• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Unfortunately for you, Hellmann was spiked, shredded, expunged.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini were spiked, shredded, expunged.

I notice you simply ignore the fact that Marasca/Bruno does not assign the bath mat footprint to Sollecito or Guede, but he does acquit Sollecito. Hmmm.

You also ignore the fact that there is no evidence Amanda ever owned a pair of ASCIS tennis shoes. You also ignore the fact that MB states there is NO evidence of Amanda being in Meredith's room so he does not accept that is her shoeprint.
 
Stacyhs said:
Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini were spiked, shredded, expunged.

I notice you simply ignore the fact that Marasca/Bruno does not assign the bath mat footprint to Sollecito or Guede, but he does acquit Sollecito. Hmmm.

You also ignore the fact that there is no evidence Amanda ever owned a pair of ASCIS tennis shoes. You also ignore the fact that MB states there is NO evidence of Amanda being in Meredith's room so he does not accept that is her shoeprint.
Click to expand...

Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.
Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.
The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women’s shoes available on the market, with the consequence of providing support for the hypothesis of two types of footwear at the murder scene, above all Rudy Guede’s indisputably identified shoe, and, on the other hand, a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.​
 
Annella said:
This is old news now but tonight I did learn that many pro guilt people ( of Amanda Knox AND Raffaele Sollecito, when they remember him ;) ) did not know that one of the presiding Judges at the Italian Court of Cassation judgement in March last year who found the pair not guilty, has now been appointed President of said Court. Unanimously. Paolo Bruno. Complimenti!

http://www.strill.it/citta/2016/04/...sidente-di-sezione-della-corte-di-cassazione/

Google translation:

CSM appoints Judge reggino Paul Bruno President of the Court of Cassation
Click to expand...

It's strange - a search with Google.It doesn't show much, even the main Cassazione webpage does not seem to say anything about this election/promotion for Paolo Bruno.

Maybe us'all are making too much of it if it does not seem to get traction in Italy.
 
Numbers said:
However, whoever sexually assaulted Kercher did not use a condom. There was male DNA detected in the rape kit. It was identified after some time as being that of Guede (although the police would not have identified the person as soon as they knew it was neither Sollecito nor Lumumba).

It would be a speculation not justified by the evidence that other males participated in the sexual assault but could not be identified because they were using condoms.

Diocletian's discoveries about the numbering issues are somewhat beyond mere assumptions. The numbering of samples in a science lab is tightly regulated; that in a forensic lab should be more so, as a matter of Good Laboratory Practice (a set of quality contol/assurance procedures). The numbering used by Steffanoni for the samples in question indicated that they were likely to be repeats. The raw data was suppressed. Full examination of all the actual raw data would resolve the issue.
Click to expand...

The thing is the kits cost money. If possible you avoid doing a run with empty wells on your plate. So you will include samples from more than one case in a run. There are possible innocent explanations for some of the missing numbers (there may be guilty ones too). The problem is the lack of transparency means one thinks the worst, even if it is just bad record keeping that is still seriously remiss for a forensic (or any) lab. I am deeply suspicious that the proper negative controls were not run. I think there was contamination, some samples may have been re-run because of contamination. This is entirely reasonable. I think Steff may have tried to conceal contamination because of concerns that would be a refection on her, instead it is just something that happens even in the best labs. Just document it and re run the test.
 
Planigale said:
The thing is the kits cost money. If possible you avoid doing a run with empty wells on your plate. So you will include samples from more than one case in a run. There are possible innocent explanations for some of the missing numbers (there may be guilty ones too). The problem is the lack of transparency means one thinks the worst, even if it is just bad record keeping that is still seriously remiss for a forensic (or any) lab. I am deeply suspicious that the proper negative controls were not run. I think there was contamination, some samples may have been re-run because of contamination. This is entirely reasonable. I think Steff may have tried to conceal contamination because of concerns that would be a refection on her, instead it is just something that happens even in the best labs. Just document it and re run the test.
Click to expand...

Here is the issue. Whatever was done in the suppressed re-runs was not documented. And the raw data was not provided.

This must invalidate the tests as evidence in a murder trial.

Suppose, by analogy, a drug was being tested for safety by samples of it being injected into a test animal, such as mice.

