Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Nobody's asking you to prove it. However, in the face of hard scientific evidence*, you'd better have an eloquent repudiation.
*DNA, luminol, footprint analysis, blood spatter analysis, telephone records, computer records, window forensics, etc., etc.

As Paul Simon said, "still crazy".

There is nothing "hard" or scientific about the evidence. The computer and telephone records if anything are exculpatory. The window forensics shows that it was broken from outside the house. The footprint analysis was a joke and offered little except confirmation of Guede's presence during the murder. The Luminol offers nothing because it was contradicted by the TMB tests. And the DNA evidence was not just handled poorly it was unrepeatable, something that is essential to true science.

But you go on Vixen. Everyone else is moving on.

 

[Vixen]

Hellmann? Zanetti? Oh all right, there's that pesky conspiracy...... you win.

ROFLMAOBAG (BAG=Busting A Gut)

Please take note: Hellmann-Zanetti was scuppered, scrapped, scratched out.

 

[acbytesla]

ROFLMAOBAG

Please take note: Hellmann-Zanetti was scuppered, scrapped, scratched out.

Not really. But you go girl. The truth is never scratched out.

 

[Welshman]

You haven't produced an iota of evidence "the police were corrupt". Of course, there will be the odd one or two bad apples in any police force, but to say the entire force was bent - including the Flying Squad from Rome - is really reaching. All the PIP can do is rant about Mignini (a prosecutor, not a policeman) and Stefanoni.

It staggers belief anyone can say there was no evidence of corruption from the police or prosecution considering the conduct of the prosecution :-

* When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, their interrogations were not recorded, they were not told their rights and they were denied access to lawyers until their first court hearing. Numerous ECHR and Italian laws were violated as detailed here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162 and here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3161

* The prosecution lied on a massive scale. They fed false information to the media about bleach receipts, the Harry Potter book, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom, the washing machine running. The prosecution lied in court and in documents about Raffaele's department and the cottage being cleaned with bleach, prosecutor Comodi lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother saying it was 12.00 pm when the time was actually 12.47 pm and Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results.

* The prosecution engaged in the massive suppression of evidence, destroyed evidence and falsified documents as detailed in the links below :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

*Amanda was lied to she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was released to the media.

Vixen and Machiavelli constantly accused C&V and Hellman of being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police and prosecutors who committed misconduct on a huge scale as detailed above. The hypocrisy staggers belief.

 

[Planigale]

Are you being obtuse? The DNA found was Amanda's, in a place near the hilt, where you would expect the killer to hold it. (You do know the defence egregiously claimed it was rye starch?) It remains an incontrovertible fact it was a near full profile DNA of Mez on the blade.

Stop bluffing that you are some kind of DNA expert with a library of Bayesian probability theory by your bedside, when you have never even heard of a priori probability and believe game theory "has nothing to do with probability theory, and certainly nothing to do with Bayes!" LOL

The Amanda DNA found near the handle doesn't cancel out Mez' DNA on the blade. Your theories about the DNA are so phoney.

In addition, you fail to grasp after all this time that Chieffi Supreme Court ruled that Hellmann-Zanetti FAILED to consider the prosecution's side AT ALL, which, as judges, was unethical and most irregular.

I note, shortly after the hearing, Hellman acquired a very nice 1962 Lancia Flaminia Sport 2.5 Zagato top of the range limited edition car, one of just 99, apparently. (Source: PMF.net) - £28K in the UK used car trade.

To be clear I am not a DNA expert, I am not a statistician, I am not a forensic scientist. I have done PCR. I have modelled using Bayesian statistics. I do know what 'a priori probabilities' are, and I did not say you wrong in the use of the term nor that the term was wrong, I just said no one who actually used Bayesian statistics would talk about 'Bayesian a priori probabilities'. You are simply wrong about game theory being just statistics, it is an entirely separate field of mathematics.

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com
game theory is a subset of applied mathematics, it is not a subset of probability theory / statistics. Game theory predominantly involves deterministic games, the opposite of probability theory.

