Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

I wish that I was talented enough to re-edit
the publicly available Crime Scene Video from Down Stairs,
and combine both days together and ask a few questions
about the 2 different days of footage.

I'd show the break in on Nov. 2nd,
and then a short blank clip with text highlighting the fact that 11 minutes and 16 seconds of footage
are missing before we finally get to enter the flat.

I'd ask why the video by-passed the walk-thru of the kitchen,
only turnin' on again when we get to see this clip, from the large bathroom:

and then this,
from the nursery:

Weird how the video camera shuts off after this scene.
Kinda makes me wonder if PM Mig'i + friends snipped some, dried it quickly and then blazed a spinello,
I doubt that they'd want that on camera,
hahaha!


These are the only 2 places from inside the downstairs flat that we get to see on Nov. 2nd.
Neither of these 2 places apparently had the cat's blood found in them.

IIRC,
after Officer Zugarini broke in downstairs
and the search inside there began, a drop of blood was found in or near their kitchen sink.
Probably why the initial entrance video on Nov. 2nd was deleted.

But on Nov. 3rd,
we get to see video from inside the kitchen area.


Nor do we,
on Nov. 2nd, get to see if any blood drops were in the small bathroom.
On Nov. 3rd, we get to see that blood drops are indeed inside there though:

Dang,
those blood drops sure do not look like they were from a cat
that was shaking it's head underneath the sink...

Nor do we get to see on Nov. 2nd
any of the blood in Stefano's bedroom nor even inside the other dudes bedrooms.
On Nov. 3rd, we get to see the blood inside here.


This is the same day all the big guns were interrogating the boyz downstairs,
well all except for Giacomo.

Why would ILE hide this video footage info from Nov. 2nd from you + me?
I smell somethin' fishy.
And it ain't the cat's food...


For further reading:
The Secret Downstairs Crime Scene

“Two traces of blood, identical to those detected in Meredith’s apartment, have been found in the neighbours house,
at the lower floor of the country house of Via Saint’Antonio, which was rented out to four students from Marche…..”
La Repubblica,
November 5, 2007


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

 

[Bill Williams]

So, in conclusion, I'll continue to keep an eye on the Knox/Sollecito case, while having no appetite to turn my attention towards other perceived miscarriages. To me, the current state of affairs in Knox/Sollecito feels a little like an epilogue in a long saga-like book. And when I read those sorts of books, I don't skip the epilogue.

The motivations report (at this point) is sure to be an anticlimax. The only issue, really, is how deep the Marasca/Bruno report will dig into miscarriages of justice at the various points.

To non-Italian eyes, it seems incredible that a motivations report which exonerates the pair could be silent on things like Stefanoni withholding EDFs or Nencini relying on Rudy Guede's testimony to formulate a guilty verdict. Then again Hellmann had been silent on stuff, so what do I know.....

Judges seem to wait until later to voice their concerns - cf. Hellmann's remarks. Still, there's been virtual silence from Italy from anyone who still might hold a pro-guilt view. Machiavelli found one, lone journalist who eeked out some pro-guilt paragraphs following Mar 27 - but it's been crickets since really.

It's also hard to imagine all the other predatory prosecutions going ahead - Andrea Vogt seems convinced that the offended PLE are going to go ahead with their defamation suit against Knox (trial in September). But has anyone other than Vogt even noticed?

This is over. And the coming epilogue will put the period to it, one way or another.

 

[Numbers]

The motivations report (at this point) is sure to be an anticlimax. The only issue, really, is how deep the Marasca/Bruno report will dig into miscarriages of justice at the various points.

To non-Italian eyes, it seems incredible that a motivations report which exonerates the pair could be silent on things like Stefanoni withholding EDFs or Nencini relying on Rudy Guede's testimony to formulate a guilty verdict. Then again Hellmann had been silent on stuff, so what do I know.....

Judges seem to wait until later to voice their concerns - cf. Hellmann's remarks. Still, there's been virtual silence from Italy from anyone who still might hold a pro-guilt view. Machiavelli found one, lone journalist who eeked out some pro-guilt paragraphs following Mar 27 - but it's been crickets since really.

It's also hard to imagine all the other predatory prosecutions going ahead - Andrea Vogt seems convinced that the offended PLE are going to go ahead with their defamation suit against Knox (trial in September). But has anyone other than Vogt even noticed?

This is over. And the coming epilogue will put the period to it, one way or another.

