Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Did Amanda find the earring that seems to have come awry from her ear lobe during the contretemps?

Job done by the lamp.

Whoops! Forgot to remove it before locking the door from the inside. Cynics might claim the only reason Raff tried to break down the door was to retrieve it.

Did she remember to wipe the lamp off before forgetting to remove it?

Was there another lamp closer to Meredith's room?

Could the police have moved it there to aid them?

 

[Bill Williams]

Research fellows get grants; they are not usually salaried.

Stefanoni was the head of the forensic team investigating the Kercher murder.

There is no doubt about the calibre of Dr Gill's work and of his preeminence in his field. It is such a shame that a man of distinction should crown his distinguished career by getting down dirty in the gutter with the Friends of Amanda like a two-bit whore. It is a pity academics don't earn enough from pontificating, but have to trade their wares like a street prostitute at passing rich defense clients, for a quick two bob behind a dark alley.

It's now plain why you will not contact the FSI:G journal. You will not get very far with them calling one of their peer reviewed colleagues, "a two bit whore."

What do you think spewing invective like this does to lurkers' views of your posts?

 

[Bill Williams]

From Amanda's POV it was "only Mez' blood".

I thought you said there was probably mixed blood?

Now you have this world class criminal able to discern whose blood it is by sight. Either that or you don't care how inconsistent your theory is as long as you get an opportunity to say something mean about Knox.

 

[acbytesla]

This anomaly has come about because the Bruno-Marasca court erroneously used a penal code section not meant for their remit, but a lower court's.

This is simple delusion. That others who think they are experts in Italian law does not make it so. This is simply wilful ignorance on your part. This is also true about your comments about Dr. Gills's "peer reviewed" article.

It is sad for anyone to stare in the face of overwhelming evidence they are wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. I wonder if there is a psychological term beyond "denial". As this must be self destructive in some way.

 

[Grinder]

From Amanda's POV it was "only Mez' blood".

So she was bleeding but didn't notice and no one else noticed a cut. Okay. Was there blood in the sink?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It is a fact Pascali dumped Amanda when he reviewed the evidence:

- Barbie Nadeau

Hi Vixen,
I don't quite understand why, when Barbie Nadeau writes something, it is considered "fact" by you. You take it to be "fact" even when she is writing something speculative in passing and obviously wrong (No one who has examined the bra clasp has ever claimed that it had Amanda's DNA on it. It wasn't even mentioned at any stage of the pre-trial, trial, or post-trial. This "fact" is entirely made up. Probably because there was no evidence of Amanda at the murder scene so your side HAD to make it up.)

Yet when the top forensic genetics journal on the planet publishes a peer reviewed scientific article showing how the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was clearly bogus, you believe it is wrong because... what exactly? You made some type of vague accusation against Pascali, who isn't even the author, but you never explicitly said what he had to do with the publication of the article in question in the top forensic journal in the world. Or why his non-involvement (he's not even the guy who wrote the paper, remember?) destroys the reputation of all of these world leading forensic scientists... or whatever it is you are saying.

Before I have mentioned it seems like your entire world view is based around this assumption in your head that "Amanda is guilty". You will twist and distort facts to suit your crazy agenda. You will do things like accept obviously incorrect statements, and label them unassailable "facts" as long as they support your overarching obsessive world view. And you will disregard peer reviewed published evidence in the top forensic genetics journal in the world (the highest form of evidence you can achieve. Actual empirical evidence evaluated by the top people in their field, peer reviewed by other top people in their field) as clearly wrong because of... something? That you won't mention. (The reason why you don't explain more clearly is because you know it looks incredibly crazy to people that don't post on TJMK on PMF. Rational unbiased people can see right through you.)

This is part of the reason I said about one month ago I am intensely interested in how you think (note: this does not mean your world class chess skills nor your professional level degrees in math, probability, and game theory. I mean how you process information). Generally, when I, and other people without psychiatric disorders, see new information, we will weigh the evidence against our prior beliefs and update appropriately. For example, if I believe "X" is true due to some passing understanding of forensic genetics, that would be a fairly weak belief. If an article in Forensic Science International is published that explains clearly how "X" is wrong, my believe *should* then change. Very quickly and very convincingly. A passing statement by a tabloid writer made 6+ years ago would usually not be enough to question the credentials of forensic scientists at the very top of their field.

