand Oaks, California

Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. Idaho Innocence Project Department of Biology
Boise State University

(Please note that these two have actual Ph.D.'s!)

 

[zotz]

Do we have translations for C and V's testimony? It is galling to sit here and have to listen to this.

 

[js202]

retweet

The Conti-Vecchiotti report was the turning point of the case and no one on your side has ever been able to discredit it. Your main skill is sophism but that works only sometimes with judges and never with scientists. Stefanoni wanted to hide her raw data and you champion the right of prosecutors to suppress evidence. Putin would probably agree with you. I think your arguments are fascist.

The Allies are in Rome and Il Duce is dead. Our terms are unconditional surrender. Your cause is lost.

If this were a tweet, I would favorite and retweet. Kudos.

 

[js202]

the ignore button is your friend...

Do we have translations for C and V's testimony? It is galling to sit here and have to listen to this.

Even a year ago, there was some argument to be made that it was important to argue back against such putrid nonsense. As you have colorfully noted, the (ever-dwindling) online-mob-of-loons-and-fascists' cause is lost. Henceforth, they deserve to listen to themselves, solely, bereft of goodness or wisdom, in their own echo chamber. That is all.

 

[Annella]

Do we have translations for C and V's testimony? It is galling to sit here and have to listen to this.

Under Hellmann trial transcripts are 3 English translations from C&V...you may find them helpful.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

 

[moije2]

If you have a different interpretation about what SC meant to say, then what is it?
If you think judges are not calling C&V "dishonest", then, in you opinion,
why do you think Cassazione makes a comment on what "fully honest" experts would have done? (as opposed of what they did).

And, do you really think the court refers to what they "decided scientifically" (or isn't there maybe something wrong with the way they decided, didn't you check whether they failed to respect an agreement they subscribed to, or falsely attributed their decisions to others...)?

Simple.

(BTW, all this falls squarely into the "parsing the words" habit that is disturbing for its inaccuracy. And it is tiresome. Other posters comments here are noted.)

Your high lighted comment above: "comment on what "fully honest" experts would have done" is an incorrect twist of their words. They did not say what fully honest experts would do. The court (ISC), in speaking of the directive by the lower court, described a task that was to be performed with intellectual honesty. The experts here did not perform it, for reasons stated. If they had performed it, then their intellectual honesty in the performance of it would possibly be at issue.

The court did not say they were dishonest. The belief that they did say that requires extrapolation, and in a way that is not fully supported. It seems to me they said what they said, and perhaps even meant what they said! With no underlying message.

Please also understand that as for myself, I can believe that the ISC did think they were dishonest - nothing would surprise me after watching this case unfold. I just don't think it is a slam dunk like you say when you make subtle changes to wording for big impact. And lastly, if that court did call them dishonest, I would need to see justification of this slur in order to believe it. Otherwise it is just like so many other examples of nonsense.

You have repeatedly called the experts C-V frauds. Similarly, you need to come forth with concrete information, or refrain from such comments.


As for your second point regarding "what the experts subscribed to", as opposed to making decisions based upon scientific reasoning, I will hold until I have time to review again that directive. Assuming the court said, in effect, perform certain tasks even if they are scientifically invalid, then that would create a bizarre scenario itself to tell experts how to proceed scientifically.

 

[acbytesla]

Conti and Vecchiotti are shamed, disgraced, excoriated, debunked, deprecated, disabused, dumped.

Clearly, you don't get it. You'really wrong. No court said this. Not one.

What the courts did say was that Raffaele and Amanda are "Not guilty". Repeat after me..."NOT"......"GUILTY". Now try it 3 times fast. "Not guilty", "Not guilty", "Not guilty".

Time to smell the coffee sweetheart, it's over, everyone thinks you're wrong. The only people who don't are nuts. Amanda and Raffaele are not only out of prison but will be paid compensation for the errors of the Italian judiciary. The only real question is if and how long will it take to have the callunia conviction set aside as well. That's it. Nothing more.

 

[Desert Fox]

Serious question here for the pro innocence side:
I was listening to Generation Why and them sometimes don't seem to hit on all cylinders and they argue that Amanda's story keeps changing.
How many stories do you actually see her giving?

I see really only two
1. "I was with Raff all night at his place."
2. After a long interrogation, "I was kind of sort of at the cottage with Patrick."
She basically goes back to "1" once her head clears.