Some of the mice died during the test for unknown reasons. The person running the test - the investigator - substituted new mice for those had died, in each case of mouse death.

The investigator then published the results - giving them to a government regulatory agency, for example - on the surviving mice without disclosing the deaths of the mice and the substitutions of new mice for those that had died. And the investigator refused to provide the original records of blood chemistry from the mice, and only provided a summary graph, although the original records were requested by the regulatory agency.

What opinion would the reviewers in the government regulatory agency form from such a situation? Would they agree with the investigator's conclusion that the drug tested had been shown to be safe by the test results? Or would they deny approval and demand a retest under Good Laboratory Practices, where every detail of a test protocol must be adhered to or exception noted in the record and made available for review?
 
Grinder said:
That would appear to be the same exact article.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. My point was, other newspapers were reporting it. Just a standard release picked up by the Press and printed. Personally, I doubt that the average Italian citizen gives much of a damn about who has been appointed President of Cassation and it is just not a newsworthy piece to pursue. Certainly NOT on the same level as a foreign she-Devil who apparently murdered her housemate. ;)
 
Grinder said:
Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.
Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.
The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women’s shoes available on the market, with the consequence of providing support for the hypothesis of two types of footwear at the murder scene, above all Rudy Guede’s indisputably identified shoe, and, on the other hand, a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.​
Click to expand...

Where is this from? I do not find it in Marasca Bruno.

It was Vixen who claimed Boemia identified the shoeprint as that of a woman's Asics size 37.
 
Stacyhs said:
Where is this from? I do not find it in Marasca Bruno.

It was Vixen who claimed Boemia identified the shoeprint as that of a woman's Asics size 37.
Click to expand...

It is from Massei and I was just helping you put an end to this particular ridiculous assertion by Vixen. She already knew this but obviously doesn't care.
 
Annella said:
Indeed it is. My point was, other newspapers were reporting it. Just a standard release picked up by the Press and printed. Personally, I doubt that the average Italian citizen gives much of a damn about who has been appointed President of Cassation and it is just not a newsworthy piece to pursue. Certainly NOT on the same level as a foreign she-Devil who apparently murdered her housemate. ;)
Click to expand...

Well one would think the appointment of a new president of the Supreme Court would be of a little interest. Neither of the publications is main stream at all.
 
Annella said:
Indeed it is. My point was, other newspapers were reporting it. Just a standard release picked up by the Press and printed. Personally, I doubt that the average Italian citizen gives much of a damn about who has been appointed President of Cassation and it is just not a newsworthy piece to pursue. Certainly NOT on the same level as a foreign she-Devil who apparently murdered her housemate. ;)
Click to expand...

The average citizen maybe, but the major newsmedia would recognize the importance? If this had been the US or Canada and a new Chief Justice had been nominated, it would have got comprehensive news coverage, if only for a day and even if it had passed the notice of people out there just trying to pay the rent.....

True?
 
Back when we PIP folks were less enamoured with the ISC, didn't we make hay out of the fact that its then president was a 9/11 truther?
 
Annella said:
Indeed it is. My point was, other newspapers were reporting it. Just a standard release picked up by the Press and printed. Personally, I doubt that the average Italian citizen gives much of a damn about who has been appointed President of Cassation and it is just not a newsworthy piece to pursue. Certainly NOT on the same level as a foreign she-Devil who apparently murdered her housemate. ;)
Click to expand...

AIUI Bruno has an "executive post" at Cassation Court No. 5 only. No doubt, he was elected, so would have put himself forward.

When my GP stood for president of her medical professional body, she quit her GP duties and had three year's sabbatical to fulfill the new role.

According to reliable sources, Bruno is suffering from some kind of psychological issue. He recently got damages for being charged with mafia involvement, so perhaps the ptb are bending over backwards to sweeten him up.
 
Antony said:
:jaw-dropp

So how do you reconcile that with the fact that Hellmann is the only one who agrees with the final verdict?
Click to expand...

Massive difference: he pronounced the kids innocent, ignored the submissions of the prosecution and appointed expert witnesses (the now disgraced Vecchiotti and Conti) ultra vires.

His MR was so unprofessional, unethical and incompetent (some say, corrupt) it was completely turned over by Chiefi and ripped to pieces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom