Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

The detective leading the search was briefed on the size of the knife used to kill Mez. It's called 'communication.'

Actually he specifically testified he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for.
"MAORI – You said: I took this knife because according to my police intuition this knife was compatible with the wounds that I never saw. What do you mean?
FINZI– I mean, I never saw the wounds, but the morning after the murder during some breefings I was told by our senior managers how Meredith had died.
MAORI – And what did they tell you about Meredith’s death? Please share...
FINZI – They said she had been stabbed in her throat with many knife thrusts. MAORI – How many wounds?
FINZI – I don’t know; many...
MAORI – What was their shape?
FINZI – I don’t k now. They were deep, I’m reporting to you what other persons reported to me
MAORI – What was their depth?
FINZI – I don’t know, I never measured them.
MAORI – So, during the perquisition of Sollecito’s apartment, you just knew Meredith had been stabbed with a number of knife thrusts... where?
FINZI – in her neck, and throat.
MAORI – And you were unaware of the width and depth of the wounds.
FINZI – Yes, certainly.
MAORI – So, you did not know the length of the blade...
FINZI - If someone tells me the wounds are very deep, then I suppose...and wide, I suppose the blade, surely, but it may be a big blade.
MAORI – OK, and a while ago – in answering a question of the prosecutor – you said there were other knives in Sollecito’s apartment; some of them were smaller, and some of them were bigger than this one.
FINZI – Yes
MAORI – But you didn’t focuse attention on the bigger ones. Why ?
FINZI – Because in my opinion they were of no interest.
MAORI – You say “ in my opinion “ ...so it was a mere opinion.
FINZI – It was an opinion.
MAORI – A mere opinion or a scientific evaluation? Maybe you knew the shape of the wounds, and therefore...
FINZI - No, no, I say again , I never saw Meredith’s wounds, people had reported to me ...so in my opinion that knife could be...its blade might be compatible with the wounds, it might be...
MAORI – The first knife you see...
FINZI – yes, because it stood on the cutlery."

He just took the first big knife he saw. Not with any guidance on the size of wounds. Indeed it subsequently became clear that some of the wounds were incompatible with this knife so another knife had to be introduced to the scenario. Quite apart from the bloody imprint showing a knife compatible with all the wounds but not with Sollecito's knife.
One would have thought a proper investigation would collect all knives able to inflict stab wounds and test them.

A popular PIP misrepresentation. The knife had to be at least 9cm to have breached the hyoid bone. The bruising around the wound were elegantly shown by a forensic pathologist to be the same curved moon shape of a thumb nail, and was proportional to the other finger mark bruises found around Mez' lower face and nostrils.

The problem is there are three wounds all 8cm in depth. Easy to explain with an 8cm blade up to the hilt difficult with a longer blade. I'll agree to a disagreement by the forensic specialists about the cause of the bruising whether due to a hilt or not.

It came back as low copy number (LCN) - probably thanks to vigorous scrubbing of the knife - Stefanoni found that when she amplified the LCN sample enough times (i.e., a chemical reaction which causes the DNA string to replicate itself over and over again, a well-established and weel-used technique in the medical world of research, [e.g., cancer research]) the machine showed a DNA reading of the loci as billions to one against it was anyone's other than Mez. This reading is done by a machine and cannot be faked. Raff's expert forensic defense representative was there as a witness and did not complain of any issues. All parties agree it is indeed Mez' DNA.

The DNA typing result - EPG - is probably that of the victim. That is to say that the sample put into the machine contained some of the victims DNA. That is not to say that DNA originated from the knife, nor that if it was on the knife it was attributable to the murder. The negative controls from the concentration and amplification process have not been revealed. The knife was not handled in a way appropriate for LCN DNA analysis. Knox's DNA was on the handle, but this certainly does not mean she used the knife for a murder. If the knife is thought to have been so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood and only the slightest trace of DNA of the victim is left then that cleaning would certainly have removed any trace of the wielder.

Mez is not of 'the human species'? Obviously, it will be body tissue in the form of skin, fat layers and other tissue. Blood is not the only source of DNA. Blood washes off easily if rinsed straight away. Stefanoni assess initially that the blood drips in the bathroom were compatible with pure blood (cotton bud box) and more and more diluted blood as it got to the sink and bidet. Mixed Amanda and Mez DNA. This is a scientific fact.