Guede's DNA is essentially only corroborating evidence. Had there been no DNA Guede would likely have been convicted.
1) Guede admits to his presence at the time and place of the murder and that he was the last person to see Kercher alive. He also states he entered Romanelli's room
2) His statement is corroborated by details (the toilet use, the towel use) that he would only have known if he was present. (Compare Knox's statement, where the only corroboratable fact; who else was present was proven in error).
3) Guede's bloody handprint places him at the time and place of the murder.
4) Shoeprints in fresh blood matched shoes that Guede was known to have possessed (empty shoe box) but which he disposed of.
5) The DNA for Guede was qualitatively different from Sollecito's. a) The DNA samples were collected by different teams at different times, the Perugian police at the time of the initial investigation, the forensic pathologist from the victim's body, and some 6 weeks later from clothing collected by the team from Rome. Although all samples were analysed in the same laboratory. b) There were multiple positive samples. c) The positive results were from different laboratory runs. d) Guede was not known to have had a legitimate presence in the flat, whilst Sollecito was there before and after.

 

[Planigale]

DNA is a highly complex field. Stefi didn't have adequate training for regular DNA much less LCN. Her team dragged swabs on the sink instead of dabbing thereby mixing all DNA on the sink together,

How did Profazio solve the case?

I disagree with you on this. I think Steffanoni was likely adequately trained in the laboratory analysis of DNA. Where she failed was that she appears to have had little training in forensic science, the special need for maintaining good documentation and particularly in crime scene investigation. She moved from being a neutral expert to being an agent of the prosecution, I suspect she had never been formally trained in giving evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

It staggers belief anyone can say there was no evidence of corruption from the police or prosecution considering the conduct of the prosecution :-

* When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, their interrogations were not recorded, they were not told their rights and they were denied access to lawyers until their first court hearing. Numerous ECHR and Italian laws were violated as detailed here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162 and here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3161

* The prosecution lied on a massive scale. They fed false information to the media about bleach receipts, the Harry Potter book, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom, the washing machine running. The prosecution lied in court and in documents about Raffaele's department and the cottage being cleaned with bleach, prosecutor Comodi lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother saying it was 12.00 pm when the time was actually 12.47 pm and Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results.

* The prosecution engaged in the massive suppression of evidence, destroyed evidence and falsified documents as detailed in the links below :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

*Amanda was lied to she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was released to the media.

Vixen and Machiavelli constantly accused C&V and Hellman of being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police and prosecutors who committed misconduct on a huge scale as detailed above. The hypocrisy staggers belief.

And this doesn't even count the highly suspicious activities, like Curatolo's testimony. The hard drIves all failing. The use of Raffaele's laptop, Amanda's digital photos of her and Meredith together. I'm sure I'm omitting things. But the hits keep on coming.

 

[Planigale]

The quality of your degree might be relevant at entry level, but after that, it is down to merit. Stefanoni was clearly held in high enough regard and of proven competency to be put in charge of DNA analysis of a major murder case.

I've met plenty of incredibly talented people in the workplace with basic level entry or none at all, who have risen the ranks by shining at their job.

There is zippo evidence the DNA labs were in anyway incompetent. Police are every day people, no crime scene is a sterile one and I am confident they gave of their best. Look how quickly Profazio solved the Olssen case recently.

Steffanoni failed to document the process of concentrating the DNA from the knife blade. The failure to document the processing of a critical piece of evidence especially when following a novel process as opposed to SOP is incompetent. There is something very odd about the processing of the sample, no DNA was detected in the quantitative assay. Other samples with no DNA were not put through for typing, this sample was (no reason documented for varying from SOP - incompetence). Vacuum extraction has a high risk of contamination - no negative controls were run in parallel - incompetence. She misinterpreted the starch grains on the knife as red blood cells. She said that epithelials were on the bra hook when she had never looked for them. She failed to sample or test the possible semen sample on the pillow beneath the victim. (Although the latter may have initially been an error by the Perugian scene of crime investigators.) She failed to follow correct procedure in collecting the bra strap. She should have sampled the packaging for the bra strap to look for contamination since it had been repackaged (at the police station) after she had collected it. The repackaging and breach of the train of evidence would probably have caused the exclusion of the bra hook in the US or UK.