Let's not forget the ECHR*, which eventually will have some say in this epilogue - at least about Amanda's claim against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights by convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

*It is, after all, my obsession, according to Grinder.

 

[Dougm]

The motivations report (at this point) is sure to be an anticlimax. The only issue, really, is how deep the Marasca/Bruno report will dig into miscarriages of justice at the various points.

To non-Italian eyes, it seems incredible that a motivations report which exonerates the pair could be silent on things like Stefanoni withholding EDFs or Nencini relying on Rudy Guede's testimony to formulate a guilty verdict. Then again Hellmann had been silent on stuff, so what do I know.....

Judges seem to wait until later to voice their concerns - cf. Hellmann's remarks. Still, there's been virtual silence from Italy from anyone who still might hold a pro-guilt view. Machiavelli found one, lone journalist who eeked out some pro-guilt paragraphs following Mar 27 - but it's been crickets since really.

It's also hard to imagine all the other predatory prosecutions going ahead - Andrea Vogt seems convinced that the offended PLE are going to go ahead with their defamation suit against Knox (trial in September). But has anyone other than Vogt even noticed?

This is over. And the coming epilogue will put the period to it, one way or another.

I think you are probably right. But it would sure be nice if they would get around to filing that motivation report. With the track record of the Italian courts, I think any predictions of anything they are going to do or say is a fools errand.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[bagels]

Let's not forget the ECHR*, which eventually will have some say in this epilogue - at least about Amanda's claim against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights by convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

*It is, after all, my obsession, according to Grinder.

I really hope the ECHR doesn't sweep this one under the rug, although I fear it's their most convenient option. It would me messed up for the Italians to beat a confession out of Amanda and then go on to charge her for the false statements they strong armed her to make, not to mention their current charges against her for having the nerve to complain about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's not forget the ECHR*, which eventually will have some say in this epilogue - at least about Amanda's claim against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights by convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

*It is, after all, my obsession, according to Grinder.

I really hope the ECHR doesn't sweep this one under the rug, although I fear it's their most convenient option. It would me messed up for the Italians to beat a confession out of Amanda and then go on to charge her for the false statements they strong armed her to make, not to mention their current charges against her for having the nerve to complain about it.

I share Bagels' skepticism. I share it not because of the obvious detail Numbers has put into things, but it is difficult to ignore bureaucratic resistance and expediency. For my money, the ECHR will base it's opinions on this on the rest-of-Europe' appetite to publicly spank Italy or not.

It's always been a headscratcher to know why someone would play the "obsessed" card, though, as if that's got to do with anything. Some months ago, there was an attempt to separate innocence supporters into those who were invested in their innocence, as opposed to those who were unduly invested in their innocence.

That's a wee-bit of a weasel argument, playing the man, just a wee-bit..... a bit of a dodge meant sometimes to avoid the content of what was being proposed.

So with that criticism of mine, combined with the "obsessed" criticism, and the "unduly-invested" criticism... I guess we're all just twiddling our thumbs waiting for the Marasca/Bruno report to reach the top of the backlog.

 

[Numbers]

I really hope the ECHR doesn't sweep this one under the rug, although I fear it's their most convenient option. It would me messed up for the Italians to beat a confession out of Amanda and then go on to charge her for the false statements they strong armed her to make, not to mention their current charges against her for having the nerve to complain about it.

bagels,

Could you explain why ignoring a claim or "sweeping this one under the rug" would be the ECHR's "most convenient option"?

I will provide some background on the identity of the Council of Europe States with the highest number of judgments from the ECHR Chamber or Grand Chamber, as of 18 Aug 2015:

Turkey 3044 judgments - 2733 are violation judgments
Italy 2265 judgments - 1783 are violation judgments
Russia 1575 judgments - 1531 are violation judgments

The majority of judgments are against the State (violation judgments) for each of the above countries.

{Note that Russia has been a member of the CoE for a relatively short time compared to Turkey and Italy and may eventually surpass them, because of the relatively high rate of claims per year against Russia.}

Thus, there does not seem to be a history of any favoritism toward Italy or the ECHR seeking "convenient" solutions. The ECHR does have an incredibly large case load, which delays its ability to reach judgments in a timely fashion. As of 30 June 2015, there were a total of 63,800 pending applications before the ECHR; 8600 were from Italy. The 4 States with the most applications pending were:

Ukraine 13,500
Russia 9100
Turkey 9000
Italy 8600

Amanda Knox's application, lodged Nov. 2013, is somewhere in the queue of 8600 applications pending against Italy.

