Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Of course a blood stain can yield a TMB negative result. Yes, of course it can. Occurrence of this is recorded in scientific literature and expected (TMB is far less sensitive than luminol) and it is recorded even on this trial (for example, Knox's blood drop on her pillowcase was TMB negative; some "cat's" blood drops were TMb negative).

And going back to what I said, this only confirms the principle: evidence depends on logical alternatives.
A TMB negative result has no logical value, especially on a latent stain, because there is no alternative: there are no substances known, compatible with the known data, that have the the property of reacting with luminol but not with TMB.

I only wish to use "what was released"? I do not "wish", I accept to use what was part of the trial, insofar as I presume the principle that the trial was just, that means, unless proven otherwise, that it was following due procedure. This is quite a key point.

Because when one accepts that the trial was proper in regards to procedure, it also means I can see that the defence were given adequate opportunities to enter new evidence if they wanted to.
Evidence used in a trial is usually (in fact, always) incomplete. It's always possible, theoretically, to "search for more" and more accurate information.
A trial is not a scientific research, it's different from scientific reserach in many aspects, among them in that it serves one main different purpose: it is aimed at taking a decision, which had to be taken necessarily, and almost certainly on incomplete information. Thus a trial is not mainly a "research", it's a decision-taking process.

Both defence and accusation failed to enter some pieces of evidence or refrained from doing that (we don't know if they could be relevant or not, and in which direction). For example, there are no photos of Knox's hands in the trial files. What we know is that the entering of evidence was done following due procedure, and we also know (and that is also my opinion) that evidence was sufficient to lead to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So Massei and Nencini concluded whn they refused to test the alleged semen stain or other instances.

When I say the entering of evidence followed due procedure and the parties were given opportunities, and thus it was just, I mean it's something I can see through my eyes. I mean I can see that if the raw data are not there, this is because the defence didn't want to pursue them. I can tell you for sure they didn't intend to have this data, they were not interested in them, knowing something about the rules; prof.Potenza not requesting them is obvious, defence not even calling him to testify about the knife testing is something obvious and remarkable too, Pascali backtracking from his letter in court, not talking about raw data and instead requesting other things is something obvious, CdV failure to explain the judge what he wanted is obvious, defence not requesting raw data at the Hellmann trial nor at the Supreme Court is also obvious; and even the court-appointed experts C&V stated expliticly that they were not interested.
On the other hand, I do not require the raw data myself for my own decision, because I accept the principle that they may be required only by those who suspect Stefanoni is dishonest, while instead I trust Stefanoni and see no reason to assume she is cheating. The same concept of opportunity goes for the alleged semen stain. I can well see this structures in the trial. I can see that information would be more complete if the hypothetical semen stain was tested, but I can also see the defence was given opportunities to request such test, and refrained from doing it. So the knives in Meredith's apartment for example: the defence during the incidente probatorio requested to test the stone that was trhown through the window, their request was promptly fulfilled; but they didn't request to test the knives. They had a clear opportunity to do so, it was a defence choice to only request a test on the rock, and not on the knives. On my part, I apply principles of trust of witnesses, in the absence of evidence of the contrary I won't consider a witness a liar. I also apply a principle of trust to the words of Mignini and Comodi, whose sincerity and honesty I have absolutely no reason to doubt. Those principles however ar not arbitrary: they are also principles of law, and I know it's the parties burden to prove if a witness is lying. So the question is not whether I am happy or not with investigation and amount of information collected, or if I think the investigation had shortcomings and they should have collected more. The information collected and presented is obviously "incomplete", compared to the potential of collecting information, and this happens basically on all investigations. The correct question would be: would I conclude for a "non guilty" verdict based on the motivation that information was incomplete? Would I reject pieces of evidence on this ground, and set the condition that they "must" be complete otherwise I won't accept a guilty verdict? The answer to this question is: no. I consider the evidence incomplete (as on any other trial) but sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If one day the ECHR said, for instance, that the defence must be given raw data, or that the trial lacked fairness because they did not test the semen stain, that would be ok to me and I would say: let them have raw data. But I am not ECHR, and that would have little to do with the point. If instances were found that caused the trial be unfair, I would agree to fix those instances, maybe through jurisprudence adjustment; but such violations would need to be found, first, and the finding of issues itself won't change the trial conclusion.

