Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

No I do not. If there are systemic problems this affects many people. I think that many of the people criticised here, probably did what they usually did. They did not behave any worse in this case than others. Picking on individuals in one case will not prevent the same bad things happening again.

For instance, I previously referenced another case where the postal police wiped hard drives when trying to read them. In the Elisa Clasps case Pascali criticised Steffanoni for not following protocols. I suspect that Steffanoni was doing LCN testing without the facilities in that case also. It would be interesting to know what training judges underwent in the evaluation of genetic evidence so they can ask the right questions to ensure the testing was done appropriately. England has an external regulator and standard setter for forensic science.

So if one wants things to improve, focussing on individuals is not the answer, one needs a systems approach as happens in air safety. Individuals make errors, you put systems in place to reduce those. E.g. Record interrogations. Investigate allegations of police misbehaviour. Ensure laboratories have QA systems in place and external validation. Forensic errors should be reviewed - why were the shoe print rings miscounted, were the 'experts' doing this trained in analysing shoe prints. Did they have SOPs in place? Were measures done blind to the reference prints?

Air safety is a beautiful example. Commercial air travel is impossibly safe considering the complex machinery and systems. Note that of four commercial disasters in the last two years, three were deliberate human acts.
These judicial systems should be as accurate as air safety, but there are excuses made that make no sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

No I do not. If there are systemic problems this affects many people. I think that many of the people criticised here, probably did what they usually did. They did not behave any worse in this case than others. Picking on individuals in one case will not prevent the same bad things happening again.

For instance, I previously referenced another case where the postal police wiped hard drives when trying to read them. In the Elisa Clasps case Pascali criticised Steffanoni for not following protocols. I suspect that Steffanoni was doing LCN testing without the facilities in that case also. It would be interesting to know what training judges underwent in the evaluation of genetic evidence so they can ask the right questions to ensure the testing was done appropriately. England has an external regulator and standard setter for forensic science.

So if one wants things to improve, focussing on individuals is not the answer, one needs a systems approach as happens in air safety. Individuals make errors, you put systems in place to reduce those. E.g. Record interrogations. Investigate allegations of police misbehaviour. Ensure laboratories have QA systems in place and external validation. Forensic errors should be reviewed - why were the shoe print rings miscounted, were the 'experts' doing this trained in analysing shoe prints. Did they have SOPs in place? Were measures done blind to the reference prints?

I missed that item and would appreciate if you can provide another link to it.
Of note, just a couple of months ago I purchased a 500 GB SSD and I was able to transfer my old hard drive to the SSD on my laptop with no issues.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let's face it, there has never been any physical evidence against Raffaelle (or Amanda) in this entire case.

As soon as it was proved that the bloody shoeprints were not made by his trainers the miraculous DNA on the bra clasp was found. As was pointed out to Nencini, a second test is required affirm the findings, although he chose to ignore this. The clasp cannot be re-examined as someone managed to cock up the storage. Funny that!

I cannot believe that the investigators would not have tested the possible semen stain. If this was proved to be from Raff surely that would have been a slam dunk for the prosecution and no need to "find" evidence weeks after the event.

I do not know if this is possible, but let us say that the semen stain was actually some type of cosmetic cream, that should also be reported.

 

[Mr Fied]

I do not know if this is possible, but let us say that the semen stain was actually some type of cosmetic cream, that should also be reported.

I just find it unbelievable that a fluid type stain found under a rape/murder victim would not be tested as a matter of urgency. It would either rule it out as being a bodily fluid or maybe provide essential evidence.

Either way I would have thought a competent investigation team would have tested it straight away.

 

[Desert Fox]

I just find it unbelievable that a fluid type stain found under a rape/murder victim would not be tested as a matter of urgency. It would either rule it out as being a bodily fluid or maybe provide essential evidence.

Either way I would have thought a competent investigation team would have tested it straight away.

I agree. . . .Should have been the first thing tested.
Assuming it was no semen, there should be a report "No human biological materiel present. Was not human semen."

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, I complained before. I was upset and suspicious when Bruno made a comment that looked like a code to me, and I interpreted that in the most negative way. I was also suspicious about the fact that Bruno was the person appointed as reporting judge, because Bruno has been involved in an investigation on mafia, masonry and political corruption. And also because Bruno is from Reggio Calabria where I have sources who tell me who is who.
I also objected when C&V were appointed, and I pointed out that it was against the code.

The C&V report did not go against my way, for how I see it: actually, given their testimonies, it serves as evidence that they were involved in a judicial fraud.
The SC pointed out they were intellectually dishonest and Vecchiotti's institute was shut down, so it's not me bitching around. Vecchiotti had a terrible reputation, and she us also part of a mafia system of the legal medicine experts in Rome, who are also very hostile to the LE laboratories.

