Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Machiavelli may be trying to make the point that Guede's presumably-bloody clothes were discarded by Guede and never located by the police. Therefore, because one assailant can do that it is possible that another could do that also, that is, accomplices who were present when blood was shed could also have discarded presumably-bloody clothes, never located by the police.

If my understanding of Machiavelli's point is accurate, I agree with him. Just as one person can later discard bloody clothes, others with him could later also discard bloody clothes.

However, in this case there is no reason (NO EVIDENCE) to believe that this in fact occurred. No evidence that Knox and Sollecito changed or discarded clothes. The fact that no bloody clothes were located does not mean that they had bloody clothes, discarded them, and were never located.

My understanding of Italian legal process is that because an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise, when there are several conflicting interpretations/claims/evidence presented the court is REQUIRED to accept the interpretation/claim/evidence that supports innocence unless it is not at all plausible.

Strozzi, what happened to Amanda's coat and the bag for clothes she says she took round to the cottage. Therein lies the answer to the riddle as to what became of their bloody clothes.

 

[Vixen]

To save effort for anyone seeking my earlier post on Stefanoni's malpractice and fraud, I repeat it here, including its very catchy title.

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.

The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.

Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;

2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;

3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;

4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);

5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;

6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;

7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;

8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;

9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;

10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;

11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;

12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;

13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;

15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;

16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;

17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;

18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.

ETA: If Patrizia Stefanoni were a character in a Harry Potter book, at Hogwarts she would be in Slytherin House with the other evil schemers.

Cripes!

 

[Kauffer]

Strozzi, what happened to Amanda's coat and the bag for clothes she says she took round to the cottage. Therein lies the answer to the riddle as to what became of their bloody clothes.

Lol!

What exactly do you contend is missing?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you have no idea what you're talking about, as evidenced by the highlighted words above. Any further elucidation would be off-topic for this thread, but you really need to educate yourself about this case (as well as the Kercher case!) before pontificating further.

Police believed the bomb was planted per luggage at Frankfurt airport.

If Megrahi can be sly and furtive about his "terminal cancer with just weeks to live" to secure a pardon from the kindhearted Scots, we can't believe anything else of him. Even if not directly involved, he was part of the Libyan conspiracy.

President Mad Dog Gaddafi came to an ignominous end.

No surprise you are easily fooled into believing rightly convicted persons are really innocent, if you believe in Megrahi.

 

[Vixen]

Relevant to the topic here, you are also engaging in the logical fallacy of allowing your view towards the judicial process to be influenced by outrage at the crime - something that has distorted not just the online debate in the Kercher case, but the trial itself at some points. Why else would the Kercher lawyer, Maresca, choose to introduce an image of the victim's corpse into the trial, other than to foment emotions against the defendants?

No,I was not outraged by the crime. I was deeply saddened by the fate of those passengers, especially when the brother of one of them wrote a book describing how he came to Scotland wandering around Lockerbie trying to make sense of it.

I was all for Megrahi's innocence and for his pardon.

Still alive years later, I realised he'd fooled us all.

 

[Diocletus]

Basically those criminals pick samples that were never amplified, and claim Stefanoni suppressed them.

You parrot and claim rep.168 is a DNA profile that was "hidden" ("suppressed"). And it's an example of a profile that never existed. A sample where Stefanoni's report says no DNA profile chart exists: quantification was negative, and - explains - no amplification was done:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b988f772e94.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, so Stefanoni's Report says that quantification was "negative" and "no amplification was done."

But we already know that Stefanoni's Report is rife with errors and misstatements.

Let's start with something more reliable, say, the Quantification results for this sample.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks. But what is your estimate of DNA quantity based on? Is that the DNA amount that was on the knife blade, in the Qubit sample, or in the sample that was subjected to amplification and profiling?

That's my estimate of the DNA in the entire 36b sample. The estimate is based on the relative strength of the egram compared to other egrams for samples of known quantity.

 

[Diocletus]

So Mach, why was 36B listed as positive for DNA and amplified while 36C, with exactly the same test results, was listed as negative and not amplified?

36c was amplified. The claim that it was not is another Stefanoni lie.

 

[Welshman]

Here are a few questions I would like to ask Machiavelli

1) You and Vixen have constantly accused C&V of being incompetent buffoons totally lacking in expertise in DNA. To support this claim, you say C&V had a history of incompetence. If this was the case, why did the prosecution not make an issue of this? The prosecution never questioned the expertise of C&V during the Hellman trial, the Galati appeal and during the Nencini trial. In addition, the Chieffi report never made an issue of lack of expertise by C&V. If C&V had such a history of major blunders, why did the prosecution not use this? The prosecution have had their work criticised by totally clueless buffoons but make no claim they are incompetent. It is clear that you Machiavelli work for the prosecution. Why did you not tell your bosses that they should make an issue of the lack of expertise of C&V?