Yet, you think... differently than this . A statement that a tabloid writer wrote in passing years ago apparently carries enough wait to destroy the reputation of Forensic Science International in your mind. To me, it looks like your reasoning process looks something like this: If statement X supports your belief "Amanda is guilty" then it must be true. If statement Y refutes your belief "Amanda is guilty" then it must be false. No matter how weak the evidence X is nor how strong Y is. This is how crazy people think (note that this reasoning can be used to support any hypothesis. From 9/11 truther claims, big foot claims, alien abduction claims, Illuminati conspiracy claims [sound familiar?], etc.) I don't want to believe it though Vixen! I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion that a statement Barbie Nadeau made 6 years ago in a one-off comment is a more reliable source of information than a published article in Forensic Science International. There has to be some reasoning behind it. Something more than "tabloid writer say Amanda guilty!!! This good. Forensic Science International say Amanda not guilty and evidence faulty. This bad. Me no like science!"

Can you elaborate more on the intricate reasoning process you put into action here?

 

[Welshman]

If as Vixen maintains the forensic against Amanda and Raffaele was valid and solid, the criticisms made by C&V were unfounded and C&V were incompetent buffoons, how does Vixen explain the following : -


The prosecution engaged in corruption and misconduct on a massive scale as detailed below.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination

If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid and solid, why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence on massive scale, lying, covering things up and using false documents as described in the above links?

The evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele had no credibility. The knife was the clearest example of this. The knife did not match the wounds or a bloody stain on the bed. This fact alone meant the knife could not have been used to stab Meredith. The knife had no blood and was negative for the human species when tested by C&V which made it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s kitchen. Is it credible the only knife taken from the kitchen happened to be the knife used to stab Meredith? How could the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele be described as reliable when it had zero credibility? If the prosecution had solid forensic evidence at their disposal why did they have to resort to using evidence with no credibility which could not have been used in Meredith’s murder?

The prosecution did not want the knife opened. They allowed the bra clasp to rust making the clasp useless for testing. If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid, why did the prosecution not want the evidence tested?

The prosecution did not follow forensic protocols. For instance, Stefanoni’s lab did not have the facilities to do LCN testing. How can the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele be valid if the prosecution did not follow protocols?

The prosecution were evasive in court and could not answer questions. Stefanoni could not tell how much DNA was on the knife or bra clasp when questioned in court. How is this explained if the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid?

Vixen and Machiavelli have constantly described C&V as incompetent buffoons. If this was the case, why were the prosecution unable to write a rebuttal of their report?

If the prosecution had solid forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics described in my post below:-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10793345#post10793345

 

[Bill Williams]

This is simple delusion. That others who think they are experts in Italian law does not make it so. This is simply wilful ignorance on your part. This is also true about your comments about Dr. Gills's "peer reviewed" article.

It is sad for anyone to stare in the face of overwhelming evidence they are wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. I wonder if there is a psychological term beyond "denial". As this must be self destructive in some way.

I've been called delusional on this thread. Recently. Maybe there's something going around. Next year both Vixen and I should get our seasonal shots.

I hope you people are taking precautions - like wearing gloves when you type!!!

 

[Vixen]

It's now plain why you will not contact the FSI:G journal. You will not get very far with them calling one of their peer reviewed colleagues, "a two bit whore."

What do you think spewing invective like this does to lurkers' views of your posts?

I didn't say he was a two-bit whore. Look up the meaning of "metaphor". (Surely this is covered in Grade 3.)

 

[Vixen]

I thought you said there was probably mixed blood?

Now you have this world class criminal able to discern whose blood it is by sight. Either that or you don't care how inconsistent your theory is as long as you get an opportunity to say something mean about Knox.

Having trouble with comprehension? I said, "from Amanda's POV". Had she known her DNA was mixed in, I am sure she would have been a bit more hygienic and wiped off her blood. Ew.

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen,
I don't quite understand why, when Barbie Nadeau writes something, it is considered "fact" by you. You take it to be "fact" even when she is writing something speculative in passing and obviously wrong (No one who has examined the bra clasp has ever claimed that it had Amanda's DNA on it. It wasn't even mentioned at any stage of the pre-trial, trial, or post-trial. This "fact" is entirely made up. Probably because there was no evidence of Amanda at the murder scene so your side HAD to make it up.)

Yet when the top forensic genetics journal on the planet publishes a peer reviewed scientific article showing how the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was clearly bogus, you believe it is wrong because... what exactly? You made some type of vague accusation against Pascali, who isn't even the author, but you never explicitly said what he had to do with the publication of the article in question in the top forensic journal in the world. Or why his non-involvement (he's not even the guy who wrote the paper, remember?) destroys the reputation of all of these world leading forensic scientists... or whatever it is you are saying.