I had the same reaction to Bruno's statement at the outset of the hearing, I saw it as a positive sign.

Concerning the "mafia, masonry and political corruption", what did your sources in Reggio Calabria tell you, about who is who, and what is what?

 

[carbonjam72]

You are coming back again and again attempting to make the same point: you are trying to "count" possible "silent" people as if they were people in agreement with your ideas. This obsession of yours is returning again and again.

There is something very sneaky and crooked in your approach, it seems to me a very strange way of thinking. You do not seem to "weigh" the lack of support and lack of talk in favour of Amanda Knox as if it was indicating a lack of "traction" of the pro-Knox views. You avoid to talk about a topic directly and instead try to always re-bounce on what some other person said about this or that. Not about what something "is", but instead about "who argues this".

And I am very perplexed also by your concept of "traction", that you mention. I am afraid I don't udnerstand it. I don't know what would "traction" mean by your criteria, I don't know what parties or sides you imagine.

If you consider magistrates for example, Mignini is certainly a winner: his position on the Narducci case has been acknowledged in several courts, he is regarded as the right guy. Everything is going his way in the Florentine area. The MoF case has even been re-opened and the masterminds track (Calamandrei, Reinecke) is investigated again. Giuttari has won many court cases too, now he is vindicated also for his career. This one is the "good side" for the public.
Amanda Knox is a convicted liar, and she is under trial again for calunnia. Sollecito is under trial for defamation.

There were two Porta a Porta shows that had a setting meant to be favourable to Sollecito, but they were guilters for what regard Knox. Bruno Vespa hosted Sollecito in a favourable setting, but he appeared obviously as a person believeing guilt himself. Those shows also conveyed explicit messages that referred to politics, linking the Meredith case with the case of the Italian Marines detained in India.

Marco Travaglio, the only journalist who made a comment on the case, but also the greatest journalist expert of judicial matters, noted that the two were certainly not innocent. Other smaller articles have appeared on niche reviews with a much more conspirationist take.

The CSM intends to vote new rules to prevent magistrates that come from political experiences, of the Marasca type, from coming back into the judiciary and take inportant posts. The president of CSM already launched an alarm in 2014 about "political magistrates", pointing out that "some administrations" put magistrates among their ministers in order to reassure citizens, so that some magistrates would serve on political posts to legitimize "corrupt administrations", and the rules allowed to exploit their political career subsequently to advance their career in the judiciary. So the "Marasca alarm" is nothing that new. Political mess exists, as well as movements within the judiciary, and there are complex fights going on.

But overall, the fact is that about the Kercher case, there is nothing to talk about: there is no Cassazione sentence. Nodody knows what's written there. There have been more than 120 days of darkness. It could be a Hellmann style writing, or it could be a Bebewi kind of sentence. It won't be able to overturn the other definitive findings: Guede did not hold the murder weaon, Knox is a malicious liar, and Chieffi's points.

And yet, this is only a criminal case. There is no factual finding of truth to be expected there. There is a 530.2 mention, therefore it's no judicial truth.

In what judgements were Mignini's theories on Narducci confirmed by the courts?

The double body swap? Criminal association among the Florence 20? How were Mignini's theories approved, and which ones?

When did the MOF case get re-opened? Who is leading the investigation, Giuttari? I thought Calamandrei had died? Who is Reinecke? Will they be testing the "Scopetti Rag", a blood stained rag from a crime scene, through modern DNA techniques?

I also thought Italian TV was softening up the public for the acquittals in the weeks before the verdict, through the coverage on TV. Especially having Dr Peter Gill to explain the errors in DNA interpretation by the Chieffi court in requiring contamination to be proven. And the positive and sympathetic coverage of Raffaele and also Amanda.

By the way, I saw a post on an internet blog claiming every single reference on Roberta Bruzza(?)'s resume was falsified. She's the tall woman who looks like a model and claims to be a forensic expert, and was claiming she thought Raf was guilty. Do you know anything about this, and is it rrue she was allowed to testify in an actual court case as an expert, while in fact she was and is a complete fraud? (Her response to being exposed as a fraud, was that she was being stalked).

 

[carbonjam72]

Then you would have required test the alleged semen stain (but you are not me, or the juges who think like me).

But your statement above just confirms you are accusing Hellmann/Zanetti and Marasca/Bruno of severe inconsistency.

You are admitting that they should have ordered to test the semen stain at least, before coming to any conclusion that there was no evidence.

I agree that Hellman avoided testing the semen stain. But I think he did so to avoid embarrassing the prosecution and police, just as he convicted Amanda for calunnia for the same reason.