 

[acbytesla]

I keep wondering if Vixen is familiar with this river in Africa. It's called de Nile.

 

[Bill Williams]

DNA is a highly complex field. Stefi didn't have adequate training for regular DNA much less LCN. Her team dragged swabs on the sink instead of dabbing thereby mixing all DNA on the sink together,

How did Profazio solve the case?

I disagree with you on this. I think Steffanoni was likely adequately trained in the laboratory analysis of DNA. Where she failed was that she appears to have had little training in forensic science, the special need for maintaining good documentation and particularly in crime scene investigation. She moved from being a neutral expert to being an agent of the prosecution, I suspect she had never been formally trained in giving evidence.

The other part of it was judicial. Neither Stefanoni nor Mignini were ever censured for not bringing evidence into court about the DNA.

What Stefanoni brought was her opinion. Massei took her at her word.

Contrast this to what the RIS Carabinieri brought into the Nencini court about Exhibit 36I. All the files they needed to prove that 36I belonged to Knox.

Apparently the is no accountability in Italian courts for prosecution experts. As one of the judges along the way told he defence - when Stefanoni refused to rlease the EDFs - either accuse Stefanoni of misconduct or shut up. Disclosure this is not.

 

[Annella]

The other part of it was judicial. Neither Stefanoni nor Mignini were ever censured for not bringing evidence into court about the DNA.

What Stefanoni brought was her opinion. Massei took her at her word.

Contrast this to what the RIS Carabinieri brought into the Nencini court about Exhibit 36I. All the files they needed to prove that 36I belonged to Knox.

Apparently the is no accountability in Italian courts for prosecution experts. As one of the judges along the way told he defence - when Stefanoni refused to rlease the EDFs - either accuse Stefanoni of misconduct or shut up. Disclosure this is not.

I quote retired Italian judge Edoardo Mori:

"The judges rely on institutional laboratories and will accept uncritically the findings. In the rare cases in which the suspect can afford a lawyer and a good appraiser, experience shows that the initial assessment was wrong. Doctors errors remain hidden underground, the judges, in jail.

And it goes back to full-blown ineptitude of the experts.

"The innocent suspect would have more benefits from being judged on the toss of a coin rather than expert opinions."

 

[Welshman]

And this doesn't even count the highly suspicious activities, like Curatolo's testimony. The hard drIves all failing. The use of Raffaele's laptop, Amanda's digital photos of her and Meredith together. I'm sure I'm omitting things. But the hits keep on coming.

As detailed in my previous post the prosecution had to resort to lying, supressing evidence, destroying evidence and using false documents. In view of the conduct of the prosecution, how on earth can PGP claim the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a strong case?

 

[Vixen]

To be clear I am not a DNA expert, I am not a statistician, I am not a forensic scientist. I have done PCR. I have modelled using Bayesian statistics. I do know what 'a priori probabilities' are, and I did not say you wrong in the use of the term nor that the term was wrong, I just said no one who actually used Bayesian statistics would talk about 'Bayesian a priori probabilities'. You are simply wrong about game theory being just statistics, it is an entirely separate field of mathematics.

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com
game theory is a subset of applied mathematics, it is not a subset of probability theory / statistics. Game theory predominantly involves deterministic games, the opposite of probability theory.

Guede's DNA is essentially only corroborating evidence. Had there been no DNA Guede would likely have been convicted.
1) Guede admits to his presence at the time and place of the murder and that he was the last person to see Kercher alive. He also states he entered Romanelli's room
2) His statement is corroborated by details (the toilet use, the towel use) that he would only have known if he was present. (Compare Knox's statement, where the only corroboratable fact; who else was present was proven in error).
3) Guede's bloody handprint places him at the time and place of the murder.
4) Shoeprints in fresh blood matched shoes that Guede was known to have possessed (empty shoe box) but which he disposed of.
5) The DNA for Guede was qualitatively different from Sollecito's. a) The DNA samples were collected by different teams at different times, the Perugian police at the time of the initial investigation, the forensic pathologist from the victim's body, and some 6 weeks later from clothing collected by the team from Rome. Although all samples were analysed in the same laboratory. b) There were multiple positive samples. c) The positive results were from different laboratory runs. d) Guede was not known to have had a legitimate presence in the flat, whilst Sollecito was there before and after.

