Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Remember back in early January of 2008,
well before The Massei Trial even began,
when Raffaele's father went on Matrix and pointed out that the shoe prints rings were wrong?
I bet you do recall this info...

Here's a couple of snippets of early reporting I found:
Francesco Sollecito and his expert prof. Vinci "demonstrating" that the shoe print wasn't Raffaele's.
+
The shoe print could really be not Raffaele's.
It could be Rudy's since a similar print was in his house.

* * *

Why am I bringing this up?
Because this happened right about then, also:

RAFFAELE NAILED!

They were late for Christmas but with the sales time a nice gift arrived for Meredith.
Raffaele Sollecito's Dna has been found on Meredith's bra.
And now they can forget about the so doubtful shoe print.

* * *

Machiavelli,
there has been soooo much controversy about Raffaele's DNA on Miss Kercher bra clasp, heck I just also read that back in Jan. 2008, The Sun had reported there was DNA of two strangers on Meredith's bra, but today Scientifica denied this possibility.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182759/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html



Don't you think that IF Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni,
waaay before The Massei Court even got involved, had tested the presumed seminal fluid found between Meredith's naked legs splayed apart on her pillow, and it was from [SIZE="-7"]Raff[/SIZE], that it would have had RAFFAELE NAILED! much, much better than the bra clasp result, which, back in Jan. 2008, was apparently already coming under question regarding other men's DNA on it also, which Scientifica denied, which we now know was a lie?

Those jizz stains weren't from 2, 3, or 4 different males like the bra clasp DNA is.

And I bet that Dr. Stefanoni would not have had a problem re-testing the seminal fluid sample for ID confirmation,
as there was plenty of sample to use + re-use.

That is not [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s semen.

Among the several things you should know; You should be aware about the fact that the pillowcase has never entered Stefanoni's laboratory.
My information is, over a meeting at Scientific Police office, Manuela Comodi decided it should be sent to the print analysis laboratory section, and had always remained there since.
Stefanoni testified she never had the opportunity to actually analyze the pillowcase, and in fact didn't know exactly where stains and prints were.
We also know she was present when Vinci analysed it under crimescope light, and she noted that there was a stain that had the potential of being of spermatic origin. But we also know Stefanoni was never given the pillowcase for analysis of that stain over the previous time.

All this anyway doesn't make my point go away: why did Hellmann & Zanetti not analyze it?
And why did the Supreme Court 5th section rule that there was no evidence, without having it analyzed?
Those rulings are obviously illogical.

 

[Bill Williams]

Among the several things you should know; You should be aware about the fact that the pillowcase has never entered Stefanoni's laboratory.
My information is, over a meeting at Scientific Police office, Manuela Comodi decided it should be sent to the print analysis laboratory section, and had always remained there since.
Stefanoni testified she never had the opportunity to actually analyze the pillowcase, and in fact didn't know exactly where stains and prints were.
We also know she was present when Vinci analysed it under crimescope light, and she noted that there was a stain that had the potential of being of spermatic origin. But we also know Stefanoni was never given the pillowcase for analysis of that stain over the previous time.

All this anyway doesn't make my point go away: why did Hellmann & Zanetti not analyze it?
And why did the Supreme Court 5th section rule that there was no evidence, without having it analyzed?
Those rulings are obviously illogical.

Cherry picking those two courts to make this point reveals your confirmation bias. Why did Nencini deny the defence request to test the stain?

You've really lost the plot. (Once again, why are you not on an Italian forum calling for this, in the Italian language? Why call for this on an English-forum where it will do no good?)

 

[RWVBWL]

Who needs the whole Pillow Case? Maybe test a swab instead?

Among the several things you should know; You should be aware about the fact that the pillowcase has never entered Stefanoni's laboratory.

My information is, over a meeting at Scientific Police office, Manuela Comodi decided it should be sent to the print analysis laboratory section, and had always remained there since.

