Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Just wanted to say that it's a lovely warm day here in Seattle, where wrongfully convicted Amanda Knox lives. The breeze is soft, the water is clean, and I hope Amanda is gradually forgetting the nightmare of having her freedom taken away by zealous prosecutors relying on bogus theories.

I guarantee you she's not giving a moment's thought to anonymous internet people who have decided to hold on to their hatred and waste their precious lives wishing she were locked up.

Just wanted to say personally I couldn't care less about Knox's destiny.
The world is full of murderers walking free. I have no wishes nor worries concerning the life of one of them, and I never did.
I really have 'bigger fishes to fry'. Knox has never been the focus of my interest in this case.

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni was not "destroyed". She was promoted. She secured a conviction for Amanda and Raff.

Er. Not sure how to break the news, but here goes: they were acquitted.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Hellmann is on the highway to jail. Mark my words.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean the TMB + sample corresponding with a suppressed profile? Go tell stefanoni to give up the profile, and then we can talk.

Some proof that a profile even existed?

 

[Diocletus]

Just wanted to say personally I couldn't care less about Knox's destiny.
The world is full of murderers walking free. I have no wishes nor worries concerning the life of one of them, and I never did.
I really have 'bigger fishes to fry'. Knox has never been the focus of my interest in this case.

Well, what about back in the dark days when you were writing semipornographic rants about her?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Nope. It's already been filed. In the bin.

 

[Diocletus]

Some proof that a profile even existed?

She extracted a TMB sample and got a positive quantification. So she amplified it, right?

 

[Vixen]

I would suggest that within eighteen months is a reasonable estimate.

You are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. But don't let that get in the way.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, what about back in the dark days when you were writing semipornographic rants about her?

You mean when posters theorized that Guede and Knox could not ever hang together because Guede was "different", that Knox and Guede could not have met because they "didn't know each other", and that Knox would never have casual sexual encounters with drug dealers?

 

[Vixen]

Huh? Vixen thinks they'll reverse the 27th March decision? Really?

I expect the magistrates are rubber stamping warrants for mass arrests, right now, as we speak.

 

[Vixen]

The Marasca CSC panel has already stated that they have annulled the Nencini court aggravated calunnia conviction and that the Hellmann court conviction sentence of 3 years for "simple" calunnia of Patrick Lumumba stands.

I am not sure how the Marasca CSC panel will handle the calunnia issue in their motivation report, but unless they acknowledge that the police and prosecution violated Italian procedural law or committed a violation of criminal law in the course of the creation or trial of the crime, it will remain unchallenged in their MR. Without that acknowledgement, there would not be any immediate legally binding justification for a revision trial under CPP Article 630.

Unless Amanda's defense team has sufficient evidence of police or prosecution violations of Italian law, such as evidence of perjury, to request a revision trial, she will no doubt await the judgment of the ECHR on her claim that her Convention rights were violated. (The Italian criminal courts are obviously deficient and neglectful with regard to obeying the Convention and ECHR case-law.)

When her case comes before the ECHR, it will, according to its well-established case-law, find that Italy violated her Convention rights and did not provide her with a fair trial under Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c. (This proposition is very close to being certain, because the ECHR strictly adheres to precedent, following common law principles.) According to Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011, a revision trial may be requested when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR. Thus, under the guidance of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Italy's criminal courts will be forced to reopen the calunnia proceedings but without any evidence derived contrary to the Convention or Italian procedural law, or otherwise immediately vacate the calunnia judgment. Thus, the calunnia judgment will be vacated, since there would be no evidence of the alleged calunnia admissible.

Dropped Article 3 already?

 

[Vixen]

Yes in the lands of the Corgis.

In the land of the corgis, HM Queen's dogs are king.

 

[Vixen]

My thoughts on the Marasca CSC panel:

--The primary reason for the Marasca CSC panel's acquittal was because of the uncertainty of the extradition of Amanda Knox while Italy would be imprisoning one of its own, Raffaele Sollecito

--The Marasca CSC panel (at the direction of the Italian powers that be?) was fearful of the U.S. extradition process which would have focused unwanted scrutiny on the questionable Italian trial process of Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

--Marasca's motivation report will be brief/generic with no mention of Stefanoni's 'scientific evidence' for fear of jeopardizing Italian DNA cases since 1986

Those reasonings are entirely illicit. They are to do with sentencing, which should form no part of the verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Where do you come up with the "olive branch" theory from?