2) If C&V were incompetent buffoons, rebutting their report should present no problems. Can you explain if C&V were were incompetent that neither you or the prosecution have been able to write a rebuttal of their report. I have a challenge for your Machiavelli. Can you write detailed rebuttal of the C&V report? If you are unable to do this, can you explain why if C&V are so incompetent?

3) If the DNA results on the knife are valid, how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct surrounding the DNA? Why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence, lying, being evasive in court and using false documents which is documented on Amandaknoxcase.com? Why did the prosecution have to resort to these tactics if they had a slam dunk case?

4) Stefanoni said she could not remember how much DNA was on the knife when questioned. Can you tell how much DNA was on the knife?

5) If the DNA on the knife was valid, why does section in the the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com which deals with the knife has to resort to using numerous falsehoods?

6) If the DNA on the knife was valid, responding to the criticisms made of Stefanoni's work should present no problems. Some time ago when you posted on the Injustice in Perugia Forum, I asked you to rebutt the articles of Mark Waterbury criticising Stefanoni's work which you were unable to do so. If Stefanoni's work was valid, why is that PGP can not respond to people who criticise Stefanoni's work?

 

[Antony]

Police believed the bomb was planted per luggage at Frankfurt airport.

Good grief! So this is the level of knowledge you display before you pile in with your ill-informed opinion. It puts your comments on the Kercher case into perspective.

If Megrahi can be sly and furtive about his "terminal cancer with just weeks to live" to secure a pardon from the kindhearted Scots, we can't believe anything else of him.

Off-topic still, but if you'd even followed the news reports at the time, you'd be better informed than this. You're not challenging the fact that Megrahi had terminal cancer?

Even if not directly involved, he was part of the Libyan conspiracy.

President Mad Dog Gaddafi came to an ignominous end.

No surprise you are easily fooled into believing rightly convicted persons are really innocent, if you believe in Megrahi.

You obviously know very little about the case. It's also obvious that you have a knee-jerk response to assume guilt in any disputed case, without bothering with anything so vulgar as the facts.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, so Stefanoni's Report says that quantification was "negative" and "no amplification was done."

But we already know that Stefanoni's Report is rife with errors and misstatements.

Let's start with something more reliable, say, the Quantification results for this sample.

"rife"? Only because Stefanoni told you about one?

And the pro-Knox ravings instead are accurate and credible testimony, I suppose.

The burden of proof is on those who assert that something exists.

In this case, the defence is "someone" who did not attend the tests, who did not access the laboratory data over the eight months during which they were invited to to so.
The defence who backtracked from requesting raw data, Pascali limiting his requests, and Bongiorno admitting the defence didn't request raw data.
The same defence who didn'tsubmit any preliminary instance to Massei court in order to obtain documentation.
The same defence who didn't submit any request to the Supreme Court.
The same defence who failed to explain Massei why they thought raw data were necessary, and why they couldn't ask for them before.
The same defence who did not submit any preliminary request to have raw data to the Hellmann court, and who did not make any request of documentation to the Hellmann court even orally throughout the whole appeal trial.

They believe something exists, and it was hidden from them?
Then let them ask some court to investigate, let them submit a complaint.
Or you think otherwise they are "credible" ?

 

[Diocletus]

"rife"? Only because Stefanoni told you about one?

Nah, I saw a bunch of "mistakes" in the report.

You should look at the quantification results for the mop. Really, you should.

Here you go, look at 168b: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

There are 200 picograms in there. Obviously, that's not negative, right? And, obviously, Stefanoni would amplify that, right? And there is a missing amplification serial number, 689, that corresponds perfectly with it, right?

So where's the egram for 689?

 

[Machiavelli]

Here are a few questions I would like to ask Machiavelli

1) You and Vixen have constantly accused C&V of being incompetent buffoons totally lacking in expertise in DNA. To support this claim, you say C&V had a history of incompetence. If this was the case, why did the prosecution not make an issue of this? The prosecution never questioned the expertise of C&V during the Hellman trial, the Galati appeal and during the Nencini trial. In addition, the Chieffi report never made an issue of lack of expertise by C&V. If C&V had such a history of major blunders, why did the prosecution not use this? The prosecution have had their work criticised by totally clueless buffoons but make no claim they are incompetent. It is clear that you Machiavelli work for the prosecution. Why did you not tell your bosses that they should make an issue of the lack of expertise of C&V?

