Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

The 46 day DNA evidence is probably all unreliable. Makes no difference to the guilt of Guede.

Is that when the sweater was found?

Yep. 18.12.2007.

 

[Vixen]

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."

Any fule kno you cannot disprove a negative. V&C might just as well have written, "Stefanoni did not state she was not the King of Spain".

 

[Vixen]

Ok then. Balding?

Try again.

 

[Vixen]

Sure. I say throw everything found on the 18th away. Now we are left with indisputable evidence of Guede, and only Guede, without the nonsensical "items of evidence" such as the bra clasp or Luminol prints that aren't blood and don't contain Meredith's DNA to distract people.

So one minute you are complaining the police took evidence before charging the kids and now you are saying they took evidence after charging them.

 

[Vixen]

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

The Chieffi sentence is definitive and valid.

Roflmao. Rattling skeletons in the closet?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not all Italians were fascist. There's Gramsci.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It's rather like Potenza complaining loudly he did not witness the lab testing, when he himself egregiously and wilfully refused to attend.

 

[Vixen]

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?

One day when you are appointed judge you will be able to ask all these questions.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[Vixen]

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.

It has definitive probative value and importance. Police were able to reasonably ascertain it was Rudy who gripped Mez by her wrists, behind her back, together with the pathological evidence.

It's only you and your chums who believe in the ludicrous "police conspiracy to frame St Amanda of Seattle and Don Raff of Bari."

 

[Strozzi]

Any fule kno you cannot disprove a negative. V&C might just as well have written, "Stefanoni did not state she was not the King of Spain".

Vixen, this is a very straightforward issue. Stefanoni has an obligation to do her forensic collection and analysis work in a scientifically-appropriate (precise) manner. She failed. Failed repeatedly. Without knowledge or equipment or safeguards to do it right. She acted incompetently. She exposed evidence to compromise and in some instances actually trashed or destroyed evidence. Yet, you want people to accept her collection, storage, preparation, instrument-maintenance/sterilization, processing, analysis, documentation, and (garage-based) record keeping as thorough, precise, and scientifically-valid?

Stefanoni is in the wrong line of work.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That's OK, honey. Don't forget the USD10k virtual bet you have with me. Double or quits the calunnia is not "set aside"?

The ISC does not have the jurisdiction.

 

[Strozzi]

It has definitive probative value and importance. Police were able to reasonably ascertain it was Rudy who gripped Mez by her wrists, behind her back, together with the pathological evidence.

It's only you and your chums who believe in the ludicrous "police conspiracy to frame St Amanda of Seattle and Don Raff of Bari."

Rudi's DNA on the sleeves cannot tell you what they were doing when he touched the fabric. Was he helping her pull off her sweater during their alleged romantic interlude or was he gripping her forearms/sleeves to contain her during his attack?

By the way, did Stefanoni find Amanda's or Raffaele's DNA on the sleeves? If so, was it in great (documentable) quantity? Did she have to amplify it beyond the norm or run her evidence trays repeatedly through her instrument to get an alleged presence?

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is not just the different sized knife wounds that indicate more than one person (= two knives) it is the pathologist fact that one knife came directionally from the left and one from the right. This could suggest someone behind Mez and someone in front, if all are right-handed (bioarchealogical studies show that persons dying in conflict or as a massacre tend to have injuries consistent with right-handed assailants).

Imagine you are attacking someone, you would not suddenly change hand or direction of your blows.

Given the evidence Mez was forcibly restrained, from her shoulder injury, the bruising around her elbows and at her wrists, together with knife blows coming from both left and right by different knives, and lack of defence wounds, the courts (plural) were correct to infer more than one attacker.

 

[Vixen]

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.

My take is, barrister to the alleged mafia, Giulia Bongiorno, from Sicily, home of the mafia, manoevered it so that the case was converted from First Chambers ISC to the lesser Fifth Chambers, with Bruno, himself once charged with being allegedly mafioso, being the junior judge to write up the report. Remember, he set about browbeating Marasca for hours until 23:00 at night. The illegal use of 530.2 also epitomises the perversity of this court.