This is what you said - yet again: "The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative." It does not depend on defence request - despite the fact that Conti, explicitly wrote to the Hellmann court requesting "CD raw data" and despite the fact that the defence wrote to the Micheli court requesting the data and Stefanoni lobbied the judge against releasing it, stating a falsehood - that the request was unheard of and the provision of the information only of interest if it were suspected that Stefanoni was dishonest. As you say, your contradictory position in this matter is based not on some well grounded intellectual principle - you simply have decided to trust Stefanoni and to trust Comodi and Mignini. So, why have a trial at all? Why have the release of any evidence if you are prepared to accept what they say. It would be sufficient for them all to declare that "We have considered the evidence and conclude they are guilty". The provision of the raw data is considered essential in matters relating to DNA evidence, by the entire forensic science community. So, this is not a matter about defence requests or prosecution responses - scientists - and Berti is an example in this trial - depend on it to validate declared results. The results declared are invalid without it. On TMB, Stefanoni herself relied on the TMB negative evidence to conclude that the luminol samples were not blood. It was not a contention argued at trial by the defence against her opposition, but by her. TMB negative results cannot be adduced as evidence of blood, even where later the determination of blood might be demonstrated by other means. There are false positive and false negative test results across the whole of scientific testing, which is why multiple tests are used, but you cannot reverse interpret these matters nor can you disregard a result. Even Stefanoni realised that luminol positive results did not guarantee the presence of blood. Since the TMB results were hidden, initially, we know that the prosecution determined them to have been of an exonerating character. When Stefanoni reported these results to the prosecution (but not the defence), the prosecution would have had her opinion with them that the results proved the non existence of blood. They could have asked her to run a final confirmatory test on the samples. What you are seeking to do is demonstrate the existence of blood by firstly disregarding the value of the TMB test and secondly, inferring it by non scientific argument rather than experimentation. It simply will not do. You will not find in the literature a circumstance where evidence presented at court was a luminol positive/TMB negative set of results where the court has determined these results to meet the burden of proof that blood was present.

 

[carbonjam72]

There is no evidence that whatever drew the attention of people in the parking garage is related to the murder, which could have occurred close to 9:20 pm. Whateverdrew people's attention at around 10 pm (video clock adjusted to correct time) could have been anything. It could have been several different sounds or sights.

1. someone trying to start a car?
2. a stray dog moving in the garage?
3. several people talking or laughing near a parked car?
4. a homeless person hanging out in the garage seeking a little warmth on a chilly evening.
5. a bird fluttering in the garage?

Or the desperate screaming of Meredith Kercher being attacked by Rudy Guede.

It could have been anything, sure. But it also could have been the actual murder at that time.

I've looked on google maps before, and its a dead sight line to the cottage (meaning the exact direction they're all looking, don't know if its a visible sightline).

The point is, they were in the area of the crime, at about the time of the crime, clearly heard something. How could "investigators" not want to interview them to understand what drew all their attention, at that time, in just the exact direction of the cottage?

The answer may be, a homeless man singing. But how could the cops not want to know?

Or is it because a lack of contrary evidence for time of death allows them to choose one that's convenient to fit the available "facts"?

Or was it because, they felt they, "already knew the truth"? Same reason they didn't search the ravine for the murder weapon, because they had already found it in Raf's kitchen.

I'll bet Rudy's knife is still there to this day. But I wouldn't go looking for it, lest you be charged as an accomplice in a masonic conspiracy, or some such.

 

[carbonjam72]

He writes English very well. I rarely see language mistakes. Are you 100% sure that he is living in Italy?

WHoever or wherever he is, his posts are prolific, elaborate, unyielding. I've always thought there was a Maciavelli roomful of beefy mustachioed cops taking turns at a bank of computers.