 

[acbytesla]

Serious question here for the pro innocence side:
I was listening to Generation Why and them sometimes don't seem to hit on all cylinders and they argue that Amanda's story keeps changing.
How many stories do you actually see her giving?

I see really only two
1. "I was with Raff all night at his place."
2. After a long interrogation, "I was kind of sort of at the cottage with Patrick."
She basically goes back to "1" once her head clears.

This is one of those myths that is the result of it repeated a bunch of times that a lot of people end up believing it.

 

[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).

LM:Senza sapere né la lunghezza delle ferite, né la profondità delle stesse.
AF:Certo.
LM:E quindi non poteva conoscere neanche il tramite se era un tramite lungo o un tramite corto che avesse provocato...
AF:Se mi dicono, Avvocato, che sono delle ferite molto profonde io presumo..., e larghe presumo che la lama Sicuramente, ma potrebbe essere grande.

So he was not briefed on the expected dimensions of a knife. Others took a small pocket style knife, so obviously did not believe they were looking for a large knife. Also note at this stage there was no suggestion that two knives were being looked for, it was only later they realised the large knife seized was incompatible with most wounds and had to introduce the two knife hypothesis.
He just took the first knife he saw.

LM:Quindi per concludere, ultima domanda, primo coltello che vede...
AF: Sì, perché era il primo riposto su tutte le stoviglie.

2) Sollecito's flat was searched on Nov.6 by my knowledge, that is basically the day of his detention.

I accept you are right on this. Solicito attended the police station on Nov 5 was presumably arrested in the early hours of Nov 6 and the house was searched on Nov 6. This was somedays after the murder and presumed clean up using bleach however (Nov 1/2). So some days after the alleged clean up. Long enough that bleach odour would have cleared.

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).

I agree. His briefing seemed minimal. It seems given the lack of specifity most knives should have been tested. Only three knives seem to have been tested all from Sollecito's, one large two small.

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.

There was not a good reason for removing the knife from the envelope. For safety reasons put the knife in the envelope in a box. It is clearly an error to take the knife out of the envelope to repackage it. It then becomes the responsibility of the police to demonstrate no one and no thing with Knox or Kercher DNA could have contaminated the knife. Where there is a breach in the chain of evidence it becomes the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate this is of no significance. It should be remembered that the envelope used was not one for evidence collection, but one used routinely by Finzi to keep his gloves in.

F:Quel coltello lì, appena il dottor Chiacchiera ha detto "Sì, prendiamolo" avevo questa cartellina, ho preso una busta della Questura di Perugia.
GM:Era una busta nuova?
AF:Busta nuova dove io tengo i guanti, i guanti nuovi.

So not a clean envelope but one that he had put gloves into carried with him and had removed his gloves from prior to using to put the knife in. Again we do not know where this envelope might have been, what it might have been exposed to in the police station.

What is extraordinary is the lack of proper evidence collection bags. Envelopes from the police station are used, a box is found that had been lying around in the police station. We do not know where this box had been, what it had been in contact with, who had handled it.

It is an error to think only liquid DNA is transferable. Solid DNA material is transferable.

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.

Yet no one else saw any scratches. Even for Stef this was a scratch only visible with care in the right light. So if anything this lack of any other visible scratches is against the hypothesis of energetic cleaning with a scratching sponge. Magical cleaning that leaves Knox's DNA in place, starch granules in place, but removes every trace of blood!

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.

But she also wrote this in her formal report.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Polizia-Scientifica-RTIGF-Report.pdf
So this was not just a misremember on verbal questioning. Her formal report also falsely claimed quantification by RTPCR. Which implies these were not contemporaneous records shown as they should be.

Prof. Potenza anyway was there.

Prof. Potenzi objected to the process.
"Sul coltello da cucina sequestrato nell'appartamento di Raffaele Sollecito non sono presenti tracce biologiche riconducibili al predetto, dovendos i quindi escludere che lo stesso ne abbia fatto uso nel periodo antecedente il suo repertamento. Inoltre, nessuna delle due campionature è stata sott oposta all'indagine preliminare per la ricerca di sangue umano mentre l'analisi del DNA di queste ha fornito, come detto, prodotti di amplificazione estremamente deboli di intensità e note volmente al di sotto del limite minimo consigliato dalle raccomandazioni del GEFI (Gruppo Italiano Patologi Porensi) ma soprattutto si sono ottenute nelle varie amplificazioni eseguite sulle due campionature profili incompleti e con difformità dell'assetto allelico per alcuni loci, tale da non consentire un corretto utilizzo dei suddetti ri sultati a fine forense, allo stato non univocamente interp retabili e teoricamente riconducibili anche ad artefatti analitici. " So according to what you said if the defence objected to the process at the Incidente it should not have proceeded.