The fact they were "acquitted".

 

[Vixen]

Why do you feel the need to lie, Mach?

7th April 2011 – message from Stefano Conti to the Judges of the Court:
For the kind attention of the illustrious Mr. President Dr. Hellmann and the illustrious Mr. advisor Dr. Zanetti

We kindly request the illustrious Mr. President the authorization for the handing over of the following documentation that should be in the court records:

CD of the electropherograms
CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electrophoresis run generated by the automatic sequencer)
All the records, in all phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the technical consultants for the parties (CTP), including the documentation deposited (considerations and notes, including any CDs that there may be).
CD of video, photo, sequester report, methods of collection, conservation and transport to the Scientific Police laboratories relating to the seizure of the knife in Sollecito’s home, including the transcripts of the depositions in all their phases.

If the data, even partially, is not found in the court records or not received and/or not submitted, kindly, taking into account the complexity of the evaluation, given that they are an integral part of the analysis carried out on the two exhibits and given their importance in being able to fully respond to the task required of us, we request that they are made available for collection at the laboratories of the Scientific Police, through an official communication.

Thank-you for your kind attention,

On behalf of the assessors,
(Professor Stefano Conti)

20th April 2011 – message from Dr. Stefanoni to Judge Hellmann:
On 7th April 2011 the expert assessors, as signed by Professor Stefano CONTI, you received a request to authorize the handing over of technical documents relating to the findings on the subject of forensic analysis performed by yours truly and documented in the report dated 12th June 2008.

The request that you received (which I attach for ease of reference), authorizes the expert assessors for this acquisition, even in the case of documents not produced at that time and so not available in the court records.

Among the documents requested, that which specifically interests the technical activities performed at the laboratories of this office, are found to be the following:

CD of the electropherograms;
CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electropherogram runs generated by the automatic sequencer).

In relation to the request to receive the CD containing a collection of DNA profiles (in the form of electropherograms), we wish to inform that a copy has already been submitted to the court records on 25th September 2008 to the preliminary trial of Dr. Paolo Micheli of the Tribunal of Perugia and all the electropherograms relating to the genetic profiles extrapolated from the technical analysis were collated in a separate attachment from the main body of report.

In relation to the request to receive the CD RAW DATA, we are obliged to report that the information in the form of files present in the sequencer are never an integral part of the technical report, in that the evaluation by the forensic scientist, and therefore the DNA profile, is already represented by the printed electropherogram, attached to the technical report on which all the usable data for an evaluation of a genetic profile.

In addition it should be remembered that the files contained in the sequencer named “Sample File.fsa” contain sub-folders named “Info”, “Raw Data” and “EPT Data”, that don’t permit any kind of human intervention to modify and/or add data, and therefore, their viewing, does not contribute in providing additional elements for the evaluation of the genetic data.

Finally, we would inform that the request made by the expert assessors relating to the handover of the CD RAW DATA is incomplete in that the name of the “sample file” requested has not been specified, without which it’s not possible to precisely identify the documentation being requested for handover.

Remaining at your disposal for any clarification on the matter, with best regards,

Technical Consultant,

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni.

July 25, 2011, Vecchiotti Testimony p128
Prosecutor: So, do you think this is enough time to avoid the risk of contamination in the laboratory, the fact that for 12 days no sample had been analyzed, no sample containing Sollecito’s DNA had been analyzed?
Vecchiotti: It’s enough time
Prosecutor: Did you examine the negative controls relating to this sample?
Vecchiotti: They were not attached.
Prosecutor: To what?
Defense Ghirga: We continue to say, excuse me…
Vecchiotti: The negative controls were not attached.
Prosecutor: What were they not attached to?
Defense Ghirga: Your honour if you’ll let me speak…
Vecchiotti: To the electropherograms
Defense Ghirga: … if they are the negative controls from this morning, we still don’t find them eh.
Prosecutor: What do you mean from this morning?
Judge Hellmann: Yes we checked for them at the hearing on this matter…
Defense Ghirga: We didn’t find them there either your honour.
Judge Hellmann: Which was the 8th October if I’ve understood.
Vecchiotti: I have the electropherograms that were sent to me on the 8th October and they’re not there…
Prosecutor: In a moment let’s have a look at the delivery note. But even if you didn’t find them didn’t you feel the need to ask Stefanoni for them?\
Vecchiotti: I asked Dr. Stefanoni twice for the electropherograms taking for granted that she would have included them.
Prosecutor: That she would have included the electropherograms for the negative controls?
Vecchiotti: No that she would have… that in the electropherograms there would be the samples, there would be the negative controls, because why shouldn’t they be there?
Prosecutor: Yes but when did you notice that they weren’t there…
Conti S: We asked for them again.
Prosecutor: Because then you’d have noticed that they weren’t there, right?
Vecchiotti: It’s obvious but it’s her responsibility to attach them, because why do they need to be asked for? It shouldn’t be necessary to ask for them.
Prosecutor: You’re the expert Doctor.
Vecchiotti: Look they don’t need to be requested in that case, they should be produced by the those who have them.
Prosecutor: Is this also an international rule, universally recognized?
Vecchiotti: That the negative controls are included, yes.
Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…
Conti S: They were requested twice.
Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…
Conti s: In fact we asked for them twice.