With a wink and a nod, the fix was done, almost by legerdemain.

There is an historical battle in Italy, even today, of the mafia versus the establishment.

We can be sure it is not based on any evidence of "innocence".

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, this is a very straightforward issue. Stefanoni has an obligation to do her forensic collection and analysis work in a scientifically-appropriate (precise) manner. She failed. Failed repeatedly. Without knowledge or equipment or safeguards to do it right. She acted incompetently. She exposed evidence to compromise and in some instances actually trashed or destroyed evidence. Yet, you want people to accept her collection, storage, preparation, instrument-maintenance/sterilization, processing, analysis, documentation, and (garage-based) record keeping as thorough, precise, and scientifically-valid?

Stefanoni is in the wrong line of work.

Dang! A cop who nails criminals! Fire them!

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

​

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."

​

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."

No, Bill. The question is not whether the raw data could be useful to Vecchiotti. One can have their opinion about whether Vecchiotti's argumentations on various points are convincing, honest or rational or not, one can have their interpretation about why raw data could be interesting or not and in what conditions.
But these are not the questions here.
Here the question is why Vecchiotti has built a major argument that depends on negative controls, on which her conclusions largely depend on, after stating that raw data - and thus, negative controls - were irrelevant to her conclusions.
This is called spectacular contradiction, and such inconsistency tells us a bit of story about Vecchiotti's deception.
The problem is not with your interpretation of Vecchiotti's court statements, your attempt to explain them through your theory. The problem is the contradiction between Vecchiotti's statements and Vecchiotti's report.

 

[Strozzi]

Dang! A cop who nails criminals! Fire them!

Incompetent forensic scientists are a liability. Stefanoni is in the wrong career.

If she can keep surfaces bleach-clean, not mix raw food with cooked food, and be sure refrigerator emperatures are proper, Dr. Stefanoni could have a good career as a kitchen supervisor at McDonald's.

But McDonald's won't tolerate a kitchen supervisor who fails to keep preparation surfaces sterile, fails to maintain and sanitize processing equipment, overcooks ingredients, or fails to keep proper records.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The entire institute was shut down.
Vecchiotti performs autopsies, she's a forensic pathologists. Doesn't have a specialization in pathology, but in "legal medicine" (that means basically autopsies). Her laboratory doesn't have any kind of DNA analysis certification, nor any certification of other kind.
She doesn't even have a thermometer in her refrigerator.

 

[Diocletus]

The entire institute was shut down.
Vecchiotti performs autopsies, she's a forensic pathologists. Doesn't have a specialization in pathology, but in "legal medicine" (that means basically autopsies). Her laboratory doesn't have any kind of DNA analysis certification, nor any certification of other kind.
She doesn't even have a thermometer in her refrigerator.

Funny that Vecciotti is that incompetent, and yet, she is able to destroy Stefanoni for: (i) clown-show crime scene processing, (ii) not quantifying or characterizing a sample, and (iii) not obtaining a consensus profile for an LCN sample. Duh.

Stefanoni must be lower than a snake's belly to get so pwned by such an incompetent.

 

[Diocletus]

No, Bill. The question is not whether the raw data could be useful to Vecchiotti. One can have their opinion about whether Vecchiotti's argumentations on various points are convincing, honest or rational or not, one can have their interpretation about why raw data could be interesting or not and in what conditions.
But these are not the questions here.
Here the question is why Vecchiotti has built a major argument that depends on negative controls, on which her conclusions largely depend on, after stating that raw data - and thus, negative controls - were irrelevant to her conclusions.
This is called spectacular contradiction, and such inconsistency tells us a bit of story about Vecchiotti's deception.
The problem is not with your interpretation of Vecchiotti's court statements, your attempt to explain them through your theory. The problem is the contradiction between Vecchiotti's statements and Vecchiotti's report.

People who hide their data are crooks. It's that simple.