To correct Welshman, in fact the sample from the knife blade was quantified (contrary to what Steffanoni falsely testified to the court), using a non species specific technique. No DNA human or otherwise was detected. There is something odd about why this sample was typed when other samples with no detectable DNA.

Could you link to where Steffanoni reports on dilution of blood (and how she does so).

Both merits courts found it a fact there was no contamination.

The problem is they are then left with explaining the DNA off other persons, if they do not believe contamination occurs then they must believe these are other participants on the crime.

It obviously did, as Mez' DNA showed up.

The problem is since the laboratory did not meet the standards to do LCN work contamination is likely. The way one tries to avoid this is by running duplicate samples not something Steffanoni did.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - this is what you are avoiding with a long series of non-sequitors.

I had said:

​

You responded by citing Kokomani's testimony:

​

I responded to THAT by reminding you that Kokomani also had testified to seeing Knox weeks before she'd even gone to Italy.

You then shifted gears by saying that Kokomani had been bought off by Bongiorno: something which (once again) you only asserted ad provided no proof, which brought my question to you - since ignored:

​

This earned yet another of your assertions, once again with no proof advanced....

​

You replaced an answer to the question put to you with a conspiracy theory.

You said that this had been "journalistically recorded", without providing a link or a mention of who the journalist was.

I think this is actually a fault with me - I fall for your malarky every time.

From: The prosecutor's minutes 19th January 2008 in Perugia http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo427151.shtml


16th Sept 2008

With regard to the fact that I have been slow to give evidence I present the following: "When Amanda and Raffaele were arrested, no doubt knowing that they are able to recognize them, especially Rudy knows that I am an Albanian who worked as a waiter at Torre Rosa because I repeat sometimes came there to eat, I heard on the grapevine and in especially by the villagers at Bar Boccaccio that relatives and lawyers were seeking "the Albanian who that evening had seen the young" before doing so by the police to find and offered 100,000 euro for not doing so to speak. i remember that at that time Rudy had not yet in prison in Italy, I do not remember if it had already been arrested or not. I was afraid and went soon after in Albania because having chatted at the bar that night when I saw them I thought I am traceable. the Golf I left at home in Albania for fear that from the guys in jail I could to track down. After my statement through the word of mouth I heard they're looking for me, and the rumor going around is that "the day will come when the Albanian say I hAVE SEEN NOTHING ".

-google translate

 

[Vixen]

Actually he specifically testified he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for.
"MAORI – You said: I took this knife because according to my police intuition this knife was compatible with the wounds that I never saw. What do you mean?
FINZI– I mean, I never saw the wounds, but the morning after the murder during some breefings I was told by our senior managers how Meredith had died.
MAORI – And what did they tell you about Meredith’s death? Please share...
FINZI – They said she had been stabbed in her throat with many knife thrusts. MAORI – How many wounds?
FINZI – I don’t know; many...
MAORI – What was their shape?
FINZI – I don’t k now. They were deep, I’m reporting to you what other persons reported to me
MAORI – What was their depth?
FINZI – I don’t know, I never measured them.
MAORI – So, during the perquisition of Sollecito’s apartment, you just knew Meredith had been stabbed with a number of knife thrusts... where?
FINZI – in her neck, and throat.
MAORI – And you were unaware of the width and depth of the wounds.
FINZI – Yes, certainly.
MAORI – So, you did not know the length of the blade...
FINZI - If someone tells me the wounds are very deep, then I suppose...and wide, I suppose the blade, surely, but it may be a big blade.
MAORI – OK, and a while ago – in answering a question of the prosecutor – you said there were other knives in Sollecito’s apartment; some of them were smaller, and some of them were bigger than this one.
FINZI – Yes
MAORI – But you didn’t focuse attention on the bigger ones. Why ?
FINZI – Because in my opinion they were of no interest.
MAORI – You say “ in my opinion “ ...so it was a mere opinion.
FINZI – It was an opinion.
MAORI – A mere opinion or a scientific evaluation? Maybe you knew the shape of the wounds, and therefore...
FINZI - No, no, I say again , I never saw Meredith’s wounds, people had reported to me ...so in my opinion that knife could be...its blade might be compatible with the wounds, it might be...
MAORI – The first knife you see...
FINZI – yes, because it stood on the cutlery."