Are you sure the prosecutions never questioned the integrity of Vecchiotti?

2) If C&V were incompetent buffoons, rebutting their report should present no problems. Can you explain if C&V were were incompetent that neither you or the prosecution have been able to write a rebuttal of their report. I have a challenge for your Machiavelli. Can you write detailed rebuttal of the C&V report? If you are unable to do this, can you explain why if C&V are so incompetent?

Rebutting their report doesn't present any problem to me.
Of course I am able to do it.
But I don't get paid for that.

3) If the DNA results on the knife are valid, how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct surrounding the DNA? Why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence, lying, being evasive in court and using false documents which is documented on Amandaknoxcase.com? Why did the prosecution have to resort to these tactics if they had a slam dunk case?

And when did you stop selling drugs and beating your wife?

4) Stefanoni said she could not remember how much DNA was on the knife when questioned. Can you tell how much DNA was on the knife?

No. But I know that there was DNA. I think the magnitude of amount could be inferred by asking questions about the functioning of the Qbit fluorimeter, and how Stefanoni used it.

5) If the DNA on the knife was valid, why does section in the the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com which deals with the knife has to resort to using numerous falsehoods?

There is no "fake" wiki page.
You should turn the question to your friends Knox & Sollecito and the "amandaknoxcase" site: why would an innocent need to resort to that massive amount of lies?

6) If the DNA on the knife was valid, responding to the criticisms made of Stefanoni's work should present no problems. Some time ago when you posted on the Injustice in Perugia Forum, I asked you to rebutt the articles of Mark Waterbury criticising Stefanoni's work which you were unable to do so. If Stefanoni's work was valid, why is that PGP can not respond to people who criticise Stefanoni's work?

I pointed out numerous lies about Stefanoni. We are not talking about "criticism", we are talking about lies. They include mystifications, misquotes, unsupported wild assertions, misrepresenting testimonies.
We can obviously respond, we did so, and I debunked many pro-Knox silliness many times. But it's not a problem of criticism, it's lies, but in addition to that there is also a massive attitude by pro-Knoxes to arrogantly claim that someone is dishonest beause allegedly violated their beliefs about law, what they believe other sovereign systems should comply with.
Even the very idea that one can argue for "innocence" by bringing "criticism" of Stefanoni, is itself a dishonest, arrogant delusional idea.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow. What an illuminating post. Machiavelli's true colours come flooding through. Knox and Sollecito are "quite disgusting characters". Machiavelli has "human contempt for most members of the pro-Knox crowd". And there's a "racist defamatory campaign" being waged on behalf of Knox and Sollecito.

I think that this hysterical emotional outburst ought to be noted and remembered by anyone who is trying to evaluate anything Machiavelli has written or will write in relation to this case. I would strongly suggest that it subtracts an enormous amount of credibility from all of his arguments on the case, as he is quite clearly deeply emotionally invested. I had expected so much better.

Do you think noting a criminal defamatory campaign is an "emotional" matter?

(Those looneys ranting about "Mignini criminal", "Stefanoni" etc. the Italian authorities "fascist" and Knox "little angel", are balanced folks instead, I suppose).

We had rabid newspapers networks and charachters of every kind telling false narratives about "coercing interrogation", screaming "fascism", "witch hunt", "anti-Americanism", "misoginy", "satanic motive", "railroad", "corruption", "treachery", "conspiracy", grotesque attempts of political interference, and you say that.... I am hysterical?
Or you suggest I am the only one who should not be disgusted - I am the only one who is supposed to not point the finger against violence, corruption, racism and fascism?

I did expect once in a while something objective from you.

 

[Matthew Best]

Police believed the bomb was planted per luggage at Frankfurt airport.

Is Frankfurt in Malta all of a sudden? You'd think I'd have noticed but I must have not been paying attention when they moved it!

 

[js202]

"little angel"? I thought that was Ms. Stefanoni...

Do you think noting a criminal defamatory campaign is an "emotional" matter?

(Those looneys ranting about "Mignini criminal", "Stefanoni" etc. the Italian authorities "fascist" and Knox "little angel", are balanced folks instead, I suppose).

We had rabid newspapers networks and charachters of every kind telling false narratives about "coercing interrogation", screaming "fascism", "witch hunt", "anti-Americanism", "misoginy", "satanic motive", "railroad", "corruption", "treachery", "conspiracy", grotesque attempts of political interference, and you say that.... I am hysterical?
Or you suggest I am the only one who should not be disgusted - I am the only one who is supposed to not point the finger against violence, corruption, racism and fascism?