Before I have mentioned it seems like your entire world view is based around this assumption in your head that "Amanda is guilty". You will twist and distort facts to suit your crazy agenda. You will do things like accept obviously incorrect statements, and label them unassailable "facts" as long as they support your overarching obsessive world view. And you will disregard peer reviewed published evidence in the top forensic genetics journal in the world (the highest form of evidence you can achieve. Actual empirical evidence evaluated by the top people in their field, peer reviewed by other top people in their field) as clearly wrong because of... something? That you won't mention. (The reason why you don't explain more clearly is because you know it looks incredibly crazy to people that don't post on TJMK on PMF. Rational unbiased people can see right through you.)

This is part of the reason I said about one month ago I am intensely interested in how you think (note: this does not mean your world class chess skills nor your professional level degrees in math, probability, and game theory. I mean how you process information). Generally, when I, and other people without psychiatric disorders, see new information, we will weigh the evidence against our prior beliefs and update appropriately. For example, if I believe "X" is true due to some passing understanding of forensic genetics, that would be a fairly weak belief. If an article in Forensic Science International is published that explains clearly how "X" is wrong, my believe *should* then change. Very quickly and very convincingly. A passing statement by a tabloid writer made 6+ years ago would usually not be enough to question the credentials of forensic scientists at the very top of their field.

Yet, you think... differently than this . A statement that a tabloid writer wrote in passing years ago apparently carries enough wait to destroy the reputation of Forensic Science International in your mind. To me, it looks like your reasoning process looks something like this: If statement X supports your belief "Amanda is guilty" then it must be true. If statement Y refutes your belief "Amanda is guilty" then it must be false. No matter how weak the evidence X is nor how strong Y is. This is how crazy people think (note that this reasoning can be used to support any hypothesis. From 9/11 truther claims, big foot claims, alien abduction claims, Illuminati conspiracy claims [sound familiar?], etc.) I don't want to believe it though Vixen! I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion that a statement Barbie Nadeau made 6 years ago in a one-off comment is a more reliable source of information than a published article in Forensic Science International. There has to be some reasoning behind it. Something more than "tabloid writer say Amanda guilty!!! This good. Forensic Science International say Amanda not guilty and evidence faulty. This bad. Me no like science!"

Can you elaborate more on the intricate reasoning process you put into action here?

It's such a shame Dr Gill didn't pop up during the trial so he could put his expertise forward personally. What a waste of an illustrious career that it should end in the ignominy of writing a paper based on the legally discredited fraudulent report written by Vecchiotti and Conti, of whom the attorney they consorted with, Maori, is now facing possible corruption charges for having done so.

It's a shocking faux pas.

 

[Vixen]

If as Vixen maintains the forensic against Amanda and Raffaele was valid and solid, the criticisms made by C&V were unfounded and C&V were incompetent buffoons, how does Vixen explain the following : -


The prosecution engaged in corruption and misconduct on a massive scale as detailed below.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination

If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid and solid, why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence on massive scale, lying, covering things up and using false documents as described in the above links?

The evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele had no credibility. The knife was the clearest example of this. The knife did not match the wounds or a bloody stain on the bed. This fact alone meant the knife could not have been used to stab Meredith. The knife had no blood and was negative for the human species when tested by C&V which made it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s kitchen. Is it credible the only knife taken from the kitchen happened to be the knife used to stab Meredith? How could the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele be described as reliable when it had zero credibility? If the prosecution had solid forensic evidence at their disposal why did they have to resort to using evidence with no credibility which could not have been used in Meredith’s murder?

The prosecution did not want the knife opened. They allowed the bra clasp to rust making the clasp useless for testing. If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid, why did the prosecution not want the evidence tested?

The prosecution did not follow forensic protocols. For instance, Stefanoni’s lab did not have the facilities to do LCN testing. How can the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele be valid if the prosecution did not follow protocols?

The prosecution were evasive in court and could not answer questions. Stefanoni could not tell how much DNA was on the knife or bra clasp when questioned in court. How is this explained if the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid?

Vixen and Machiavelli have constantly described C&V as incompetent buffoons. If this was the case, why were the prosecution unable to write a rebuttal of their report?

If the prosecution had solid forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics described in my post below:-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10793345#post10793345

The prosecution scientists certainly did submit a rebuttal of Conti & Vecchiotti's claims. Problem is, Hellmann completely disegarded them in his judgment.

Do read Chieffi and you might discover Novello and Torrecelli for the state did provide perfectly acceptable submissions.

 

[Welshman]

The prosecution scientists certainly did submit a rebuttal of Conti & Vecchiotti's claims. Problem is, Hellmann completely disegarded them in his judgment.

Do read Chieffi and you might discover Novello and Torrecelli for the state did provide perfectly acceptable submissions.

Strange there is no record of written reports by the prosecution rebutting C&Vs work. If the prosecution wrote written rebuttals of C&Vs report, can Vixen provide a link to these reports. Vixen has not addressed any of the other issues raised in my post.