 

[Mike1711]

But he was already convicted by then! Nencini is the appeals trial.
Vinci requested to analyze the pillowcase IIRC together with Stefanoni at beginning of April 2009, and reportedly they discovered the alleged semen stain then. But Vinci remained silent about that. He was present at court hearings on several occasion but he and the defence never mentioned the pillowcase for six months.

When it suits you it's "an appeal".

Before the ISC acquittal it was held by guilters that "double jeopardy" (after the Nencini trial) couldn't apply to Knox because under Italian law it's one continous trial where new evidence unfolds along the way.

Debating with guilters is like shadow boxing.

 

[Planigale]

I've already staid EDFs are not "a problem for me".
I catch this occasion to ramind you that instead prof. Vecchiotti was the one who stated that raw data were not interesting for her research.
And I willl point out again that defence did not request them:
Potenza did not request them; Pascali backtracked from his letter to the judge and did not mention them at the hearing, Bongiorno admits in her instances that the defence did not request them but were ready to accept charts with peaks and areas instead; Dalla Vedova made a confused request but only at the end of the 2009, twithout actually talking about raw data or explaining what they were, and was unable to explain Massei what he wanted the reason why the defence allegedly wanted them and why they were unable to ask them before; and finally, I also point out - hoping to make this clear with the maximum force - that the defence did not request raw data at all during the Hellmann appeal trial.
The defence also failed to submit any instance to the Supreme Court requesting raw data.

I agree with Stefanoni's 2008 letter pointing out that raw data could be interesting as potential verification evidence only to those who decide to presume that Stefanoni was dishonest, or in alternative completely incompetent to the point of overlooking negative controls completely.
EDFs are not interesting to those who reject such assumptions.

I would think providing false documentation to the court about tests carried out on the most critical piece of evidence in the trial, and repeating that falsehood in verbal testimony to the court, would be sufficient justification to think that she was either dishonest or incompetent. This could be combined with the failure to keep contemporaneous records of the processing of the evidence (vacuum extraction protocol). Then this could be combined with the false testimony with regards to the TMB testing of Luminol positive stains. This could be combined with the incompetent handling when collecting the bra fastener. This could be combined with the false claim that she followed international standards when analysing the mixed DNA from the bra fastener.

There are multiple episodes of documented false statements by Stefanoni and errors of procedure. This would seem to provide justification for a detailed examination of everything else. I cannot say whether Steffanoni is dishonest or careless (I suspect the latter). I suspect that she was poorly resourced, unsupported, and had had insufficient training in the particular issues related to forensic laboratory work and lacked mentoring. In contrast to others I do not think she was a bad person. I think she was working in a bad system.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would think providing false documentation to the court about tests carried out on the most critical piece of evidence in the trial, and repeating that falsehood in verbal testimony to the court, would be sufficient justification to think that she was either dishonest or incompetent. This could be combined with the failure to keep contemporaneous records of the processing of the evidence (vacuum extraction protocol). Then this could be combined with the false testimony with regards to the TMB testing of Luminol positive stains. This could be combined with the incompetent handling when collecting the bra fastener. This could be combined with the false claim that she followed international standards when analysing the mixed DNA from the bra fastener.

There are multiple episodes of documented false statements by Stefanoni and errors of procedure. This would seem to provide justification for a detailed examination of everything else. I cannot say whether Steffanoni is dishonest or careless (I suspect the latter). I suspect that she was poorly resourced, unsupported, and had had insufficient training in the particular issues related to forensic laboratory work and lacked mentoring. In contrast to others I do not think she was a bad person. I think she was working in a bad system.

Musn't she have known that she was jimmying the results of many tests and procedures to obtain the results that would be used to condemn 2 innocent people to prison for decades?

Could she have obtained the results she needed by accident, and then "carelessly" suppressed her records to conceal how she obtained her results?

I don't see how there's room here for any of them all to be anything but despicable criminal kidnapping thugs.

 

[Desert Fox]

Musn't she have known that she was jimmying the results of many tests and procedures to obtain the results that would be used to condemn 2 innocent people to prison for decades?

Could she have obtained the results she needed by accident, and then "carelessly" suppressed her records to conceal how she obtained her results?