He just took the first big knife he saw. Not with any guidance on the size of wounds. Indeed it subsequently became clear that some of the wounds were incompatible with this knife so another knife had to be introduced to the scenario. Quite apart from the bloody imprint showing a knife compatible with all the wounds but not with Sollecito's knife.
One would have thought a proper investigation would collect all knives able to inflict stab wounds and test them.



The problem is there are three wounds all 8cm in depth. Easy to explain with an 8cm blade up to the hilt difficult with a longer blade. I'll agree to a disagreement by the forensic specialists about the cause of the bruising whether due to a hilt or not.



The DNA typing result - EPG - is probably that of the victim. That is to say that the sample put into the machine contained some of the victims DNA. That is not to say that DNA originated from the knife, nor that if it was on the knife it was attributable to the murder. The negative controls from the concentration and amplification process have not been revealed. The knife was not handled in a way appropriate for LCN DNA analysis. Knox's DNA was on the handle, but this certainly does not mean she used the knife for a murder. If the knife is thought to have been so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood and only the slightest trace of DNA of the victim is left then that cleaning would certainly have removed any trace of the wielder.



To correct Welshman, in fact the sample from the knife blade was quantified (contrary to what Steffanoni falsely testified to the court), using a non species specific technique. No DNA human or otherwise was detected. There is something odd about why this sample was typed when other samples with no detectable DNA.

Could you link to where Steffanoni reports on dilution of blood (and how she does so).



The problem is they are then left with explaining the DNA off other persons, if they do not believe contamination occurs then they must believe these are other participants on the crime.



The problem is since the laboratory did not meet the standards to do LCN work contamination is likely. The way one tries to avoid this is by running duplicate samples not something Steffanoni did.

Stefanoni explains it to the authors of Darkness Descending her initial view the blood drips in the bathroom were likely the blood drips from the knife, as it was rinsed off under the tap, getting more and more diluted.

In addition, your claim the lab was not up to standard is another PIP detraction; malicious and false, as it was both EFTI and ANSI regulated and in the process of ISO certification, of which standards were already followed.

The fact the PIP have to resort to 'the police were bent, the forensic team were unqualified and inexperienced and the laboratories contaminated' proves to me, you know perfectly well the scientific methods were sound and the convictions perfectly sound. There has been no evidence presented to a court of law that any of these dissemblances have any merit. It is another pathetic claim that is unsubstantiated and predicated on someone who claims to be more of a biochemist expert than the Rome forensic police and they we should take this person's word for it.

 

[acbytesla]

BTW, acbytesla: contrary to your belief, parents are only too aware of the proclivities of teenage boys.

You would think so. Yet they trusted me with their daughters and thought I was just the "nicest boy". Oops....

 

[Bill Williams]

From: The prosecutor's minutes 19th January 2008 in Perugia http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo427151.shtml


16th Sept 2008

-google translate

I'll respond when you do me the kindness of tracking back through this sub-thread of ours and actually answering the question as put....

Rather than simply putting up an incomprehensible Google translate which does not even buttress the conspiracy theory you offered to avoid answering the question!!

 

[bagels]

The fact the PIP have to resort to 'the police were bent, the forensic team were unqualified and inexperienced and the laboratories contaminated' proves to me, you know perfectly well the scientific methods were sound and the convictions perfectly sound. There has been no evidence presented to a court of law that any of these dissemblances have any merit. It is another pathetic claim that is unsubstantiated and predicated on someone who claims to be more of a biochemist expert than the Rome forensic police and they we should take this person's word for it.

Still posting like it's 2008 I see, and the courts didn't side with the defense and demolish the prosecution's case and it's all over...for all time.

Hope you join us in the present day sometime. Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a mafia conspiracy all the way up to the Supreme Court to help out two random students.

 

[Bill Williams]

Still posting like it's 2008 I see, and the courts didn't side with the defense and demolish the prosecution's case and it's all over...for all time.

Hope you join us in the present day sometime. Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a mafia conspiracy all the way up to the Supreme Court to help out two random students.

Since the 2011 trial which acquitted the pair not one forensic expert has supported Stefanoni's original work. Not one. Indeed, how could anyone? The previous courts had shielded Stefanoni from showing her work! What "work" was anyone to approve of? Once again, scientists were told to accept her results, without seeing the work.