Stefanoni testified she never had the opportunity to actually analyze the pillowcase, and in fact didn't know exactly where stains and prints were.

We also know she was present when Vinci analysed it under crimescope light, and she noted that there was a stain that had the potential of being of spermatic origin. But we also know Stefanoni was never given the pillowcase for analysis of that stain over the previous time.
<snip>

Thanks for the reply,
what do you think of this conversation on Nov. 3rd, 2007
between Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and her lab assistant Alessa?

What does she want tested?
Seminal fluid, presumed seminal fluid on a pillow case?
Or from a swab that was already sent up to Rome, 2 hours drive time, away?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ&app=desktop

 

[Machiavelli]

You make me laugh! And I assume you think Nencini was credible? His court was ordered to review 3 items and that particularly 1 of those items would be decisive. (....)

No.

Nencini was tasked of reviewing the whole evidentiary material - basically made of trial documentation - that had to do with the "reasons for appeal" presented by the defence. All reasons of appeal were the object of his review.

Then, Nencini was also ordered to accomplish evidence discussion phase on a few topics, about which such evidentiary phase had been left unfinished, or was carried on improperly.
The "items" were: Aviello's testimony, which had been illegitimately prevented from being accomplished by Hellmann; the DNA sample found on the knife, which was illegitimately left untested by Vecchiotti.

There was no item that was expected to be "decisive", absolutely nothing alike.
There was an item (the DNA sample) that the Supreme Court regarded as something that should have been decisive to Hellmann's decision, based on Hellmann's own premises. Because it should have been dicisive to the decision of his court, his court decided illogically, and thus their decision was annulled.

*

Anyway, I was talking about Hellmann and about Cassazione 5th section, pointing out that they were contradictory; was not takling about Nencini.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for the reply,
what do you think of this conversation on Nov. 3rd, 2007
between Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and her lab assistant Alessa?
What does she want tested?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ&app=desktop

Yet again, Machiavelli caught in a lie.

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry, would secondary test be better?

Traditionally, forensic scientists would spray Luminol are under a room particularly where no blood stains are visible. Luminol is very good at detecting blood. But it produces some false positives. TMB, is applied differently. It is not sprayed but is usually applied to a cotton swab or Q-tip. That is then rubbed against a visible blood stain or a spot that reacted positively to Luminol. If it reacts positively than a confirmatory test is done.

What is not done, is what Stefanoni did in this case and that is to argue that it is alright to ignore contradictory results from presumptive tests without a conclusive confirmatory positive test.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway, I was talking about Hellmann and about Cassazione 5th section, pointing out that they were contradictory; was not takling about Nencini.

Machiavelli - we picked up on that - we picked up that you were talking about Section 5. We also said it was complete confirmation bias to cherry pick the way you do.... if not completely dishonest.

(Yet again, why are you not on an Italian forum calling for this, in the Italian language? Why call for this on an English-forum where it will do no good?)

 

[acbytesla]

No.

Nencini was tasked of reviewing the whole evidentiary material - basically made of trial documentation - that had to do with the "reasons for appeal" presented by the defence. All reasons of appeal were the object of his review.

Then, Nencini was also ordered to accomplish evidence discussion phase on a few topics, about which such evidentiary phase had been left unfinished, or was carried on improperly.
The "items" were: Aviello's testimony, which had been illegitimately prevented from being accomplished by Hellmann; the DNA sample found on the knife, which was illegitimately left untested by Vecchiotti.

There was no item that was expected to be "decisive", absolutely nothing alike.
There was an item (the DNA sample) that the Supreme Court regarded as something that should have been decisive to Hellmann's decision, based on Hellmann's own premises. Because it should have been dicisive to the decision of his court, his court decided illogically, and thus their decision was annulled.

*

Anyway, I was talking about Hellmann and about Cassazione 5th section, pointing out that they were contradictory; was not takling about Nencini.

Huh? We're talking about 36I. Right?

