Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

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.

The problem you have is that the final, unchangeable verdict agrees with him, and not with Massei and Nencini

His MR was so unprofessional, unethical and incompetent (some say, corrupt) it was completely turned over by Chiefi and ripped to pieces.

Those who say it was corrupt are themselves corrupt. The most corrupt of them all was the Chieffi CSC.

Look, it's undeniable that there was corruption in the Italian judicial system, because we have different courts bringing in diametrically opposed, irreconcilable verdicts. So either Hellmann and Marasca/Bruno were corrupt, or it was Massei, Chieffi and Nencini.

The rational view isn't to take sides in a partisan manner, which is what you are doing; it's to take a step back and look to see which side agrees with the evidence - which is the approach of the PIP, and the reason why Amanda and Raff have the support that they do.

The evidence clearly and unequivocally supports the Hellmann and Marasca/Bruno verdicts (except for the callunia conviction, which will not survive the ECHR hearing). The courts which found guilt cannot even agree with each other about the facts of the case, which should tell you straight off where the truth lies.

PS - as for Hellmann's MR being "unethical, unprofessional" and the rest, these are empty words from someone who cannot sustain a logical, fact-supported argument.

 

[Grinder]

No, I was perfectly aware he said ASCIC LADIES 37 was the nearest compatible he could find. You can find his various testimonies in the following wiki:

Please explain the quote from Massei:

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.​

Why oh why do you keep this up? Where are the other size 37 prints? Even if the idiotic theory that she cleaned her evidence and left Rudi's were true, how did she find and clean those prints that could only be found under Luminol? There is nothing that substantiates the idea of a size 37 woman's shoe print except the one impression which couldn't be matched to any shoe in the world in the two years they had to find it. In addition the print looked very much like a partial of Rudi's shoe.

Continuing with this angle is on the level of backing Toto's ability to see and remember the two kids from 50 meters away in the dark after months of not being able to recall what he saw or when while high on smack.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

The problem you have is that the final, unchangeable verdict agrees with him, and not with Massei and Nencini

"Ultra vires"!? Which superior court said that about Hellmann's court? The Chieffi ISC panel in 2013 said that Hellmann erred in letting Conti-Vecchiotti make the de facto decision on the testing of Sample 36I; namely, that the error was a legal one attributable to Hellmann and his court, not with the appointment of independent analysts per se.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/11-procedural-rulings-ordering-new-expert-review-of-genetic-evidence-and-denying-new-review-of-the-new-sample-trace/

This trace was not subject to genetic testing, a decision made solely by one of the experts, Prof. Vecchiotti – without documented prior authorization from the Court, which had also tasked them with identifying any DNA present in the samples taken from the knife and the bra clasp – because it was considered to be of an insufficient amount to give a reliable result, being Low Copy Number. This decision was subsequently endorsed by the court, on the premise that the quantity was too scarce to allow the two amplifications which would have rendered the result reliable. Therefore when the General Prosecutor and the civil parties asked for the testing to be completed, the former on the strength of Prof. Novelli’s scientific input – a geneticist of undisputed renown recognized by the Court itself (page 79 of the ruling) – about the existence of instruments able to work reliably with samples of less than 10 picograms, instruments which are used in the diagnostic sector (even on embryos) in which the need for reliability is certainly no less urgent than it is in the legal sphere, the court rejected the request, assuming that the methods to which Prof. Novelli referred were “in an experimental phase” (page 84 of the ruling) and in so doing freely interpreting and misrepresenting the witness’s argument, who had in fact recalled the use of these methods in diagnostic fields in which a reliable result is essential.

The Court’s modus operandi, which with an unacceptable delegation of duty left the final decision of whether or not to test the new trace to the judgement of the expert, leaves it open to understandable and justifiable criticism, given that the test – ordered by the Court – needed in any case to be carried out, since it fell within the task assigned to the expert, subject to the result being called into question if not considered reliable. In any event, one member of the expert panel could not take [sole] responsibility for the decision to downgrade the scope of the task received, a task which had to be performed without hesitation or reservation, with full intellectual honesty, giving an account of the possibility of inadequate data or an unreliable result.​

(Highlighting and underlining not in original).

But it remains that despite Vixen's strange claim, the appointment of independent analysts IS in the purview of the court.

ETA - Vixen is on ignore, but comments are available when quoted by others. Damn.

 

[Methos]

No, I was quoting Stefanoni elsewhere p 331.

Well, the polite thing for you to do, would be, to just reproduce (i.e. "quote") the text from "Darkness Descending" instead of sending me and others onto a doomed mission to find that quote. As I said, my digital copy of said book doesn't provide the page numbers of the printed edition...

 

[acbytesla]

Well, the polite thing for you to do, would be, to just reproduce (i.e. "quote") the text from "Darkness Descending" instead of sending me and others onto a doomed mission to find that quote. As I said, my digital copy of said book doesn't provide the page numbers of the printed edition...

Now that's a mistake Methos. Her arguments are based on smoke and mirrors not a good faith discussion of the facts. She does not desire to provide clarity as that would speed up the exposure of her misapprehensions and obfuscation. No offense, but you are the cat grasping at her string. Getting you to run around for her amusement.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, I was perfectly aware he said ASCIC LADIES 37 was the nearest compatible he could find. You can find his various testimonies in the following wiki:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

If you were perfectly aware that he said the ASICS were only the nearest compatible show, then why did you write on page 48:

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either.

Your own words belie your claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, the polite thing for you to do, would be, to just reproduce (i.e. "quote") the text from "Darkness Descending" instead of sending me and others onto a doomed mission to find that quote. As I said, my digital copy of said book doesn't provide the page numbers of the printed edition...

Methos, do a word search for "menstrual" in your digital copy. I have a feeling you won't find Stefanoni saying what Vixen claims. If she could produce that quote, she'd have done it long ago instead of giving one ridiculous excuse after another.

 

[Methos]

Methos, do a word search for "menstrual" in your digital copy. I have a feeling you won't find Stefanoni saying what Vixen claims. If she could produce that quote, she'd have done it long ago instead of giving one ridiculous excuse after another.

I already did that. The word "menstrual" is used four times in the whole book and only by Garofano not by Stefanoni...

However, the bidet evidence is less powerful.
I would not use the bidet swab as useful evidence because the swab was again taken from the edge of the bowl to the plug-hole and this is a typical area where menstrual blood collects.
However, one has to say that an American would not use the bidet for washing herself. She may wash clothes in it, maybe knickers with menstrual blood on it, or some other item of clothing that was dirty. But the blood trail is a drip, and doesn’t appear like a residue from washed clothes, that leads from the edge of the bidet to the plughole. We’d have to ask Amanda to explain that.
[...]
So we have those three key pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox: the tap with her blood on it; the basin with her and Meredith’s blood mixed, and the cotton-bud box with her and Meredith’s blood on them. Let’s try to explain them for Amanda. Menstrual blood? In the bidet the blood could be menstrual blood, or it could be her washing bloodstained knickers in the bidet. She could have washed them in the basin and then rinsed them again in the bidet. She would have touched them and touched the cotton-bud box.

 

[Planigale]

I already did that. The word "menstrual" is used four times in the whole book and only by Garofano not by Stefanoni...

I wonder whether he is a paid shill. I note he is critical of the way Seffanoni swabbed such large areas.

The DNA could come from anywhere that was swabbed.

I wish people could stick to a consistent story about DNA and blood. At one time we are told you can only get clear DNA results from blood, then when we get samples with DNA but no blood e.g. the bra hook, or the knife handle people seem happy to conclude the DNA is due to epithelials.

The truth is the size of the EPG does not indicate the source of the DNA. The quantification step is the measurement of the DNA.

FWIW one washes / rinses out knickers in the wash basin not a bidet!

 

[Desert Fox]

FWIW one washes / rinses out knickers in the wash basin not a bidet!

I think it was mean as an insult. . . . Look at that uncouth American washing her panties in a bidet.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it was mean as an insult. . . . Look at that uncouth American washing her panties in a bidet.

Yea, I agree. Bidets are really not all that common in the US so it's kind of shot that Americans would be too stupid and ignorant about its purpose.

 

[Grinder]

If you were perfectly aware that he said the ASICS were only the nearest compatible show, then why did you write on page 48:

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either.

Your own words belie your claim.

Not that it matters, but the ASCIS shoe was only used for the dimensions of a woman's shoe not as a possible anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

I already did that. The word "menstrual" is used four times in the whole book and only by Garofano not by Stefanoni...

Perhaps this "expert" in D.D. can be forgiven for it being early in all this, a time when a lot of comments are off....

But in that little snippet he twice mentions "mixed blood". At this point, more than a year post-exoneration, all mentions of mixed-blood should go into the shredder. This was a Harry Rag meme for half a decade, as he assaulted comments pages with his cut and paste PR effort. Eventually even he gave up on that one.

Short of it is - there was no mixed blood. If there had been many innocentisti would themselves be guilters.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not that it matters, but the ASCIS shoe was only used for the dimensions of a woman's shoe not as a possible anything.