That's not what scientists do.

The two courts subsequent to 2011 which sided with Stefanoni did it for these two reasons respectively - that to accept legitimate criticism of Stefanoni's method would call into question all DNA related cases since 1986, and that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife......

Which of course it had not. Not even Stefanoni had claimed that. In 2016 some random poster to an obscure website calls that a typo, rather than a reason to annul the verdict.

That poster ends quite a few of her posts with, "try to keep up."

Bizarre.

 

[acbytesla]

Still posting like it's 2008 I see, and the courts didn't side with the defense and demolish the prosecution's case and it's all over...for all time.

Hope you join us in the present day sometime. Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a mafia conspiracy all the way up to the Supreme Court to help out two random students.

At least Baghdad Bob had a reason for what he was doing. Vixen's Posts = Futility

 

[Bill Williams]

At least Baghdad Bob had a reason for what he was doing. Vixen's Posts = Futility

To heck with Baghdad Bob. In 2003 Tony Blair went to war with a parliamentary truth to cling to.

Thirteen years later he faces a contempt of parliament motion.

Remember Vixen clinging to Italian judicial truths? I do. In Vixen's world Tony Blair should face no censure.

Nor should Mignini. Oh wait, his judicial peers have already censured him. But that happened post-2008, so it should not count.

 

[LondonJohn]

Still posting like it's 2008 I see, and the courts didn't side with the defense and demolish the prosecution's case and it's all over...for all time.

Hope you join us in the present day sometime. Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a mafia conspiracy all the way up to the Supreme Court to help out two random students.

What the heck is it about the pro-guilt commentators and this desperate apparent need to believe that pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators actually "know" Knox and Sollecito to be factually guilty, but (presumably for one or more of a variety of motivations, presumably including lust or money) knowingly try to misdirect by posting online/offline in support of acquittal/innocence.

In my considered opinion, this bizarre phenomenon speaks far, far more about the psychological approach and makeup of such pro-guilt commentators than it ever could speak about the pro-innocence/pro-acquittal community.


For the record, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been found guilty of any crime related to the Kercher murder, and that they were - albeit after far too long - correctly, justly and safely acquitted. And I also hold the strong belief that on a factual level, neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in any way in the Kercher murder.

And incidentally, anyone with intellect and decent reasoning skills should easily be able to know why I separated those two elements, why I cannot (in the absence of proof positive) state with certainty that neither Knox nor Sollecito were factually involved, and why it's not necessary to know with 100% certainty that someone wasn't responsible for a given crime to conclude that a gross injustice was perpetrated upon that person. I expect many pro-guilt commentators not to be able to understand all that though........

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Not exactly. Evidence does not show that they were NOT there, but neither does it show that they WERE there. They "could" have been in the kitchen/living room where their DNA was found. I "could" have been there. So could anyone else who does not have proof of where they were that night. Hmmmm... what evidence does Vixen have that she was not at 7 Via della Pergola on Nov 1, 2007?

I disagree pretty strongly with this.

Amanda was initially a suspect. She had an alibi. Raffaele.

The police did not like this. So they made Raffaele a suspect as well.

We have a time window when Meredith could have been murdered, since we know when she last ate and we know gastric emptying had not begun yet. Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment when the murder occurred. We know this because they accessed Raf's computer in this time window. So even if the investigators were totally incompetent, and simply accused all of their suspects' alibis of being involved in the murder as well (until they ran out of people to accuse to negate the alibis), we still know they were at Raf's apartment when Meredith was murdered.

Also, the hypothesis was that it was a brutal 3-way murder where Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy Guede teamed up to murder Meredith for no reason. The plausibility of this scenario is pretty much zero right off the bat. It makes no sense at all and only a lunatic would think it was possible given the history of these 3 people (Amanda and Raf just started dating, and neither of them knew Rudy aside from seeing him in passing).

Lastly, given the above lunatic hypothesis, there would be blood, fingerprint, and DNA evidence *everywhere* of all three of the suspects. There was not. There was no evidence of two of them (Amanda and Raffaele). There was evidence everywhere of Rudy Guede. A selective cleanup of this magnitude is completely impossible in every way.

Thus we have proof Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the murder, as the evidence they were at Raf's apartment during the murder and Rudy murdered Meredith by himself is about as overwhelming as you can get.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Raff and Amanda have no alibi, so your claim, 'all of the science shows that Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there when Meredith was murdered.' is a massive whopper.

You don't have an alibi either Vixen. Think about this for about 5 seconds (minutes, hours, whatever it takes you) until a light bulb goes off.

After that clicks (get back to me in a few days. You may need to sleep on it.), realize the hypothesis is that a brutal 3-way murder occurred in a tiny bedroom. Yet somehow Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence of themselves, while Rudy's forensic evidence was everywhere.

I would tell you to chew on this last point for a bit, but you've been chewing on it for 8 years now and it still hasn't sunk in.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raff and Amanda have no alibi, so your claim, 'all of the science shows that Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there when Meredith was murdered.' is a massive whopper.

Not exactly. Evidence does not show that they were NOT there, but neither does it show that they WERE there. They "could" have been in the kitchen/living room where their DNA was found. I "could" have been there. So could anyone else who does not have proof of where they were that night. Hmmmm... what evidence does Vixen have that she was not at 7 Via della Pergola on Nov 1, 2007?

I disagree pretty strongly with this.

Amanda was initially a suspect. She had an alibi. Raffaele. The police did not like this. So they made Raffaele a suspect as well.
We have a time window when Meredith could have been murdered, since we know when she last ate and we know gastric emptying had not begun yet. Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment when the murder occurred. We know this because they accessed Raf's computer in this time window. So even if the investigators were totally incompetent, and simply accused all of their suspects' alibis of being involved in the murder as well (until they ran out of people to accuse to negate the alibis), we still know they were at Raf's apartment when Meredith was murdered.

Also, the hypothesis was that it was a brutal 3-way murder where Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy Guede teamed up to murder Meredith for no reason. The plausibility of this scenario is pretty much zero right off the bat. It makes no sense at all and only a lunatic would think it was possible given the history of these 3 people (Amanda and Raf just started dating, and neither of them knew Rudy aside from seeing him in passing).

Lastly, given the above lunatic hypothesis, there would be blood, fingerprint, and DNA evidence *everywhere* of all three of the suspects. There was not. There was no evidence of two of them (Amanda and Raffaele). There was evidence everywhere of Rudy Guede. A selective cleanup of this magnitude is completely impossible in every way.

Thus we have proof Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the murder, as the evidence they were at Raf's apartment during the murder and Rudy murdered Meredith by himself is about as overwhelming as you can get.

Aside from everything else, this is where any truly thinking person should have applied Occam's Razor. Instead of a tragically straight-forward scenario where Rudy broke in, using is usual M.O., and then the burglary was interrupted by Meredith coming home......

The PLE had to first (somehow) involve Amanda in what they thought at the time was Lumumba's crime, then they had to involve Amanda in what WAS Ridy's crime, and then keep adding things on. The chief of which was to somehow shoehorn Raffaele into the crime, when neither the knife nor the shoes he arrived at the Questura with late on Nov 5 were part of the crime.

At the very least this borders on proving they were not involved in the crime. Every time the police thought they had something, their assertion (without evidence) that this latest thing incriminated them evaporated.

It took MONTHS later to go get Nara, go get Toto, go get Quintavalle.... because they had nothing else, not really. (Esp. if you listen to EVERY DNA-expert who's ever commented on Stefanoni's work, which also evaporated.)

If nothing else, this frantic attempt to keep reinventing the crime (with every changing motives offered, when no motive is actually needed - if the other evidence is tight), and frantic attempt to bring new evidence to bear when the old stuff collapsed.....

...... should have made someone in the Italian Judiciary say, "enough".

Their names were Marasca and Bruno and the other three Section 5 judges of ISC. And that took 7 1/2 years.

Me - I feel for the Kerchers through all this. By the beginning of the second trial - in 2011 - they'd be told that the PLE had caught the three perps, and had a conviction to justify believing that that was true.

For the past 5 years they'e had to untangle that mess, a mess created prior to 2011, all the while being forced back into reliving what o one should be asked to live even the first time.

 

[Bill Williams]

You don't have an alibi either Vixen. Think about this for about 5 seconds (minutes, hours, whatever it takes you) until a light bulb goes off.