You don't get it, do you? Unlike you, I don't talk about things I know nothing about. Game theory is probability theory. OK?

We know Rudy says he was there, but who believes a liar? The police collected forensic evidence for Rudy, the same way they did for the kids. Can't see you agitating that Rudy's analysis was corrupt, even though it was the same process.

You do know Rudy was a friend of the boys downstairs and had visited the cottage before?

 

[Vixen]

As Paul Simon said, "still crazy".

There is nothing "hard" or scientific about the evidence. The computer and telephone records if anything are exculpatory. The window forensics shows that it was broken from outside the house. The footprint analysis was a joke and offered little except confirmation of Guede's presence during the murder. The Luminol offers nothing because it was contradicted by the TMB tests. And the DNA evidence was not just handled poorly it was unrepeatable, something that is essential to true science.

But you go on Vixen. Everyone else is moving on.

Scene: Courtroom.

JUDGE: Do I have the attorney for the defence? Whom do I have in front of me?

ACBYTESLA (For it is he): Acbytesla, your honour. I submit the prosecution are a bunch of lying, corrupt, incompetent ********. As for Stefanoni, she is a bat **** crazy old cow. Mignini is an evil Christian anti-satanist who believes in the magic Jew and wants to burn dear sweet Amanda at the stake as a witch and decent Raff just because he likes a bit of hard porn and prodding girls with his knives -

JUDGE: <bangs his gavel> May I interrupt you? In my court we treat each other with courtesy and respect, but you have done nothing but hurl insults and haven't put forward one single submission that comes under my jurisdiction -

ACBYTESLA: But it's common sense, your Honour. The kids are fine citizens, much admired and beloved in Seattle, where they are feted wherever they go as the demigods they deserve to be as representatives of truth, justice and the American Way. Amanda is delightful and Raff a real cherub with a cheeky boyish grin. Why, just the other day, I threw down my raincoat so that he wouldn't have to step in a puddle -


JUDGE: <bangs gavel incessantly> Send this man down! Remove him from my court!

<fx Acbytesla is carried away kicking and screaming and whistling the Star Spangled Banner>

BILL WILLIAMS <fx wipes brow> OMG! OMG! OMG!

 

[Bill Williams]

You don't get it, do you? Unlike you, I don't talk about things I know nothing about. Game theory is probability theory. OK?

We know Rudy says he was there, but who believes a liar? The police collected forensic evidence for Rudy, the same way they did for the kids. Can't see you agitating that Rudy's analysis was corrupt, even though it was the same process.

You do know Rudy was a friend of the boys downstairs and had visited the cottage before?

Simply repeating your position makes it no more right than the first time you expressed it.

Ignoring the correctives to this position makes it no more true.

The "same process" you claim provided vastly different results. The original process showed that the crime pointed away from Sollecito, Knox AND Lumumba. Those were the three who the cops said closed the case. THEN the original forensics came back pointing to an unknown fourth party - which turned out to be Rudy.

It is bizarre your argument is this "same process" stuff. You have no idea what you're talking about or what it means. You just say the first thing that pops into your head with no regard to gow it contradicts other stuff.

 

[Vixen]

Simply repeating your position makes it no more right than the first time you expressed it.

Ignoring the correctives to this position makes it no more true.

The "same process" you claim provided vastly different results. The original process showed that the crime pointed away from Sollecito, Knox AND Lumumba. Those were the three who the cops said closed the case. THEN the original forensics came back pointing to an unknown fourth party - which turned out to be Rudy.

It is bizarre your argument is this "same process" stuff. You have no idea what you're talking about or what it means. You just say the first thing that pops into your head with no regard to gow it contradicts other stuff.

And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?

 

[Planigale]

You don't get it, do you? Unlike you, I don't talk about things I know nothing about. Game theory is probability theory. OK?