7) sample B anyway had a DNA content and that was extracted.

It had a quantifiable amount of DNA, not none detected.*

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.

As referenced above Prof. Potenza did object.

ETA *Sorry sample A had quantifiable DNA none detected on sample B. Which was quantified. Still makes the point the knife was processed in a unique fashion.

 

[Planigale]

Vecchiotti had her laboratory shut down meanwhile, because they kept rotting corpses in the corridors.

The Chieffi sentence is definitive and valid.

Actually I do not think it was her laboratory shut down. The problem was in the anatomy department, she happen to be part of the anatomy department, but not the part where the problem arose.

 

[Antony]

Conti and Vecchiotti are shamed, disgraced, excoriated, debunked, deprecated, disabused, dumped.

This is a lie. The Chieffi court cancelled the Hellmann acquittals on the grounds that he was wrong to allow C&V to decide whether to carry out testing on 65i; it made no ruling on the rest of the Conti/Vecchiotti evidence, which remained valid for the Nencini trial, and remains valid today.

The C&V conclusions were confirmed by the Rome lab that performed the last remaining test, but Nencini illegally ignored them. This will ultimately be a key part of the Marasca motivations.

 

[Diocletus]

Turns out that she used them as fundamental argument instead. She used an inference about negative controls as fundamental argument, after admitting she didn't ask them and wasn't interested in them.

Not really. The fundamental arguments are 1) the clown-like processing of the crime scene, 2) failure to confirm the presence and nature of dna on the samples prior to attempting amplification, and 3) failure to conduct multiple amplifications and obtain a consensus profile of an admittedly LCN sample. These are all errors that are so basic that we really don't even need expert testimony on the issues.

The suppression of lab data is only a secondary argument, because all of the above have already rendered the results unreliable.

 

[carbonjam72]

LM:Senza sapere né la lunghezza delle ferite, né la profondità delle stesse.
AF:Certo.
LM:E quindi non poteva conoscere neanche il tramite se era un tramite lungo o un tramite corto che avesse provocato...
AF:Se mi dicono, Avvocato, che sono delle ferite molto profonde io presumo..., e larghe presumo che la lama Sicuramente, ma potrebbe essere grande.

So he was not briefed on the expected dimensions of a knife. Others took a small pocket style knife, so obviously did not believe they were looking for a large knife. Also note at this stage there was no suggestion that two knives were being looked for, it was only later they realised the large knife seized was incompatible with most wounds and had to introduce the two knife hypothesis.
He just took the first knife he saw.

LM:Quindi per concludere, ultima domanda, primo coltello che vede...
AF: Sì, perché era il primo riposto su tutte le stoviglie.



I accept you are right on this. Solicito attended the police station on Nov 5 was presumably arrested in the early hours of Nov 6 and the house was searched on Nov 6. This was somedays after the murder and presumed clean up using bleach however (Nov 1/2). So some days after the alleged clean up. Long enough that bleach odour would have cleared.




I agree. His briefing seemed minimal. It seems given the lack of specifity most knives should have been tested. Only three knives seem to have been tested all from Sollecito's, one large two small.



There was not a good reason for removing the knife from the envelope. For safety reasons put the knife in the envelope in a box. It is clearly an error to take the knife out of the envelope to repackage it. It then becomes the responsibility of the police to demonstrate no one and no thing with Knox or Kercher DNA could have contaminated the knife. Where there is a breach in the chain of evidence it becomes the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate this is of no significance. It should be remembered that the envelope used was not one for evidence collection, but one used routinely by Finzi to keep his gloves in.

F:Quel coltello lì, appena il dottor Chiacchiera ha detto "Sì, prendiamolo" avevo questa cartellina, ho preso una busta della Questura di Perugia.
GM:Era una busta nuova?
AF:Busta nuova dove io tengo i guanti, i guanti nuovi.

So not a clean envelope but one that he had put gloves into carried with him and had removed his gloves from prior to using to put the knife in. Again we do not know where this envelope might have been, what it might have been exposed to in the police station.