ETA: Sources:

HUDOC database: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int
ECHR home page - statistics: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=

 

[Vixen]

Nice little body swerving side step, Vixen. I did not say three psychos (I said one only and his name is Rudy). You said MORE than three. Sure you could fit twenty into the room....all standing upright and with no way to move.

Of course police get information from the guilty and the sometimes the guilty get sentence concessions for giving information (in the underworld land it's called "stitching up" or "ratting". Rudy got a sentence concession despite lying, which is absurd

But the real question is the one you sidestep. I'll ask again. How is it that you devote none of your time and energy on the known perpetrator, Rudy? You know he has lied his way through his trial and you know he withholds the truth. Why don't you start a "True Justice for Meredith" aimed specifically at Rudy for a full and truthful statement. The problem is he doesn't need a concession because he had it handed to him a plate, quit pro quo be damned.

Rudy's a complete creep who deserves his sentence. If it was the US it might have been death row. UK, life with parole after nine years.

 

[Kauffer]

bagels,

Could you explain why ignoring a claim or "sweeping this one under the rug" would be the ECHR's "most convenient option"?

I will provide some background on the identity of the Council of Europe States with the highest number of judgments from the ECHR Chamber or Grand Chamber, as of 18 Aug 2015:

Turkey 3044 judgments - 2733 are violation judgments
Italy 2265 judgments - 1783 are violation judgments
Russia 1575 judgments - 1531 are violation judgments

The majority of judgments are against the State (violation judgments) for each of the above countries.

{Note that Russia has been a member of the CoE for a relatively short time compared to Turkey and Italy and may eventually surpass them, because of the relatively high rate of claims per year against Russia.}

Thus, there does not seem to be a history of any favoritism toward Italy or the ECHR seeking "convenient" solutions. The ECHR does have an incredibly large case load, which delays its ability to reach judgments in a timely fashion. As of 30 June 2015, there were a total of 63,800 pending applications before the ECHR; 8600 were from Italy. The 4 States with the most applications pending were:

Ukraine 13,500
Russia 9100
Turkey 9000
Italy 8600

Amanda Knox's application, lodged Nov. 2013, is somewhere in the queue of 8600 applications pending against Italy.

ETA: Sources:

HUDOC database: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int
ECHR home page - statistics: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=

Thanks for posting this. The sheer weight of application numbers is somewhat indicative of the problems here. When the judgement in the Amanda Knox case comes - eventually - it is going to be the biggest mea culpa moment in modern Italian judicial history. The system has rumbled on for so long, processed some changes, mostly quietly, some of which have bitten, others not. But this case has worldwide public interest. There will be nowhere to hide.

 

[christianahannah]

That's interesting, where does that information come from? Rinaldi mentions those shoeprints in his report on pages 22-27, but he says that all of them are: "Non utile per i confronti positivi ma utile per i confronti negativi." He doesn't mention any footprints.


Are you playing word games here? Which traces do you think are the "two lots of suspicious unidentified DNA."?

Could you please remind me, how many DNA reference samples were taken in this case? It must have been embarrassing for Stefanoni to have all those unidentifies "Uomos" (up to #8) and "Donnas" (at least #3) in her presentation, especially because it would have been easy to rule out the other housemates by asking them for a reference sample.

It looks like they didn't ask them because finding mixed traces of Romanelli/Kercher or Mezzetti/Kercher or traces of mixed DNA of all of them would further weaken the argument that the mixed traces of Kercher and Knox mean anything.

IIRC the argument was "We found no traces of Meredith Kercher's DNA mixed with the other housemates, so the mixed traces we found of Kercher and Knox have to be related to the murder." It should have been: "We didn't find mixed traces of Meredith Kercher and the other housemates, because we didn't look for them and even if we had found other mixed traces, we wouldn't have been able to identify the other housemates because we didn't have their reference samples."

As far as reference DNA samples I have only seen that five were collected/made public. There is always the possibility that there were other individuals asked for a reference sample but they refused (I imagine without a court order the decision to submit would be voluntary), there were other reference samples but due to privacy concerns they have not been published (reason being the individuals are not suspects/charged in the case), or they were not collected at all. There were several fingerprints collected from individuals other than those charged but I have not seen those charts/results.