 

[Grinder]

It's such a shame Dr Gill didn't pop up during the trial so he could put his expertise forward personally. What a waste of an illustrious career that it should end in the ignominy of writing a paper based on the legally discredited fraudulent report written by Vecchiotti and Conti, of whom the attorney they consorted with, Maori, is now facing possible corruption charges for having done so.

It's a shocking faux pas.

Well the defense did have real doctors (PhD) telling the court in Italian (Gill speaks no Italian AFAIK) that the DNA and other forensics was bunk.

Professor Vinci testified at the hearing of August 18, 2009

Forensic pathologist Professor Carlo Torre, consultant for the defence of Amanda Knox, testified at the hearing of July 3, 2009.

At the hearing on July 18, 2009, Professor Tagliabracci, a consultant for the Sollecito defence, explained his own assessments. He recalled that he has been involved in forensic genetics since 1980, and specified that the task he had been given related to two exhibits:

 

[Planigale]

It's such a shame Dr Gill didn't pop up during the trial so he could put his expertise forward personally. What a waste of an illustrious career that it should end in the ignominy of writing a paper based on the legally discredited fraudulent report written by Vecchiotti and Conti, of whom the attorney they consorted with, Maori, is now facing possible corruption charges for having done so.

It's a shocking faux pas.

Now consorting with a defence attorney might be problematic before they had submitted their report but not after. It is only problematic if the prosecution were permitted no access. Of course if the prosecution had any prior contact they should equally be at risk of a charge of corruption? In fact we know they did because the prosecution submitted a response.

So whilst the defence attorney might be subject to further action for improper behaviour; the prosecutor was subject to action and found guilty of improper behaviour in this case. So 1- nil against the prosecution. So far the only attorney guilty of improper behaviour was the prosecutor, not the defence, not the judge, but the prosecutor.

 

[Welshman]

If the work done by the prosecution was valid, why were C&V able to find so many flaws in Stefanoni's work? What does this say about Stefanoni when supposedly clueless buffoons can rip Stefanoni's work to shreds. If Stefanoni's work was valid, why is that Machiavelli could not answer a simple question as to how much DNA was on the knife?

 

[Grinder]

If the work done by the prosecution was valid, why were C&V able to find so many flaws in Stefanoni's work? What does this say about Stefanoni when supposedly clueless buffoons can rip Stefanoni's work to shreds. If Stefanoni's work was valid, why is that Machiavelli could not answer a simple question as to how much DNA was on the knife?

The PGP don't believe C&V did honest or quality work. They point to a informal public meeting as proof they were in cahoots with the defense. They ignore the obvious inconsistency that people doing dirty work would meet in public.

When the independent experts were appointed the PGP were upset but not with the selection of C&V but with the fact the work would be looked at. I was upset because I thought experts from a neutral country would be better and I didn't trust any Italian not to be on the PG team.

If Vixen et al. want to demean Gill et al. why not send the non C&V info to experts around the world both inside and outside police services and see what they say.

Besides the PMF fashion house receptionist and DNA expert the PG haven't presented any DNA experts backing Steffi's work. The prosecution "hired" police DNA people to provide consulting and backing (shockingly) for Steffi's work.

The PLE's best ally Novelli famously stated contamination must be proven, demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of DNA protocol and common sense.

Where the groups of police lab workers saying Steffi did it just right?

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't say he was a two-bit whore. Look up the meaning of "metaphor". (Surely this is covered in Grade 3.)

Right. When you contact the journal please make sure you are clear on this point. It will influence greatly how you're received.

 

[Grinder]

Right. When you contact the journal please make sure you are clear on this point. It will influence greatly how you're received.

Bill you must have missed my question on O.J. I will put it another way. Do you believe all not guilty verdicts exonerate the defendant?

We know that here a not guilty verdict doesn't stop the defendant from being charged by a different jurisdiction for the same act. It also doesn't stop civil suits for the same act (see O.J.).

I would think a para 1 dismissal would be an exoneration and no further criminal or civil actions would be permitted.

 

[Mike1711]

I am not looking at simple English, I am looking at the penal code section quoted by Bruno-Marasca, which is actually directed at merits courts.

Ok. Enlighten me.

Reference the penal code section which contradicts the B/M authority to overturn the lower court verdict.

As you can see the B/M court are fully entitled to overturn the lower court ruling so I assume you are arguing a technical breach?

It reminds me of a court case in which I was involved. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the contract had been cancelled illegally because the cancellation notice referred to the incorrect clause in the contract. The Judge scornfully ruled in favour of the defendant stating that it doesn't matter that the incorrect clause may have been referred to in the cancellation notice as the contract should be read as a whole.

Is this your beef?