 

[RWVBWL]

"Special Permission"

I seem to recall Professor Halkides telling me that Dr. Stefanoni
had to get Special Permission to drive down from Rome
to help collect the evidence that she herself,
and I suppose her assistant Alessa too,
would then test.

It boggles my mind to think that Dr. Stefanoni tests her own samples that she collected.
And that she did not immediately have that presumed seminal fluid tested.
This murder shocked Perugia, a college town!


Surely just a little dab of it on a Q-tip or cotton swab,
(as ACbytesla notes is used in another post above),
would have down the job,
right?

Why would Dr. Stefanoni need the whole pillow case?

And why would Dr. Stefanoni,
with her Special Permission request given,
not have tested the presumed seminal fluid, ASAP,
without having to ever wait for Judge Massei to never ask her to do so?

 

[Machiavelli]

Cherry picking those two courts to make this point reveals your confirmation bias. Why did Nencini deny the defence request to test the stain?

You've really lost the plot. (Once again, why are you not on an Italian forum calling for this, in the Italian language? Why call for this on an English-forum where it will do no good?)

Nencini was consistent.

Nencini refused to test the alleged semen stain, because, based on procedure law, he should have only order to search for new evidence if it was absolutely necessary to his decision.
He deemed there was already enough evidence to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, so there was no absolute need to re-open an evidence-finding phase to search something more.
Nencini's decisions were consistent and legally correct.

 

[Mr Fied]

Nencini was consistent.

Nencini refused to test the alleged semen stain, because, based on procedure law, he should have only order to search for new evidence if it was absolutely necessary to his decision.
He deemed there was already enough evidence to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, so there was no absolute need to re-open an evidence-finding phase to search something more. Nencini's decisions were consistent and legally correct.

In other words, he had already made up his mind that they were guilty, so there was no need to look at any evidence that might prove otherwise.

 

[Ken Dine]

DUMBEST COMMENT OF ALL TIME:

What do you mean by "get away with"?
Do you include Hellmann & Zanetti among the "colluded judges"? (they also did not order to test the alleged semen stain).

As for me, I pay attention to the reason why Massei did not order a testing of the possible sement stain: because at this stage of the trial, that would be merely an "explorative" investigation, not absolutely necessary to draw conclusions.

YA, RIGHT!

In regards to the potential logical value of the semen stain, I am stunned instead noy by prosecution nor by judge Massei; I am stunned instead by the Supreme Court of Cassation 5th section, who decided to not remand judgement to lower courts on the grounds that "it would be impossible to fix the gaps in the evidence". I wonder how they could tell that no more evidence could be found of Sollecito's presence, as long as papers say there is an untested stain that theoretically could be semen. How could they logically know for certain in advance that the stain could not turn into evidence against the defendants? It's impossible to tell that. Also for this reason, the Supreme Court 5th section decision stands out as illogical and non credible.

At this late stage of the game, and since Raffaele clearly wasn't there during the murder, you'd need to be a total dipwad stupe to believe that Raffaele had left traces of himself in Meredith's bedroom, so there's nothing left to litigate.

Your Italian Supreme Ct mercifully pulled the plug since this debacle was getting embarrassing for most Italians of normal intelligence.

Clearly, you never got the memo, so you continue to thrash about like a 'Guilter' loon. Rather amusing, really.

 

[Machiavelli]

I seem to recall Professor Halkides telling me that Dr. Stefanoni
had to get Special Permission to drive down from Rome
to help collect the evidence that she herself,
and I suppose her assistant Alessa too,
would then test.

It boggles my mind to think that Dr. Stefanoni tests her own samples that she collected.
And that she did not immediately have that presumed seminal fluid tested.
This murder shocked Perugia, a college town!


Surely just a little dab of it on a Q-tip or cotton swab,
(as ACbytesla notes is used in another post above),
would have down the job,
right?

Why would Dr. Stefanoni need the whole pillow case?