Yes, I understand that. My point was that Vixen now claims she always knew that but her original statement disproves that.

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either."

If she knew it wasn't identified as actually being an Asics, then she wouldn't have included the brand in her statement. She'd have simply said "the size 37 ladies shoe".

 

[Stacyhs]

I already did that. The word "menstrual" is used four times in the whole book and only by Garofano not by Stefanoni...

What? Do you seriously want me to believe that Vixen is presenting us with assfacts? You know, the kind of facts that get pulled out of her *ss?

 

[Grinder]

Yes, I understand that. My point was that Vixen now claims she always knew that but her original statement disproves that.

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either."

If she knew it wasn't identified as actually being an Asics, then she wouldn't have included the brand in her statement. She'd have simply said "the size 37 ladies shoe".

FWIW - I'm only emphasizing that even the LE experts made no claims that the ASCIS resembled a shoe that would have left the print but the shoes were only used to show the dimension ratio of a woman's shoe.

So when you wrote: If you were perfectly aware that he said the ASICS were only the nearest compatible show, then why did you write...

that is not accurate AFAIK. Perhaps there is something that is counter to Massei's summary but his follows both sides' presentations in court.

The ASCIS shoe is a complete red herring as not even the expert claimed it could have made the print or was even particularly close.

 

[Planigale]

Perhaps this "expert" in D.D. can be forgiven for it being early in all this, a time when a lot of comments are off....

But in that little snippet he twice mentions "mixed blood". At this point, more than a year post-exoneration, all mentions of mixed-blood should go into the shredder. This was a Harry Rag meme for half a decade, as he assaulted comments pages with his cut and paste PR effort. Eventually even he gave up on that one.

Short of it is - there was no mixed blood. If there had been many innocentisti would themselves be guilters.

Yes. There is no reliable evidence that there were any mixed blood samples. A falsity that has been repeated so many times some take it for fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. There is no reliable evidence that there were any mixed blood samples. A falsity that has been repeated so many times some take it for fact.

There's precious little unreliable evidence that there was mixed blood. Once one sees the very collection-video the Scientific Police themselves filmed of the way samples (particularly the bathroom) were collected, the whole thing should have been thrown out.

The real scandal is the way Judge Massei's court in 2009 simply took the PLE's/Scientific Police's word for it; when the cock-up was right in front of them.

 

[Methos]

Now that's a mistake Methos. Her arguments are based on smoke and mirrors not a good faith discussion of the facts. She does not desire to provide clarity as that would speed up the exposure of her misapprehensions and obfuscation. No offense, but you are the cat grasping at her string. Getting you to run around for her amusement.

Well, the actual quote from "Darkness Descending" would enable us to continue the discussion, for now we are stuck on the question if there is such a quote....
Don't worry, I've played the sniffer dog for a certain "not a member here anymore" on another forum for some time after he and I registered there in late 2011...
Rose called those searches "snipe hunts", looks like I'm a German Shepherd, after all. (sniff sniff, bow wow )

I wonder whether he is a paid shill. I note he is critical of the way Seffanoni swabbed such large areas.

The DNA could come from anywhere that was swabbed.

I wish people could stick to a consistent story about DNA and blood. At one time we are told you can only get clear DNA results from blood, then when we get samples with DNA but no blood e.g. the bra hook, or the knife handle people seem happy to conclude the DNA is due to epithelials.

The truth is the size of the EPG does not indicate the source of the DNA. The quantification step is the measurement of the DNA.

FWIW one washes / rinses out knickers in the wash basin not a bidet!

Col. (promoted to Gen. by the usual suspects) Garofano was one of the early "experts", he co-authored "DD" and appeared on the various true crime shows on Italian TV, as far as I know he hasn't been asked for his opinion since then...

Perhaps this "expert" in D.D. can be forgiven for it being early in all this, a time when a lot of comments are off....

No, Bill, Garofano is misleading his readers. Think about it, he's saying that the peak heights are an indicator for the source (he says blood) of the DNA the profile was taken from. Even for an idiot like me it is clear that his statement "a lot of DNA=blood" is false, swab once, that's "too low", swab twice, that's better, swab once more and then a fourth and fifth time gathering more DNA with every swab until there's enough material... What was that pesky TMB good for? ...and why weren't the "bloody" footprints tested for human antibodies like the "cat's blood in the flat below?....

What? Do you seriously want me to believe that Vixen is presenting us with assfacts? You know, the kind of facts that get pulled out of her *ss?

No, of course not, I'm still hoping for Vixen to provide that quote so that the original discussion on that topic, whatever was btw, can continue...