I don't see how there's room here for any of them all to be anything but despicable criminal kidnapping thugs.

An important issue is that this is not done in isolation. We have seen this in every case of a forensic specialist falsifying evidence. They will do it in just one case but many cases. How many people in Italy are in prison right now who are innocent because of one Ms Stefanoni?

 

[RWVBWL]

About Meredith's shower stall...

It'd only show up bleach if luminol applied within a few hours of the act.

Scientific literature reports that bleach and oxidants retain the property of causing luminol reaction only for a few hours, then they don't react any more.

So why even use luminal then?

Surely you 2 fine folks do not suggest that Foxy Knoxy and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] cleaned up every spec of blood in Meredith's shower,
yet forgot the easily seen blood drops on the bathroom sink + nevermind that bathmat, right?

Why wasn't any smeared blood,
(like what is shown up above on the table pic),
ever found to have been wiped up from inside Meredith's flat?

If lots of bleach was used,
why didn't the flat reek of it, in the bathroom, the hallway, or from inside Meredith's locked bedroom?

I seem to recall a cop stating that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s flat reeked of bleach after he was arrested, right?
Odd that Meredith's flat did not, and it was only hours after a massive clean-up occurred,
as you pro-guilt folks sometimes mention...


Interesting stuff:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol.htm
+
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/index.php

 

[Tero]

This goes on and on. It's like Historical Jesus. Only we have more Amanda Knox data, so in that sense it is justified.

 

[Ken Dine]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breaches of rule 11 and rule 12

Odd how ol' "Toto" did not apparently hear
whatever it was that caused many normal folks to look towards Meredith's apartment on that chilly November night:

I betcha that whatever it was that caused these folks
to look towards Meredith's apartment on a holiday evening
was related to her rape + murder.

Whatdoya think,
Vixen?

I doubt it since those photos were spread over an 8 minute period (that would be a long scream), and if you add 10 minutes to them (since we now know the CCTV clock's time-stamp was at least that slow), Meredith was already dead long before those series of photos.

 

[Bill Williams]

This goes on and on. It's like Historical Jesus. Only we have more Amanda Knox data, so in that sense it is justified.

Trouble is, this one is not about Amanda Knox and probably never has been - except for the random imaginings of an upcountry judicial system in Italy, foisting their prejudices on some random Seattleite. Could have been 1,000s of similar women, really.

What about Raffaele? What about lower courts which now are out of synch with their highest court.

Canceled without delay.
The courts have basically said that their colleagues court had grown a barrel.
What modestly here that someone has tried to show.​

his is about wrongful convictions.... which tend to have very similar structures to them.....

 

[Bill Williams]

A kind lurker to this forum has found what neither I nor Machiavelli could - an Italian language forum covering the Monster of Florence and L'omicidio di Meredith Kercher cases. From 2009 until the present.

Some actual thoughtful and uniquely Italian conversation - far, far more muted than on the English sites. So far, no sign of the conspiracy as Machiavelli sees it. Well, at least not so finely spelled out!

Hoots!

http://mostrodifirenze.forumup.it/about102-435.html

 

[carbonjam72]

I live in el Lay too, so should Vixen ever come to Venice Beach to splash in the waves with you, that I'd like to see ...not Vixen in a bikini, but the look on your face when you behold the lovely Vixen for the first time.

There's a 50-50 chance your lovely Vixen is in fact a man!

Even if your lovely Vixen is a woman, then what you'd be dealing with is a ruddy UK broad who spends all day on her rump in front of a computer pounding out 'Hater' nonsense – paint your own picture of that vision (if you dare?)





I doubt it since those photos were spread over an 8 minute period (that would be a long scream), and if you add 10 minutes to them (since we now know the CCTV clock's time-stamp was at least that slow), Meredith was already dead long before those series of photos.

The time of death is an issue of contention, especially since Mignini delayed the coroner from taking a reading of body temperature.

However, FBI expert John Douglas wrote in his chapter of the book, Rudy Guede The Forgotten Killer, that time of death was about 10pm.