And why would Dr. Stefanoni,
with her Special Permission request given,
not have tested the presumed seminal fluid, ASAP,
without having to ever wait for Judge Massei to never ask her to do so?

Dr. Stefanoni has already testified that she didn't even have the opportunity to examine the pillowcase. There is nothing more to add to this information actually. No "whys" or "woulds" make any sense.
The pillowcase was not even collected by Stefanoni, btw. It was collected by some other personnell, since Stefanoni had left the room before Meredith's body was removed.
I only know there was a meeting during those weeks where Stefanoni and Comodi mentioned the pillowcase, Stefanoni warned that if they tested stains they may also destroy possible prints, Comodi decided that the pillowcase should be retained by the print analysis laboratory.
It seems it has been "parked" or "forgotten" there for a while, nobody ordered further tests. The reason, as I was told was understood by Comodi, is that she delayed taking initiative in order to preserve the item, fearing that it would be destroyed. However, I think it's unimportant.
The rest is your own speculations out of thin air.

What is important - that has some logical relevance - as for the subsequent events, is that Sollecito's defence avoided requesting a test at the time when evidence was being analyzed and discussed during the Massei. This I think is an important factor for why the item was not analyzed for DNA during the Massei trial.
What also is important, is to note that Hellmann and Cassazione 5th section were contradictory.

 

[Ken Dine]

Among the several things you should know; You should be aware about the fact that the pillowcase has never entered Stefanoni's laboratory.
My information is, over a meeting at Scientific Police office, Manuela Comodi decided it should be sent to the print analysis laboratory section, and had always remained there since.
Stefanoni testified she never had the opportunity to actually analyze the pillowcase, and in fact didn't know exactly where stains and prints were.

We also know she was present when Vinci analysed it under crimescope light, and she noted that there was a stain that had the potential of being of spermatic origin. But we also know Stefanoni was never given the pillowcase for analysis of that stain over the previous time.

All this anyway doesn't make my point go away: why did Hellmann & Zanetti not analyze it?
And why did the Supreme Court 5th section rule that there was no evidence, without having it analyzed?
Those rulings are obviously illogical.

This is dishonest B$. We've all seen the Nov 2nd video of Stefanoni talking to the Rome lab while standing in front of the cottage, and Stefanoni told her lab that she had a probable semen stain that she needed testing PRONTO!

Stefanoni could have taken a swab of the 'apparent' semen stain on the pillow with no need to actually send the entire pillow case to Rome.

Are you really that stupid, or do you believe everyone else is so stupid that they would believe your illogical made-up nonsense?

 

[RWVBWL]

A male human being possibly ejaculated in a rape + murder.

There are at least 2 different ,
(only 2 - that's it?)
presumed semen stains.
1 is between her legs below Miss Kercher's genitalia.

And another 1 is where?

This is the important stain.

Rudy Guede stepped in this other stain
and then lifted his sneaker up and imprinted a fresh shoe ring sample of this stain elsewhere,
which was right beside Miss Kercher's left torso on her pillow case.


Look at the photographs towards the bottom of this link:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/
you can see the fresh imprint.

Rudy did not step in a puddle,
like as seen below Miss Kercher's genitalia,
and it squished the puddle there, imprinting his shoe rings.

He stepped in it elsewhere and then moved his foot and left only shoe rings on the pillow case next to her.

This 2nd stain, if semen, thereby dates this presumed seminal fluid
as being fresh, from when Rudy Guede watched Meredith suffocate
on her own blood and die.

Where was this 2nd stain that Rudy stepped in?
On Miss Kercher's duvet?

Maybe it was found on 1 of the towels?
If so, it'd appear that someone climaxed after trying to help save Miss Kercher.
Maybe a small sample swab was taken of this 2nd presumed seminal fluid stain
and tested like Dr. Stefanoni apparently wanted, as we note in the call on Nov. 3rd
to her lab assistant 2 hours away in Rome. And the results did not make someone happy.
They were not from Patrick Lumumba nor Raffaele Sollecito.