If Stefanoni was embarrassed by somewhat vague extra profiles (really not profiles but I cannot think of the word I want to use, maybe incomplete or barely there) why would she include them in her testimony? I think some of this is just the nature of testing DNA collected from a less than sterile environment.

As much that has been released to the public there is still more yet not made public. I wonder if what some have described as suppressed really is that it just hasn't been located/found in the court files. After all many of the earlier facts have been discredited/found-not-to-exist with the addition of new documents.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for posting this. The sheer weight of application numbers is somewhat indicative of the problems here. When the judgement in the Amanda Knox case comes - eventually - it is going to be the biggest mea culpa moment in modern Italian judicial history. The system has rumbled on for so long, processed some changes, mostly quietly, some of which have bitten, others not. But this case has worldwide public interest. There will be nowhere to hide.

In terms of the timing of ECHR review and judgment, one might suppose that ECHR is waiting for the motivation report to be issued by the CSC Marasca panel. However, one might also suppose that the CSC is waiting is finalize its MR for the ECHR to take action (communication or judgment) on Amanda's application. I hope that such a potential impasse does not occur and that the ECHR and Italian CSC timelines are driven largely by the overwhelmingly large caseloads both have.

BTW, while the ECHR with respect to human rights has some functions similar to a constitutional court, it is obligated by the Convention to consider for judgment all applications which otherwise it cannot declare inadmissible or otherwise strike out (for example, due to a friendly settlement, or failure of the applicant to follow up on the case). The vast majority of applications each year are indeed found inadmissible or struck out. The rules on admissibility requirements are relatively objective and are published at the ECHR web site.

The obligation of the ECHR to judge all applications not inadmissible or not struck out is in contrast to the US Supreme Court, which by its own decisions picks from among the many thousands of cases brought before it each year to judge only about the 100 or so that it finds most constitutionally relevant. Thus the SCOTUS avoids a backlog of cases.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy's a complete creep who deserves his sentence. If it was the US it might have been death row. UK, life with parole after nine years.

Then you disagree with all the accusations of racism leveled at innocentisti. You must also be disgusted by Mignini's address to the court where he minimalized Rudy's participation in this horrible crime.

Either that or there're dots you dont/won't connect.

 

[Ken Dine]

As far as reference DNA samples I have only seen that five were collected/made public. There is always the possibility that there were other individuals asked for a reference sample but they refused (I imagine without a court order the decision to submit would be voluntary), there were other reference samples but due to privacy concerns they have not been published (reason being the individuals are not suspects/charged in the case), or they were not collected at all. There were several fingerprints collected from individuals other than those charged but I have not seen those charts/results.

If Stefanoni was embarrassed by somewhat vague extra profiles (really not profiles but I cannot think of the word I want to use, maybe incomplete or barely there) why would she include them in her testimony? I think some of this is just the nature of testing DNA collected from a less than sterile environment.

As much that has been released to the public there is still more yet not made public. I wonder if what some have described as suppressed really is that it just hasn't been located/found in the court files. After all many of the earlier facts have been discredited/found-not-to-exist with the addition of new documents.

To be clear, it's a common protocol for all CSI workers, as well as all lab technicians, to have their DNA profiles permanently on record to guard against contamination from them.

Since Mignini had traipsed thru the crime scene improperly dressed (wearing only booties), Mignini's profile should have also been taken, as well as from all the police officers, MEs and coroner staff who may have entered the cottage.

If it required a court order to take the DNA profiles of Filomena, Laura, Marco & Luca, then they should have done that for any of the four who had refused, as well as the 4 boys downstairs.

As a matter of course, they should have also taken the DNA profiles of the two Postal Police officers.

With all the traffic thru the cottage during the many weeks after the murder, Stefanoni and her staff should have also taken background swabs of Meredith's dust on her bedroom floor when they collected the bra clasp. Stefanoni should have also taken background swabs of the dust on Nov 3rd – it would be interesting to compare those two background swabs to see if (or how) those DNA dust profiles had changed in the weeks after the murder?

The Italians clearly had suppressed many items of evidence (EDFs, video footage, sperm test, etc), which coupled with their general investigative and CSI incompetence, made the case against Amanda & Raffaele an utterly unjust debacle.

Then, there are all the LIES and fanciful salacious nonsense that was fed to the media over the years by the police and/or prosecution. Amanda & Raffaele were basically tried and condemned in the media before their actual trials even started.