Many here have argued for an earlier TOD based on analysis of stomach contents and lack of digestion, but this is still a pretty good, i.e. narrow time frame window, of 9-10pm.

These photos being associated with the actual murder seems to fit pretty well with the available time line.

These are several actual witnesses at the scene and approximate time of the crime, who appear to have heard something, coming from the exact direction of the cottage.

Instead of just assuming an 8 minute scream is "unlikely", and therefore didn't happen, may I suggest you allow the available evidence to guide your hypothesis building, not the other way around.

I would say its pretty clear to me that Rudy also went downstairs after the murder. And we know that phone calls on meredith's phone to her bank were made at what, 10:14 from Lara's garden? (Was there even a 10 pm call from Meredith's phone?).

Seems premature to me to state what these people heard or didn't hear without actually talking to them and asking, and see what they say.

Anyway, Rudy said the death, or assault occurred about 9:20 or 9:25pm? Something like that? Seems like a pretty consistent consolidated narrative from several different sources.

Ken, no disrespect, but I don't see you having any reason to discard Randy's hypothesis here out of the gate. You may not agree, but you've provided zero
that contradicts, at least that I can see.

 

[Grinder]

I doubt it since those photos were spread over an 8 minute period (that would be a long scream), and if you add 10 minutes to them (since we now know the CCTV clock's time-stamp was at least that slow), Meredith was already dead long before those series of photos.

I don't know where RW got these and I agree with your analysis but what I wonder most is where are the other video captures from around town. Obviously the PLE were sophisticated enough to know there was such a thing as CCTV in commercial settings, so why not gather them from all around?

Dan O. used to post pictures of public CCTV along the way between Raf's and the cottage. Besides all the other superhuman abilities of the kids, this ranks up there. They were able to go back and forth to the cottage and the plaza and to dispose of their bloody clothes, shoes and cleaning supplies (those they didn't dip in bleach note that no items were missing) without being on camera once.

Where did they get rid of all the incriminating stuff? Vixen since you can't come up with a knife with no blood but DNA how about telling us how and where they ditched the stuff.

 

[Kauffer]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=10011[/qimg]

So why even use luminal then?

Surely you 2 fine folks do not suggest that Foxy Knoxy and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] cleaned up every spec of blood in Meredith's shower,
yet forgot the easily seen blood drops on the bathroom sink + nevermind that bathmat, right?

Why wasn't any smeared blood,
(like what is shown up above on the table pic),
ever found to have been wiped up from inside Meredith's flat?

If lots of bleach was used,
why didn't the flat reek of it, in the bathroom, the hallway, or from inside Meredith's locked bedroom?

I seem to recall a cop stating that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s flat reeked of bleach after he was arrested, right?
Odd that Meredith's flat did not, and it was only hours after a massive clean-up occurred,
as you pro-guilt folks sometimes mention...


Interesting stuff:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol.htm
+
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/index.php

See here:


http://the-gist.org/2011/03/seeing-red-–-presumptive-tests-for-blood/

"Luminol is not suitable for use at a scene where it is suspected that bleach has been used to clean the scene, and any positive result must be taken as a presumptive positive and followed up by analytical tests to confirm the presence of blood."

And:

All of the techniques described in this article are classed as presumptive tests. This is because they are prone to false positives so, while a negative result is assumed to mean that blood is not present, a positive result is a presumptive positive for blood and further analytical methods are required to confirm that blood is present. A negative result should be confirmed by using a positive control (for example a known blood sample) as the liquid solutions used in these presumptive tests are susceptible to degradation.

Once you have a presumptive positive for blood as well as analysis to confirm the sample is blood, you need to determine whether or not the blood is human and then you can move on to the process of attempting to discover who the blood came from."

Dr Felicity Carlysle

 

[carbonjam72]

A kind lurker to this forum has found what neither I nor Machiavelli could - an Italian language forum covering the Monster of Florence and L'omicidio di Meredith Kercher cases. From 2009 until the present.

Some actual thoughtful and uniquely Italian conversation - far, far more muted than on the English sites. So far, no sign of the conspiracy as Machiavelli sees it. Well, at least not so finely spelled out!

