Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

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.

This is what I have said many times - the discredited DNA results would not indicate guilt even if genuine. Mach, Vixen and the other faith-based posters are fond of claiming "there is no innocent explanation!" but this is another of their deluded claims.

Not only are there plenty of ways that the DNA could have been present on the knife and the bra clasp before the crime occurred, but there are no plausible ways in which the 2 traces could have got there in the course of the crime. So we have Massei having to make up a fictional, evidence-free account in which Amanda allegedly carried the knife for "protection", while we have others claiming that Raff allegedly forced the tiny bra hook open with his fingers - rather than unhooking it in the normal way without ever touching the hooks.

Of course, this kind of reasoning isn't unique to Italy. In the Birmingham (UK) pub bombing case, alleged traces of explosive on the hands of the accused were taken as "evidence" they had planted the bomb (rather than manufacturing it); in the Lockerbie case, highly suspect identification evidence of Megrahi allegedly buying the clothes, was taken as proof that he had planted the bomb; and in a case I know of in the US, an alleged rapist-arsonist was convicted partly on the claimed discovery of fire-damaged items from the house in his car (showing that the items were taken from the house after the fire, at a time when only the police had access to it).

 

[Kauffer]

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.

What contradiction? Produce statements - actual statements - made by Vechiotti that are contradictory. You can't can you?

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Lol!

Vechiotti is Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine and Director of the laboratory of Forensic Genetics at Sapienza.

It really is about time you stopped making absurd fabricated statements about subjects you know nothing about.

 

[sept79]

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

Has anyone ever taken a math/chemistry/physics test without being instructed to 'show your work'?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

You, friend, are dreaming in technicolour.

I am about done with you. Read the Conti & Vecchiotti report, and do not get obsessed with irrelevancies about a couple of lines of testimony, taken out of context.

You would want to prove that Lady Macbeth was, in fact, a laundress because she once said, "Out, damned spot! Out I say!"

No, Vecchiotti does NOT build a major argument which rely on negative controls. It is the height of sliminess that you'd defend Stefanoni and the courts for refusing to hand over the raw data, and then myopic-like say that Vecchiotti's arguments depend upon them.

Read the two snippets I posted above. Vechiotti is saying that Stefanoni came to conclusions out of thin air, and that even the data she saw does not support those conclusions. Vecchiotti catches Stefanoni's data saying essentially the same thing about the samples in front of her - they rate a "zero" on the meter - yet says for some of them that she's found something, without applying a numerical value to her measurements. That is called fraud.

Vecchiotti is saying that Stefanoni engaged in fraud. The only question is "why?". IMO this may be a reason why the Marasca-Bruno report is taking so long. No lower court, not even the Hellmann court, wanted to out folk like Stefanoni, or as Chieffi said, it would call into question all DNA-convictions since 1986.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The negative controls issue is absolutely fundamental in Vecchiotti's conclusions for what concerns question of laboratory contamination of the knife.
Whatever your opinions are about crime scene processing, Conti & Vecchiotti use negative controls as key logical element in their report for what concerns laboratory contamination. Whether you deny it or not, and whatever you think about its being fundamental or peripheral in your view of reality, Vecchiotti uses that as a key logical element in her reasoning for a part if her conclusions.

 

[Bill Williams]

The negative controls issue is absolutely fundamental in Vecchiotti's conclusions for what concerns question of laboratory contamination of the knife.Whatever your opinions are about crime scene processing, Conti & Vecchiotti use negative controls as key logical element in their report for what concerns laboratory contamination. Whether you deny it or not, and whatever you think about its being fundamental or peripheral in your view of reality, Vecchiotti uses that as a key logical element in her reasoning for a part if her conclusions.

The C&V report is not just about contamination. You would do well to read that report "osmotically", and make a list of all the criticisms C&V had from start to finish - and deal with them, ah, er, osmotically and not piece-meal.

Your rhetorical style betrays you. You wish to reduce things to one isolated issue, one you feel you can win. Then you will declare victory over the whole shee-bang.

You see, what is compelling is the stuff you do not deal with. You wish to win solely a narrow argument about one snippet of testimony about what Vechiotti eventually said about the negative controls and the raw data in general.

If you placed the issue of the raw-data on to a timeline, you would see at many points the defence complaining they had no access (no full disclosure) up to and including Sollecito's final appeal to Cassazione.