In legal sophistication, Italy is a 3rd-World fascist cesspool! Enter at your own peril.

 

[Bill Williams]

To be clear, it's a common protocol for all CSI workers, as well as all lab technicians, to have their DNA profiles permanently on record to guard against contamination from them.

Since Mignini had traipsed thru the crime scene improperly dressed (wearing only booties), Mignini's profile should have also been taken, as well as from all the police officers, MEs and coroner staff who may have entered the cottage.

If it required a court order to take the DNA profiles of Filomena, Laura, Marco & Luca, then they should have done that for any of the four who had refused, as well as the 4 boys downstairs.

As a matter of course, they should have also taken the DNA profiles of the two Postal Police officers.

With all the traffic thru the cottage during the many weeks after the murder, Stefanoni and her staff should have also taken background swabs of Meredith's dust on her bedroom floor when they collected the bra clasp. Stefanoni should have also taken background swabs of the dust on Nov 3rd – it would be interesting to compare those two background swabs to see if (or how) those DNA dust profiles had changed in the weeks after the murder?

The Italians clearly had suppressed many items of evidence (EDFs, video footage, sperm test, etc), which coupled with their general investigative and CSI incompetence, made the case against Amanda & Raffaele an utterly unjust debacle.

Then, there are all the LIES and fanciful salacious nonsense that was fed to the media over the years by the police and/or prosecution. Amanda & Raffaele were basically tried and condemned in the media before their actual trials even started.

In legal sophistication, Italy is a 3rd-World fascist cesspool! Enter at your own peril.

As part of the complete incompetence of the Massei court (and the subsequent 2013 ISC Court) to analyse the DNA evidence....

On this point alone, Judge Massei pretty much disqualifies himself in analysing issues of contamination. Read this from this motivations report on why he believes that, with no forensic counter measures, the 118 medical staff who attended Meredith's body could not have contaminated the bra-clasp.....

Dr. Chiacchiera reported that he stood in front of Meredith's room without entering;
Napoleoni drew near to Meredith's room together with the assistant Buratti. They
remained at the door, and Napoleoni took a step inside the room when the doctor
from 118, who had arrived, uncovered the body. Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni
stated that everyone who entered wore gloves and shoe-covers except for the
personnel from 118, who, even without the precaution of shoe-covers and gloves
could not have contaminated the clasp, it is observed, since it was well-hidden and, one might say, protected by Meredith's body and by the pillow under which it was found.​

Massei believes that playing peek-a-boo with the bra-clasp prevents it from being contaminated. This - while the clasp remained uncollected for 46 days, and was eventually found in the open, away from where Meredith had been.

On top of this, 46 days later, Stefanoni collected the clasp off of the floor, handling it with an obviously dirty glove.

​

Also note - Massei refused to allow the independent analysis of the bra-clasp, an analysis done by Conti & Vecchiotti for the 2011 Hellman trial. Whatever one makes of that analysis, this forced the Nencini court in 2013/14 to account for up-to three extra male profiles found mixed with Raffaele's presumed profile on the single sample 165B. Four male profiles found on that clasp, mixed together, means (at best) contamination.....

And there are two possible routes for that contamination - the 118 medical staff who walked into the room with no forensic protection, and Stefanoni herself at the scene.

This is even before considering the more technical issue of contamination Stefanoni inflicted onto this case in the lab.

More to the point - were any of the male 118 staff required to keep their DNA profiles on file - were they the extra contributors to the clasp? Did they track in Raffaele's profile from the hallway, where just earlier he'd been pounding on Meredith's door?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The motivations report (at this point) is sure to be an anticlimax. The only issue, really, is how deep the Marasca/Bruno report will dig into miscarriages of justice at the various points.

To non-Italian eyes, it seems incredible that a motivations report which exonerates the pair could be silent on things like Stefanoni withholding EDFs or Nencini relying on Rudy Guede's testimony to formulate a guilty verdict. Then again Hellmann had been silent on stuff, so what do I know.....

Judges seem to wait until later to voice their concerns - cf. Hellmann's remarks. Still, there's been virtual silence from Italy from anyone who still might hold a pro-guilt view. Machiavelli found one, lone journalist who eeked out some pro-guilt paragraphs following Mar 27 - but it's been crickets since really.

It's also hard to imagine all the other predatory prosecutions going ahead - Andrea Vogt seems convinced that the offended PLE are going to go ahead with their defamation suit against Knox (trial in September). But has anyone other than Vogt even noticed?