But it seems pretty plain that the semen stain should have been tested. Your information that Commodi made the decision fits into a pattern of deception and fraud by the prosecution. That's why they all need to go to jail, imo.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, you are wrong. I couldn't care less actually. Or better, it is certainly not one of those things that I would pick among the first things to worry about.

This is because it seems I have a different concept of justice: my concept of justice is based on truth. I may have very little interest in punishment, I tend to be forgiving and lenient when it comes to retribution. Nothing can heal the victims, damages cannot be repaired. I am much more interested in truth.
Justice, to me, is truth. And this has particular value within Italian history, in my opinion.

I don't think Meredith case is over at all. Just like many other high profile Italian cases, for which victims struggled decades to achieve truth, and they did not surrender, and they won, despite criminal courts had let the perpetrators off the hook long before.
As for revenge, I also believe revenge may have a place in human life, but revenge is not achieved through justice or courts. My concept of revenge is also not related to judicial events.
As for my personal satisfaction, I would have felt little satisfaction if Sollecito and Knox ahd been arrested, I just know it is just and that should be. A much greater satifaction to me would be if they incriminate Vecchiotti and Hellmann. I have a really long list of people that come before Knox and Sollecito in my "satisfaction" list, that I would much be happier to see punished, rathr than two common criminals, just two drugged and mentally disturbed nobodies.

I'm just hoping your english skills are impeding you from expressing yourself clearly.

Whom in this case do you believe is entitled to seek revenge, and against whom?

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, one could argue it the other way around as well. One could say: since in the Italian system the prosecutors are judges as well (magistrates are all the same) they would also be more impartial themselves. In fact they are regarded so.

It is rather unusual that "prosecutors" are attacked as such in Italy, since they are the same thing as judges; or better, it is not unusual that "magistrates" are attacked, this happens on political levels (since politicians are corrupt), but in Italy such anti-magistrate opinion is also regarded as a very politically oriented opinion.

Italian Constitution says: magistrates are only one body, they are differentiated only by their functions. All magistrates (including all judges and all prosecutors of every type) are all appointed by the same authority, the CSM (Supreme Council of Magistrates).

Well right there seems to be the problem. How does the "Supreme Council of Magistrates" get constituted? How do people get onto it? Is it like the "Supreme Religious Authority" in Iran? Or the "Dear Leader" in North Korea?

To whom is this council answerable? What check is there against their power limits?

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

How interesting the dance of plausible deniability at the crime scene and back at the lab.

So Commodi is up to her chain smoking face in this corrupt farce.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

So Hellman was reversed because not testing a knife sample was inconsistent with an acquittal, because they did not commit the act?

Yet Nencini had it retested as instructed, and came to the opposite conclusion of guilt, yet his verdict was internally consistent?

I think the convicting Italian judges, prosecutors, police, and bogus witnesses, should all be renditioned to Guantanimo, and water boarded until they spill the beans on what went on in this case. I know its wrong, but that's how I feel.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

The sample wasn't tested because it was deemed to small to be tested.

But the larger point is that if Hellman had tested the sample, and gotten the same result as when Nencini did test it, would that mean that cassation would have been obligated to confirm Hellman's acquittal because it was now both 'decisive to the decision" and logical?

How can two judges reach opposite decisions on the same evidence? They both can't be right.

Nencini was annulled, and the case thrown out in favor of the Hellman view of actual innocence. I guess we can all do the math.

 

[Bill Williams]

How interesting the dance of plausible deniability at the crime scene and back at the lab.

So Commodi is up to her chain smoking face in this corrupt farce.

I thought it was bad the deft way Machiavelli could switch responsibility between prosecution and defence on who was responsible for testing the semen stain. He tries to hide the cops' and prosecutions' responsibility by saying, "O look, squirrel".

Now he's doing the same rhetorical sleight of hand between Stefanoni and Comodi, all with the purpose to obfuscate what should have been a straight-forward, logical investigative action. Testing a presumed semen stain found under a victim of what looked to be a sex crime.

At some point Machiavelli's gymnastics are seen for what they are. Hoots!

 

[analemma]

*Sigh*

Machiavelli is apparently oblivious to the deep irony here. In making these extreme claims about the likes of Hellmann and Vecchiotti, he is signally failing to realise that if his claims are correct, then this in and of itself indicates fundamental corruption, mismanagement and unfitness-for-purpose of the Italian criminal justice system as it relates to this trial. And that, in itself, would be a damning verdict on the system and a gigantic red flag in regard to whether Knox and Sollecito were ever able to receive a fair trial.