September 06, 2011, Stefanoni admits she didn’t provide the raw data to the independent experts. p253
Dalla Vedova: The raw data, several times our consultant asked us to request for them to be submitted and we did so, can you tell us in a few words what this raw data is and if this data is available today in the case files?
Stefanoni: So, the raw data is not available in the case files, because they were never, let’s say, handed over. I can explain what they are…

Did you not read Machiavelli's detailed response?

 

[Grinder]

I wish Mach would stop traducing Vecchiotti and we could debate about some definition.

Maybe traduce or to jimmy a door or...

 

[Vixen]

Well, the 5th section you think might void callunia has already in the dispositivo, confirmed it, presumably so nobody was in any doubt that it still stood.

Hellmann's verdict, confirmed by Chieffi, essentially stated that Amanda should have known Lumumba was innocent. It would appear that Hellmann, from some of his later comments was in fact embracing Bill's 'olive branch' theory - trying not to eviscerate the police and the prosecutor completely, considering that he'd eviscerated them in every other section of his report.

Speculating, he might have thought the matter inconsequential as Amanda had already served longer than the three year sentence he gave her and wouldn't serve another day. He may also have known about the ECHR.

I'm willing to bet he wishes he had had more courage. After all, he was sent to Coventry by all his colleagues anyway.

Hopefully, sent to prison, next. Serious crime: perverting the course of justice.

 

[Diocletus]

A good example of te pro-Knox propaganda lies.
The site lies, presenting isolated drop-in alleles in negative controls as if they were evidence of laboratory contamination.

The Conti-Vecchiotti report (quoting another source) itself makes clear that this is not what contamination means:

"one should always expect to observe a few drop-in alleles in negative controls"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b95bd480ad8.jpg[/qimg]

Lol. So "an isolated drop in allele" has a larger quantification than 36b?

 

[Vixen]

How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?

Guede's shoeprints in blood and his DNA inside Kercher's vagina, convict him, unless you think he was her secret lover and he was trying to save her.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a court should agree to accept that unattributed traces can be allocated to anyone it likes and that this is real evidence of guilt?

All but one of the experts agreed that one perpetrator could have killed Kercher. Guess which expert didn't agree?

The police suspected it was actually Raff's footprint in the room as it was a size 42, and matched a deformity on the star shape with his. As you know, Rudy is size 45.

 

[Machiavelli]

From wiki: the Italian entry is the same:

"Medical jurisprudence or legal medicine is the branch of science and medicine involving the study and application of scientific and medical knowledge to legal problems, such as inquests, and in the field of law. As modern medicine is a legal creation, regulated by the state, and medicolegal cases involving death, rape, paternity, etc. require a medical practitioner to produce evidence and appear as an expert witness, these two fields have traditionally been interdependent.

Forensic medicine, which includes forensic pathology, is a narrower field that involves collection and analysis of medical evidence (samples) to produce objective information for use in the legal system."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_medicine

Vechiotti is Professor of Forensic Medicine
Got it?

Vecchiotti has a degree in Medicine and a specialization in legal medicine.
She has no degree in molecular biology. She has no specialization in forensic analysis.
She is appointed to the role of university professor for the specialty "MED/43" (medical jurisprudence). She has taught 30 university courses over the last 40 years, of which 25 have the name "legal medicine" and only four contain the adjective "forensic".