We know Rudy says he was there, but who believes a liar? The police collected forensic evidence for Rudy, the same way they did for the kids. Can't see you agitating that Rudy's analysis was corrupt, even though it was the same process.

You do know Rudy was a friend of the boys downstairs and had visited the cottage before?

I provided a reference in support of my opinion, can you provide a reference saying game theory is probability theory?

As I said, the evidence for Guede being present is that he gave details that he would only have known were he present. His bloody handprint was found. Do you deny he was present? The DNA evidence was not essential. I am sure he would have been convicted in the 1980's before DNA was used. In the way the Italian system works there was no gain in Guede pleading guilty, he gained from the fast track trial where he agreed to accept the evidence as given. We know his case was initially an unknown third person committed the crime, Guede has never directly accused Sollecito or Knox.

Do you believe Guede was wrongly convicted? I know you believe that Sollecito and Knox committed a crime. and you quote much false evidence in favour. No matter the fact much of the evidence you quote e.g. bloody fingerprints of Knox or absent bleach receipts or non-existent bleach stains on Sollecito's shoes you seem to have no doubt that your original opinion based on false evidence is true. There is evidence that would change my opinion e.g. Sollecito's DNA and semen confirmed as present on the pillow case. Is there any evidence that would change your opinion?

 

[bagels]

And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?

The police. They pressured one person to say he was at the cottage, and another person to say his bar was closed. Neither were true.

 

[Mike1711]

You don't get it, do you? Unlike you, I don't talk about things I know nothing about. Game theory is probability theory. OK?

We know Rudy says he was there, but who believes a liar? The police collected forensic evidence for Rudy, the same way they did for the kids. Can't see you agitating that Rudy's analysis was corrupt, even though it was the same process.

You do know Rudy was a friend of the boys downstairs and had visited the cottage before?

I know quite a bit about law and particularly Roman Dutch Law (emphasis "Roman"). When the first English translations of the B/M were released I was one of the first who pointed out that the Appeal Court repeating previous findings (Judicial Facts) was commonplace and shouldn't be seen to be an underpinning of a lower court "judicial fact".

I refer you to the Oscar Pistorius case where the lower court errors are enshrined as "fact" despite some of the "facts" being obviously incorrect. For example the time of death of Reeva Steenkamp is determined by the lower court in contradiction to the forensic science (very similar error in the TOD of MK). This error favours Pistorius. The South African Appeal Court is prevented from overturning this obvious error because it cannot rule on facts when the state appeals. Where SA Law differs from Italian Law (it seems) is that in Italy the defendant cannot appeal points of fact whereas in South Africa the defendant can appeal points of fact.....but the state can't.

Despite explaining this to you, you refuse to accept it. Despite having no background in law you continue with your mantra of the B/M report saying AK "was there". Despite being told by someone qualified in this area you refuse to accept it.

Unlike you I am not an expert in many fields. (I play rubbish chess with a rating of around 1600....and I would never beat a grandmaster in a million years )

Why do I bring this up?

When I read some of the detailed and enlightening posts of many here it is obvious to me that people like Tesla, Bill, Grinder, LondonJohn , Planigale, Bagels and very many others have logical and insightful stuff to contribute.

Why not take a break from your preconceived ideas and look at the (lack of) evidence?

The truth will set you free. Try it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can anyone doubt:

1) This case is over - defintively settled March 2105 in acquittal
2) Andrea Vogt is a weather-vane journalist​

Not one tweet from Ms. Vogt about this - but her highly inflammatory BBC documentary (done with Russell) on the Perugian murder was shown on German TV recently. "(N)ow it has changed from poor Rudy racism and Perugia prosecution propaganda to an almost balanced presentation of an unsolved murder mystery..."

Apparently they achieved this "balanced" approach by trimming it to 45 minutes from 90 minutes.

Can anyone be happy with the way Andrea Vogt has covered this in the last decade? She's gone from being an "Amanda knows something she's not telling us," journalists, from being the major same-day court conduit to the American hate sites.........

............. to being someone who outs guilters and says the case is over, finished in acquittal.