Either way, the system stinks, and is indefensible: Hellmann and Vecchiotti were either fair, correct and just (in which case the judges before them, and the first SC ruling after them, were either incompetent or corrupt or both), or they were incompetent and/or corrupt themselves and were appointed corruptly by higher, more powerful figures in the Italian judiciary who were therefore probably either incompetent or corrupt themselves as well. Either way, it's a shocking state of affairs. Italy ought to be ashamed of itself in respect of the way this case was handled by its laughable criminal justice system.

Well said.
Did Mach really say that Vecchiotti is part of the mafia????
Because Vecchiotti is critical of LE laboratories? Imagine that!!!!!!!!!

Why does Mach consistently defend the most corrupt and stupid participants in this whole pathetic fiasco by spewing utterly ridiculous criticisms and bizarre conspiracies in an attempt to smear the Italian persons who have exhibited commendable fairness and intelligence.

Mach acts as if he is an apologist for ONLY the corrupt morons of Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

I just don't get the dance that Machiavelli is doing. It reminds me of Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Both basically mocked anyone who doubted the investment schemes of Enron. They talked in complicated circles that virtually no one understood. Then when people tried to get them to explain it, they would suggest the person wasn't "smart" enough. Lots of people went along with their Ponzi scheme because they were afraid that they might be exposed as not being smart.

Machiavelli's arguments seem to be very similar, It is a lot of circular reasoning and sophistry that makes little logical sense. His arguments are his own only. There may be a few Italian people who share his opinions, but my guess is that there are very few. My real guess is that the Italian people for the most part don't care.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is this religious apologetics called presuppositionalist apologetics. Mach's arguments remind me very strongly of that, Basically you have to assume guilt and examin everything in light of that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli's arguments seem to be very similar, It is a lot of circular reasoning and sophistry that makes little logical sense. His arguments are his own only. There may be a few Italian people who share his opinions, but my guess is that there are very few. My real guess is that the Italian people for the most part don't care.

Machiavelli is certainly entitled to his opinion. At one time his opinionwas the gold standard at the now discredited guilt-sites.

He says things categorically suggesting his is the only logical view and everyone else are "pro-Knox" synchophants. Indeed he sometimes says his real interest is not "the case", but how deluded innocentisti are.

He says it's simply factual that Hellmann, Zanetti, de Nunzio and Vecchiotti are criminals.

So it is relevant whether or not these are views shared in whole or part by other Italians. Is the even any chatter on Italian forums like this one, or in op-eds or anywhere?

Crickets. Maybe the problem is us, I mean Machiavelli is certainly entitled to his views and he's actually never claimed to be speaking for anyone other than himself.

English-speaking guilters, those that remain, have never once (publicly) asked for his bona fides. It's not his fault they lapped up his dietrology, as if it was the definitive Italian legal word.

We do the same, only the opposite way. So far the man has been honest about his own bona fides, in the sense he's never offered any, and he's under no obligation either.

Something else remains. There is no similar talk in Italy. None. No one other than an Italian posting on English sites shares Machiavelli's views, which he claims are definitive.

 

[Ken Dine]

I missed that item and would appreciate if you can provide another link to it.
Of note, just a couple of months ago I purchased a 500 GB SSD and I was able to transfer my old hard drive to the SSD on my laptop with no issues.

I don't have the link handy, but the Postal Police fried four laptops, Meredith's laptop, Amanda's laptop, Filomena's laptop, and one of Raffaele's two laptops.

Several of the laptops were Mac laptops, which are easy to clone with no need to remove their hard-drives to even clone them (free apps like SuperDuper are available).

I've cloned many hard-drives over the years and I've never fried one.

The defense had asked to have experts retrieve the data from the fried drives (which is usually possible to do), but Massei refused to allow it.

This type of incompetence would never be tolerated in an American or UK courtroom.

 

[acbytesla]

It's all false. This forum only shows the extent of insanity of its members. The level of denial and inconsistency they are ready to host into their racist minds.
I have shown countless times how the pro-Knox are wrong and make up all of their statements and myths, I have shown you are factually wrong all the time and viciously false in so many things, yet all those details get mysteriously "forgotten".

You crack me up. Racist minds? You have a bizarre mind Machiavelli. Criticism of your judicial system is not racist. It has nothing to do with race. America is a nation of immigrants including many Italians.

Yes, you think you have shown us to be wrong . But in fact you haven't. Note* the final judgement went against your position. You have blamed this not on the obvious weakness of the case. But instead on some imagined corruption of these judges A position that is not openly shared by your fellow countryman.

You really need to set all of this aside. You cannot win. History has been written. Amanda and Raffaele were falsely prosecuted. That is not only a judicial fact but a historical fact. Time will not only not change this, it will set it in stone.

Your positions not ours has become a hysterical rant. You yourself has said that there are not others saying the same things about the judges and CV.