What is extraordinary is the lack of proper evidence collection bags. Envelopes from the police station are used, a box is found that had been lying around in the police station. We do not know where this box had been, what it had been in contact with, who had handled it.

It is an error to think only liquid DNA is transferable. Solid DNA material is transferable.



Yet no one else saw any scratches. Even for Stef this was a scratch only visible with care in the right light. So if anything this lack of any other visible scratches is against the hypothesis of energetic cleaning with a scratching sponge. Magical cleaning that leaves Knox's DNA in place, starch granules in place, but removes every trace of blood!



But she also wrote this in her formal report.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Polizia-Scientifica-RTIGF-Report.pdf
So this was not just a misremember on verbal questioning. Her formal report also falsely claimed quantification by RTPCR. Which implies these were not contemporaneous records shown as they should be.



Prof. Potenzi objected to the process.
"Sul coltello da cucina sequestrato nell'appartamento di Raffaele Sollecito non sono presenti tracce biologiche riconducibili al predetto, dovendos i quindi escludere che lo stesso ne abbia fatto uso nel periodo antecedente il suo repertamento. Inoltre, nessuna delle due campionature è stata sott oposta all'indagine preliminare per la ricerca di sangue umano mentre l'analisi del DNA di queste ha fornito, come detto, prodotti di amplificazione estremamente deboli di intensità e note volmente al di sotto del limite minimo consigliato dalle raccomandazioni del GEFI (Gruppo Italiano Patologi Porensi) ma soprattutto si sono ottenute nelle varie amplificazioni eseguite sulle due campionature profili incompleti e con difformità dell'assetto allelico per alcuni loci, tale da non consentire un corretto utilizzo dei suddetti ri sultati a fine forense, allo stato non univocamente interp retabili e teoricamente riconducibili anche ad artefatti analitici. " So according to what you said if the defence objected to the process at the Incidente it should not have proceeded.



It had a quantifiable amount of DNA, not none detected.*



As referenced above Prof. Potenza did object.

ETA *Sorry sample A had quantifiable DNA none detected on sample B. Which was quantified. Still makes the point the knife was processed in a unique fashion.

Thanks for walking through all these points above.

Don't want to sound repetitive, but I think the emphasis of the evidentiary value of a finding of Meredith's DNA on Raf's kitchen knife is way overblown, when the physical context of the crime scene only permits a single attacker.

There is zero physical evidence of anyone but Guede attacking Meredith, and a dubious DNA result on the knife, even if the DNA reading had been valid, would still not be "incriminating" evidence, imo.

Also, other posters have questioned the validity of evidence collected against Rudy at the same time as the bra clasp 6 weeks after the crime. Some have asked, or claimed, that such evidence had no merit because it was also contaminated - by not having been collected, and/or being mixed into the hamper.

I agree the poor collection method adds to the possibility of contamination, but finding Rudy's fingerprints on the jacket are not in dispute. And finding Rudy's DNA is supported by that physical fact. The point is, though the evidence collection isn't perfect, that fact alone ought not preclude the evidence from consideration at trial, though it certainly can be questioned, imo.

In short, the findings are not conclusive simply because they exist, and the only question left is whether the findings are correctly validated. But rather, the question is firstly whether the findings are valid, and then secondly, so what? What is the meaning of the findings, even if true?

The absence of any other evidence of Amanda and Raf, while taken in conjunction with not only evidence against Only Rudy Guede, but the impossibility of anyone else participating and not leaving similar evidence, makes the exercise of the knife and bra-clasp something of a fools errand, IUAM.

 

[carbonjam72]

Super-Masonic

Turns out that she used them as fundamental argument instead. She used an inference about negative controls as fundamental argument, after admitting she didn't ask them and wasn't interested in them.

Mach, if I recall correctly, you had some theory as to why Hellman acquitted Amanda and Raf, and that it had something to do with the masons? You had expressed your belief that a senior judge somehow pulled some strings and used 'machiavellian' maneuvers to insure Judge Hellman got the case. In short, that the acquittal was in the cards before the appeal trial even started, and was the result of a corrupted trial process.

You had also expressed that Spezi had been doing the mason's bidding since the early 1970s, in his covering of the MOF murders.

Is the Marasca/Bruno final acquittal also the result of the same mason related corruption? Is the March 2015 acquittal also the work of the Masons?

Or, perhaps the 2015 acquittals are the result of political pressure?

I understand you don't agree with Marasca's final acquittal verdict, but I'm curious what you think happened to achieve this result.