The reality you desperately avoid is that (in reading their total report) C&V did not need the raw data to know that Stefanoni had not found anything - well, nothing forensicly relevant to this crime in relation to AK and RS.

You want to substitute yourself for Vecchiotti, to tell us what she is really saying. Fortunately she says it well enough in her report, as well as in one subsequent piece I saw on-line where she also highlights the problems with the forensic investigation by Stefanoni.

Machiavelli, you have lost this argument. Your "side" has lost, meaning that two innocents finally are free from this predatory prosecution - freed by the Italian Supreme Court no less.

Take some advice - instead of trying to control obsessively the rhetoric surrounding Vecchiotti's trial testimony, you'll find better traction with your Masonic conspiracy as to why the courts eventually ruled the way they did.

Remember - you believe that certain judges in the system are criminals.

 

[Grinder]

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."

When you use the term "frame", are you using the classical meaning of a plan/conspiracy to convict an innocent person or the esoteric ISF meaning for some of police producing evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence to convict someone they are "sure" is guilty?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Actually , IIRC the ISC does have the jurisdiction. Maybe Numbers can help, since he has done a lot of work researching the ISC. Whatis happens in Italy after the ECHR rules that a member state has violated a convicted defendant's rights?

But still, the overwhelming issue here is that Vixen and Machiavelli are wrong and Amanda and Raffaele are both innocent. Not Guilty. PERIOD.

 

[Kauffer]

Actually , IIRC the ISC does have the jurisdiction. Maybe Numbers can help, since he has done a lot of work researching the ISC. Whatis happens in Italy after the ECHR rules that a member state has violated a convicted defendant's rights?
But still, the overwhelming issue here is that Vixen and Machiavelli are wrong and Amanda and Raffaele are both innocent. Not Guilty. PERIOD.

The matter passes to the the committee of ministers at the Council of Europe whose function is to ensure a successful applicant is as far as possible placed back in the position she would have been in had her rights not been violated. Given that Italy has the facility to re-open proceedings of cases following an Article 6 violation, it seems likely that the Committee will insist that Italy uses its own Art 630 to order a review of proceedings, which will vacate the conviction. It is likely that the court in its judgement will hold this as the appropriate remedy. Since the only evidence in the callunia case is the statements and they will be ruled out, no further trial is possible even if the statute of limitations permitted it, for that crime.

It is possible, before the case is concluded that an alternative process to the art 630 route will become available.

 

[Bill Williams]

When you use the term "frame", are you using the classical meaning of a plan/conspiracy to convict an innocent person or the esoteric ISF meaning for some of police producing evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence to convict someone they are "sure" is guilty?

Is not the latter concept a "noble-cause" prosecution?

 

[Grinder]

Who was present when the knife was tested? IIRC the defense didn't or were unable to attend. Should the defense anticipate a ISCI tester going beyond the standard limits of the device being used?

Why didn't Stef stop after the first or second "too low" and inform the defense she was going to keep testing anyway so they could attend the extraordinary testing?

Vixen, still no examples of negative for blood and positive for DNA of a victim. Also how could Stef see a striation yet the piece of "DNA" was to small to test. How big is a piece of DNA that weighs 100 or 200 pica grams?

 

[Grinder]

Is not the latter concept a "noble-cause" prosecution?

Yes in the lands of the Corgis.

 

[Antony]

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."

And how is that more ludicrous than your belief in a judicial conspiracy to discredit "Dr" Stefanoni's so-called "evidence"?

Vixen, you're in a bind. Either Stefanoni, Mignini, Massei, Nencini and Chieffi are wrong, or it's Hellmann, Conti/Vecchiotti and Marasca/Bruno. All are authority figures in Italy. There is no logic in calling one group frauds and worse, and then accusing those of a different opinion of believing in "ludicrous conspiracies" because the claims of your own authority figures don't stand up to scrutiny.

We don't need authority figures to know where the truth lies. The facts are on the side of Hellmann and Marasca.

 

[Grinder]

And how is that more ludicrous than your belief in a judicial conspiracy to discredit "Dr" Stefanoni's so-called "evidence"?