Hoots!

http://mostrodifirenze.forumup.it/about102-435.html

Anyone know how to get to a translated page? Won't show up for me.

 

[Mr Fied]

Just some little questions that have crossed my mind.

Why would a scientist perform a confirmatory test?

If said test was performed and the result was negative what do you think a scientist would make of the result?

If said scientist then forgot to mention this in a court of law what would you think about the credibility of that scientist?

 

[Strozzi]

Just some little questions that have crossed my mind.

Why would a scientist perform a confirmatory test?

If said test was performed and the result was negative what do you think a scientist would make of the result?

If said scientist then forgot to mention this in a court of law what would you think about the credibility of that scientist?

If I were a juror and that happened, I would distrust Stefanoni. I would regard her credibility as next to worthless.

I was a juror in a narcotics case where a bag of marijuana was on the floor of a car in front of the front-passenger seat. The prosecution had no evidence that the passenger seated there owned it, but when the car was stopped late one evening for a burned-out taillight and the car was searched (why?) the front-seat passanger was arrested for it. A search of the passenger failed to show any connection to him and what was on the floor - no marijuana leaf residue in his pockets or on his lap or trousers. No empty plastic baggies or baggie ties in his pocket. The prosecutor stated it must be the defendant's because no one else would have left it in the car. To persuade the jury of that, the prosecutor actually said "people don't leave valuable things in cars". That was the straw that broke the prosecutor's case for me. I thought back to all the times my passengers or I left valuables in cars -house keys, glasses, cell phones, purses, toys, schoolbooks needed for homework, etc. That prosecutor destroyed any trust I could have in his accuracy. Stefanoni destroyed any trust I could have in her testimony by her omissions and false statements.

 

[Bill Williams]

If I were a juror and that happened, I would distrust her. I would regard her credibility as next to worthless.

I was a juror in a narcotics case where a bag of marijuana was on the floor of a car in front of the front-passenger seat. The prosecution had no evidence that the passenger seated there owned it, but when the car was stopped late one evening for a burned-out taillight and the car was searched (why?) the front-seat passanger was arrested for it. The prosecutor stated it must be the defendant's because no one would have left it in the car. To persuade the jury of that, the prosecutor actually said "people don't leave valuable things in cars". That was the straw that broke the prosecutor's case for me. I thought back to all the times my passengers or I left valuables in cars -house keys, glasses, cell phones, purses, toys, schoolbooks needed for homework, etc. That prosecutor destroyed any trust I could have in his accuracy. Stefanoni destroyed any trust I could have in her testimony by her false statements.

Please note Machiavelli's views on this. Once it gets to trial, Stefanoni's crediblity is off limits for discussion.

And her "findings" must be taken along with everything else to osmotically adjudicate the case regardless of their legitimacy.

 

[Desert Fox]

If I were a juror and that happened, I would distrust Stefanini. I would regard her credibility as next to worthless.

I was a juror in a narcotics case where a bag of marijuana was on the floor of a car in front of the front-passenger seat. The prosecution had no evidence that the passenger seated there owned it, but when the car was stopped late one evening for a burned-out taillight and the car was searched (why?) the front-seat passanger was arrested for it. A search of the passenger failed tomshow any connection to him and what was on the floor - no marijuana leaf residue in his pockets or on his lap or trousers. No empty plastic baggies or baggie ties in his pocket. The prosecutor stated it must be the defendant's because no one else would have left it in the car. To persuade the jury of that, the prosecutor actually said "people don't leave valuable things in cars". That was the straw that broke the prosecutor's case for me. I thought back to all the times my passengers or I left valuables in cars -house keys, glasses, cell phones, purses, toys, schoolbooks needed for homework, etc. That prosecutor destroyed any trust I could have in his accuracy. Stefanoni destroyed any trust I could have in her testimony by her omissions and false statements.

Sounds like the felon with a firearm case I was a juror for. The police officer claimed that the weapon was thrown by the defendant while running. The defendant got on the stand and stated that it was his friend's gun. If he had either not take the stand or had claimed that he had no clue who the gun belonged to, I would have voted "not guilty."