I did expect once in a while something objective from you.

As a case in point, more lunatic ranting from your quarter? Is this what you hold up as objectivity? Meanwhile, go ahead and proffer one post in which London John has behaved other than a steadfast rationalist in the matter of this case.

Zotz was merely correct. Your argumentation is fascistic. You will rant and expostulate for paragraphs against any and all argument and evidence that supports the right of defendants to proper protections, whilst viciously impugning the professionalism and integrity of any expert who stands in your way. Up to and including explaining how a stop sign actually means "go." Perhaps, at the heart of things, this is your idea of "bigger fishes."

 

[carbonjam72]

Nah, I saw a bunch of "mistakes" in the report.

You should look at the quantification results for the mop. Really, you should.

Here you go, look at 168b: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

There are 200 picograms in there. Obviously, that's not negative, right? And, obviously, Stefanoni would amplify that, right? And there is a missing amplification serial number, 689, that corresponds perfectly with it, right?

So where's the egram for 689?

What would be the motivation of hiding an unincriminating profile on the mop?

Or is that it?

The fact that its unincriminating, would disabuse the lay observer from believing a mop (an instrument of "clean-up"), was somehow associated with and used in a scientifically impossible clean-up.

Is this more of the "bleach receipt" line of prosecution lies?

That a foggy association with an instrument of a material used for cleaning up in general, infers cleaning up occurred in this case, as a means of explaining the fact that there is no actual evidence against Amanda and Raf, which implies therefore that they must have been cleaning to make the evidence that must have been there disappear.

Says a lot about the prosecution, and its says a lot about their audience.

 

[Diocletus]

What would be the motivation of hiding an unincriminating profile on the mop?

Or is that it?

The fact that its unincriminating, would disabuse the lay observer from believing a mop (an instrument of "clean-up"), was somehow associated with and used in a scientifically impossible clean-up.

Is this more of the "bleach receipt" line of prosecution lies?

That a foggy association with an instrument of a material used for cleaning up in general, infers cleaning up occurred in this case, as a means of explaining the fact that there is no actual evidence against Amanda and Raf, which implies therefore that they must have been cleaning to make the evidence that must have been there disappear.

Says a lot about the prosecution, and its says a lot about their audience.

It could be exculpatory, as you point out. But, I think that the vast majority of the withheld profiles look like a disaster as a consequence of Stefanoni's poor lab practices and improper processing of LCN samples. I think that incompetence is what she is really hiding.

 

[carbonjam72]

Oh, no. Not her morals.

The rest, yes. But it is only responses to pro-Knoxes arguments, and it's within their racist defamatory campaign.
The truth can't be stopped, and you can't do anyhing about it.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are quite disgusting charachters anyway even independently from their being guilty, this is quite manifest. My human contempt for most members of the the pro-Knox crowd does not help very much communication with them, but if you want to discuss about why Knox and Sollecito are disgusting, just call.

My focus is the Kerchers, not Knox. And the truth. I observe the defamatory campaign of those liars against decent people, I well know who will pay. I feel very strong an well, and I know what I am up to. If talking about sweet evening light is your way to tell me you are only interested in protecting murderers and don't care about the rest, I already know that.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Is this cause for concern? Is that your intention, to cause concern?

I do understand being passionate and getting carried away with arguments.

It's hard to imagine a major shift in your position when you display such enmity towards two young people who never hurt anyone before this crime, and those who see and argue that they could not have had anything to do with this crime, and take offense at prosecution tactics designed to induce wrongful convictions.

Can't we go back to talking about the masons?

 

[Diocletus]

Do you think noting a criminal defamatory campaign is an "emotional" matter?

(Those looneys ranting about "Mignini criminal", "Stefanoni" etc. the Italian authorities "fascist" and Knox "little angel", are balanced folks instead, I suppose).

We had rabid newspapers networks and charachters of every kind telling false narratives about "coercing interrogation", screaming "fascism", "witch hunt", "anti-Americanism", "misoginy", "satanic motive", "railroad", "corruption", "treachery", "conspiracy", grotesque attempts of political interference, and you say that.... I am hysterical?
Or you suggest I am the only one who should not be disgusted - I am the only one who is supposed to not point the finger against violence, corruption, racism and fascism?

What's the problem? That's the stuff that usually happens when you have a gross miscarriage of justice resulting in a notorious wrongful conviction. Actually, I think the crooked authorities have gotten off lightly so far.