This is over. And the coming epilogue will put the period to it, one way or another.

All of the slander cases still pending will expire. It was all for show. As you said, this is over. But recent discussions here touched on holding the authorities responsible for their actions. Prosecutors should not be immune to charges of egregious misconduct. Italy took care of Mignini in their own way. They pushed him along toward retirement and in doing so made sure that he would no longer be prosecuting cases. That method is not acceptable and needs to change. Will this case cause change? No. Why? Because Italy has done an incredible job of clouding the truth of this case. It will be forever seen as a blur and I see no positive changes coming from it. That is a shame but I think it is a reality. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Dougm]

All of the slander cases still pending will expire. It was all for show. As you said, this is over. But recent discussions here touched on holding the authorities responsible for their actions. Prosecutors should not be immune to charges of egregious misconduct. Italy took care of Mignini in their own way. They pushed him along toward retirement and in doing so made sure that he would no longer be prosecuting cases. That method is not acceptable and needs to change. Will this case cause change? No. Why? Because Italy has done an incredible job of clouding the truth of this case. It will be forever seen as a blur and I see no positive changes coming from it. That is a shame but I think it is a reality. I hope I am wrong.

The only difference in this case vs. previous travesties of justice in Italy is that it involved a completely innocent American woman, so it got a lot more media attention internationally. If the previous crazy cases of the "tight jeans rape" and "OK to molest a child because the chiild had amorous feelings for the (adult) rapist" didn't cause reform, it's hard to predict this one would. Italy has a huge list of cases before the ECHR, yet seems to just keep on the same path.

I think the only thing that would affect change is if one or more of these cases caused people from other countries to stop visiting there and spending money, or some other action that would hurt them monetarily. That those things are unlikely to happen.

 

[Methos]

As far as reference DNA samples I have only seen that five were collected/made public. There is always the possibility that there were other individuals asked for a reference sample but they refused (I imagine without a court order the decision to submit would be voluntary), there were other reference samples but due to privacy concerns they have not been published (reason being the individuals are not suspects/charged in the case), or they were not collected at all. There were several fingerprints collected from individuals other than those charged but I have not seen those charts/results.

I don't know the Italian laws and protocols about who is obliged to provide a DNA sample to the police during an investigation, but I can't see a good reason why housemates and friends would refuse to give a reference sample? Those samples are usually not stored in a database (unless one is later identified as the killer) and only used in the specific case so they aren't "made public" in the sense of everybody has access to my DNA profile, so privacy concerns wouldn't make sense.

I'll have to do some digging (can't recall right now where I read it - one of the books or Perugia Shock) but IIRC either Comodi or Stefanoni herself asked something like "How contamination could have been possible, since of those 400+ samples we took, in only one of them the DNA of one of our investigators was found?" So they must have had the DNA of their team "on file", as Ken said.

On the Fingerprint Map the locations of prints belonging to Kercher, Sollecito, Knox, Silenzi, Mezzetti, Romanelli and Guede are shown, alongside those that were "Utile non attribuita" (four of those in Meredith Kercher's room).

If Stefanoni was embarrassed by somewhat vague extra profiles (really not profiles but I cannot think of the word I want to use, maybe incomplete or barely there) why would she include them in her testimony? I think some of this is just the nature of testing DNA collected from a less than sterile environment.

The Uomos and Donnas in Stefanoni's presentation are indicating that for those individuals she got a profile that would have been useful to identify the person. So we have at least 8 male and 3 female profiles from the cottage and Sollecito's apartment that could have been identified and in a not suspect centred investigation would have been identified.

What I'm having problems with is this "We can't prove a negative, but we'll use it as an argument anyway" attitude. "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." is the argument when it comes to the lack of traces from Knox and Sollecito in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, "The traces may be there, it's just that we haven't found them..." (Sure, 100+ samples from that room and no trace of them means nothing.) On the other hand the argument against Guede entering the house through Romanelli's window is: "We didn't find one trace of him in that room, it's impossible that he has been there." Wait a sec, 100+ samples from the murder room aren't enough to prove the absence of Knox and Sollecito, but 3 samples from Romanelli's room are enough to prove Guede's absence from that room? (It's the same reasoning about "not finding Sollecito's DNA elsewhere in the apartment" that is used to make it look as if 165b had any meaning...)

And that is even before I question the use of the "We didn't find mixed traces of Kercher and the other housemates, so the mixed traces of Kercher and Knox must be crime related" argument.