Maybe this was why the towels were allowed to get moldy,
so ah, they could not ever be tested, again.

Kinda reminds me of what happened to Miss Kercher's controversial Bra Clasp,
it was allowed to rust, no more tests, please!

 

[Machiavelli]

DUMBEST COMMENT OF ALL TIME:

YA, RIGHT!

Yes, right.

At this late stage of the game, and since Raffaele clearly wasn't there during the murder, you'd need to be a total dipwad stupe to believe that Raffaele had left traces of himself in Meredith's bedroom, so there's nothing left to litigate.

Your Italian Supreme Ct mercifully pulled the plug since this debacle was getting embarrassing for most Italians of normal intelligence.

Clearly, you never got the memo, so you continue to thrash about like a 'Guilter' loon. Rather amusing, really.

If you suggest that SC "pulled the plug" for political reasons, you are saying:
1) The SC decision was political (therefore, null).
2) The SC decision was manifestly contradictory.

P.S. Any assumption that "clearly" Sollecito's wasn't there is beyond delusional, given that no court ever found in the merits anything like that, while the SC even pointed pout 530.2 (meaning that everything is all but "clear"). Of course, to you this is just a petitio principii, it's all circular: since your assumption is it was clear he wasen't there, than there is no need to search for possible evidence.

You loose one argument after another, what you say is manifestly devoid of consistence, however somehow you "think" you said something intelligent. This is a very strange mental process to observe.

What bolsters your idea, is, in fact, an assuption of a racist type, that is: that all what comes from the entire Italian justice system can be dismissed from the roots, and all trials, verdicts, testimonies and and courts can be just denied altogether, as if they never existed. All what exists in your mind is that clearly "my" Supreme Court had to pull the plug in order to comply with the idea of what you think was "clear" already based on your opinion, denying and dismissing everything that had come from the Italian justice system.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is dishonest B$. We've all seen the Nov 2nd video of Stefanoni talking to the Rome lab while standing in front of the cottage, and Stefanoni told her lab that she had a probable semen stain that she needed testing PRONTO!

It doesn't change anything.
Stefanoni testified she never analyzed the pillowcase. She knew it existed, obviously. But she didn't know any detail about it.

Stefanoni could have taken a swab of the 'apparent' semen stain on the pillow with no need to actually send the entire pillow case to Rome.

What you think Stefanoni "could" have done is worth less than zero.
Dr. Stefanoni did not take a decision, she did what she was told.

Are you really that stupid, or do you believe everyone else is so stupid that they would believe your illogical made-up nonsense?

Where's the argument? I only see an ad-personam rant. (this is @Exonerate_Knox dialogue style)

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words, he had already made up his mind that they were guilty, so there was no need to look at any evidence that might prove otherwise.

The point is exactly that an alleged semen stain could not prove otherwise.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - we picked up on that - we picked up that you were talking about Section 5. We also said it was complete confirmation bias to cherry pick the way you do.... if not completely dishonest.

(Yet again, why are you not on an Italian forum calling for this, in the Italian language? Why call for this on an English-forum where it will do no good?)

You said it, but you failed to argue it, and you were shown that you were wrong and inconsistent.

I made clear enough that the point is that Nencini was consistent, precisely because he found the mguilty, while Hellmann and 5th section were not.

(p.s.: you need to stop attempting to discuss about the poster)

 

[Planigale]

Some info might be here, Davefoc:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9979[/qimg]

Link:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

Now I am not a DNA expert. But I had a look at this. I think to be clear these tests are not tests for semen. DNA in sperm is tightly packaged and does not amplify easily. So what one can do is amplify non sperm DNA, then wash this away and lyse the sperm cells release their DNA and amplify. This allows some separation of the female and male components making typing easier. Perhaps more important if swabs are from e.g. pants than from a vagina (since one usually knows who the vagina belongs to). The isolation of a male fraction cannot be assumed to be from sperm as opposed to blood or epithelial cells.