Vixen, you're in a bind. Either Stefanoni, Mignini, Massei, Nencini and Chieffi are wrong, or it's Hellmann, Conti/Vecchiotti and Marasca/Bruno. All are authority figures in Italy. There is no logic in calling one group frauds and worse, and then accusing those of a different opinion of believing in "ludicrous conspiracies" because the claims of your own authority figures don't stand up to scrutiny.

We don't need authority figures to know where the truth lies. The facts are on the side of Hellmann and Marasca.

Yes and vice versa, which is part of the reason this thread goes on and on. While I have no doubt that the case was not made BARD and have no doubt that the case against the kids is ludicrous the mishandling of the case by the ILE/PLE leaves untied ends.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes in the lands of the Corgis.

LOL! I spewed water at the screen at the gaffaw!..... Thanks a lot Grinder!

 

[acbytesla]

The matter passes to the the committee of ministers at the Council of Europe whose function is to ensure a successful applicant is as far as possible placed back in the position she would have been in had her rights not been violated. Given that Italy has the facility to re-open proceedings of cases following an Article 6 violation, it seems likely that the Committee will insist that Italy uses its own Art 630 to order a review of proceedings, which will vacate the conviction. It is likely that the court in its judgement will hold this as the appropriate remedy. Since the only evidence in the callunia case is the statements and they will be ruled out, no further trial is possible even if the statute of limitations permitted it, for that crime.

It is possible, before the case is concluded that an alternative process to the art 630 route will become available.

Thank you Kauffer.

I can't say I'm confident that Amanda will win her appeal to the ECHR, only that she should.

I say I'm not sure, mostly because every court decision so far has not been what I guessed it would be. I was sure that the MasseI court would find Amanda innocent. They didn't. I thought Hellman would overturn on all charges, it didn't. I thought the first ISC court would confirm Hellman and maybe overturn the Callunia conviction, it threw Hellman out. I sort of expected the Nencini decision but was still surprised. I thought that the ISC would confirm the guilty convictions and yet it through them out.

I'm optimistic that it will rule in Amanda's favor especially considering it is not happening in Italy.

 

[Kauffer]

Thank you Kauffer.

I can't say I'm confident that Amanda will win her appeal to the ECHR, only that she should.

I say I'm not sure, mostly because every court decision so far has not been what I guessed it would be. I was sure that the MasseI court would find Amanda innocent. They didn't. I thought Hellman would overturn on all charges, it didn't. I thought the first ISC court would confirm Hellman and maybe overturn the Callunia conviction, it threw Hellman out. I sort of expected the Nencini decision but was still surprised. I thought that the ISC would confirm the guilty convictions and yet it through them out.

I'm optimistic that it will rule in Amanda's favor especially considering it is not happening in Italy.

Is your last sentence supposed to read, "I'm not...."?

It is, of course, not an appeal of the verdict to the ECHR and the ECHR is not in a position to make an order with regard to the verdict. Nevertheless, Italy's own laws are entirely deferential to the case law of the court in this matter to ensure that the conviction cannot stand. The persistence of the Council of Europe in connection with the Dorigo case ensured that.

There is nothing in ECHR jurisprudence that would lend itself to support for a position which would hold Amanda's rights were not violated. The alleged violations are not stretches; they're rather textbook!

I understand you are disillusioned by the decisions of Italian courts. But the ECHR is a rigorous and responsible institution, which stands above ordinary Italian law.

Indeed, go and place a bet. Easy money!

 

[Antony]

Thank you Kauffer.

I can't say I'm confident that Amanda will win her appeal to the ECHR, only that she should.

I say I'm not sure, mostly because every court decision so far has not been what I guessed it would be. I was sure that the MasseI court would find Amanda innocent. They didn't. I thought Hellman would overturn on all charges, it didn't. I thought the first ISC court would confirm Hellman and maybe overturn the Callunia conviction, it threw Hellman out. I sort of expected the Nencini decision but was still surprised. I thought that the ISC would confirm the guilty convictions and yet it through them out.

I'm optimistic that it will rule in Amanda's favor especially considering it is not happening in Italy.

I can understand your caution, but the ECtHR is not one of the Italian courts that were in thrall to the Perugia prosecutorial gang. The application is so clear-cut that it must be nailed-on they will do the right thing.

More of a worry is that it may take years for the case to reach the top of the pile - if it ever does.