As much that has been released to the public there is still more yet not made public. I wonder if what some have described as suppressed really is that it just hasn't been located/found in the court files. After all many of the earlier facts have been discredited/found-not-to-exist with the addition of new documents.

AFAIK the files that the analysis on amandaknoxcase.com is based on are those that were available to the defence during the trial. Any other useful information that might be there somewhere and that might see the day of light, has to be described as "suppressed" because it wasn't available to the defence during the trial i.e. when it mattered. (my 0,02 Euro)

 

[Numbers]

To be clear, it's a common protocol for all CSI workers, as well as all lab technicians, to have their DNA profiles permanently on record to guard against contamination from them.

Since Mignini had traipsed thru the crime scene improperly dressed (wearing only booties), Mignini's profile should have also been taken, as well as from all the police officers, MEs and coroner staff who may have entered the cottage.

If it required a court order to take the DNA profiles of Filomena, Laura, Marco & Luca, then they should have done that for any of the four who had refused, as well as the 4 boys downstairs.

As a matter of course, they should have also taken the DNA profiles of the two Postal Police officers.

With all the traffic thru the cottage during the many weeks after the murder, Stefanoni and her staff should have also taken background swabs of Meredith's dust on her bedroom floor when they collected the bra clasp. Stefanoni should have also taken background swabs of the dust on Nov 3rd – it would be interesting to compare those two background swabs to see if (or how) those DNA dust profiles had changed in the weeks after the murder?

The Italians clearly had suppressed many items of evidence (EDFs, video footage, sperm test, etc), which coupled with their general investigative and CSI incompetence, made the case against Amanda & Raffaele an utterly unjust debacle.

Then, there are all the LIES and fanciful salacious nonsense that was fed to the media over the years by the police and/or prosecution. Amanda & Raffaele were basically tried and condemned in the media before their actual trials even started.

In legal sophistication, Italy is a 3rd-World fascist cesspool! Enter at your own peril.

Ken Dine,

I believe all your points above are valid. However, regarding the highlighted sentence, some have claimed that the sympathies of the Italian authorities committing all the misconduct in this case were "communist" rather than "fascist". From a practical viewpoint, in terms of following procedural law so as to comply with human rights, what would be termed "due process of law" in the US, there is no difference between any of the various authoritarian philosophies.

It is noteworthy that as of 1960, all the 135 Italian police chiefs and the 139 deputies, and 62 of the 64 prefects, had been civil servants in the Mussolini regime. Source: Christopher Duggan, Fascist Voices: an intimate history of Mussolin's Italy, Oxford University Press (c) 2013.

No doubt there is a culture of authoritarianism that has descended from the days of fascism in Italy.

 

[Welshman]

Ken Dine,

I believe all your points above are valid. However, regarding the highlighted sentence, some have claimed that the sympathies of the Italian authorities committing all the misconduct in this case were "communist" rather than "fascist". From a practical viewpoint, in terms of following procedural law so as to comply with human rights, what would be termed "due process of law" in the US, there is no difference between any of the various authoritarian philosophies.

It is noteworthy that as of 1960, all the 135 Italian police chiefs and the 139 deputies, and 62 of the 64 prefects, had been civil servants in the Mussolini regime. Source: Christopher Duggan, Fascist Voices: an intimate history of Mussolin's Italy, Oxford University Press (c) 2013.

No doubt there is a culture of authoritarianism that has descended from the days of fascism in Italy.

On the TJMK hate site Peter Quennell and co are always heaping slavish praise on the Italian justice system and go on about how fair it is. I would love to ask them would they willing to be tried under this system if they were accused of a crime.

 

[Vixen]

Then you disagree with all the accusations of racism leveled at innocentisti. You must also be disgusted by Mignini's address to the court where he minimalized Rudy's participation in this horrible crime.

Either that or there're dots you dont/won't connect.

Personally, I think race is a red herring here. Rudy just happens to be an Ivorian.

The idea Rudy could not possibly have associated with Amanda or Raff is a very American one. You have segregation there we just do not have in Europe.

Police are traditionally racist, so the idea they were soft on Rudy and hard on the American and their own is the usual Göbbels-type propaganda your kind have been perpetrating. It relies on the hope the American public are so racist, they'll swallow the idea it was the black guy what done it all by himself. The cynicism doesn't fool anyone except those with an agenda anyway.