After that clicks (get back to me in a few days. You may need to sleep on it.), realize the hypothesis is that a brutal 3-way murder occurred in a tiny bedroom. Yet somehow Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence of themselves, while Rudy's forensic evidence was everywhere.

I would tell you to chew on this last point for a bit, but you've been chewing on it for 8 years now and it still hasn't sunk in.

Personally, I think Vixen was involved. I read it journalistically somewhere, and am now searching for the link.

 

[Bill Williams]

What the heck is it about the pro-guilt commentators and this desperate apparent need to believe that pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators actually "know" Knox and Sollecito to be factually guilty, but (presumably for one or more of a variety of motivations, presumably including lust or money) knowingly try to misdirect by posting online/offline in support of acquittal/innocence.

In my considered opinion, this bizarre phenomenon speaks far, far more about the psychological approach and makeup of such pro-guilt commentators than it ever could speak about the pro-innocence/pro-acquittal community.


For the record, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been found guilty of any crime related to the Kercher murder, and that they were - albeit after far too long - correctly, justly and safely acquitted. And I also hold the strong belief that on a factual level, neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in any way in the Kercher murder.

And incidentally, anyone with intellect and decent reasoning skills should easily be able to know why I separated those two elements, why I cannot (in the absence of proof positive) state with certainty that neither Knox nor Sollecito were factually involved, and why it's not necessary to know with 100% certainty that someone wasn't responsible for a given crime to conclude that a gross injustice was perpetrated upon that person. I expect many pro-guilt commentators not to be able to understand all that though........

LJ - I think you actually do know they were involved, while making copious posts claiming the opposite. How do I know this?

You cashed the cheque from the PR Supertaker. It explains the expensive car you drive - one that Judge Hellmann sold to you at an extremely reduced rate.

I also know that you have joined the Masons. Prove that you haven't!

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni explains it to the authors of Darkness Descending her initial view the blood drips in the bathroom were likely the blood drips from the knife, as it was rinsed off under the tap, getting more and more diluted.

In addition, your claim the lab was not up to standard is another PIP detraction; malicious and false, as it was both EFTI and ANSI regulated and in the process of ISO certification, of which standards were already followed.

The fact the PIP have to resort to 'the police were bent, the forensic team were unqualified and inexperienced and the laboratories contaminated' proves to me, you know perfectly well the scientific methods were sound and the convictions perfectly sound. There has been no evidence presented to a court of law that any of these dissemblances have any merit. It is another pathetic claim that is unsubstantiated and predicated on someone who claims to be more of a biochemist expert than the Rome forensic police and they we should take this person's word for it.

Evidence was presented. It is not true to say no evidence was presented. Helman appointed independent consultants to review Steffanoni's practice and the independent court appointed experts criticised Steffanoni's practice. What exactly is EFTI and what is its relevance? What ANSI standard do you claim the laboratory met? What is the evidence that the ISO standards were adhered to? The ISO standards were not laboratory practice but related to staff development. The laboratory did not meet published ENFSI standards.

 

[LondonJohn]

Evidence was presented. It is not true to say no evidence was presented. Helman appointed independent consultants to review Steffanoni's practice and the independent court appointed experts criticised Steffanoni's practice. What exactly is EFTI and what is its relevance? What ANSI standard do you claim the laboratory met? What is the evidence that the ISO standards were adhered to? The ISO standards were not laboratory practice but related to staff development. The laboratory did not meet published ENFSI standards.

Perhaps she meant to say the lab was regulated by BAFTA. Or MUFC. Or HIGNFY. Or GHKYHDDLPTKKD. Or any made-up collection of capitalised letters you might care to dream up.

What a joke. Worthless.

 

[Vixen]

You don't have an alibi either Vixen. Think about this for about 5 seconds (minutes, hours, whatever it takes you) until a light bulb goes off.

After that clicks (get back to me in a few days. You may need to sleep on it.), realize the hypothesis is that a brutal 3-way murder occurred in a tiny bedroom. Yet somehow Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence of themselves, while Rudy's forensic evidence was everywhere.

I would tell you to chew on this last point for a bit, but you've been chewing on it for 8 years now and it still hasn't sunk in.

Oh please. I was in my office during the day and during the night, I was fast asleep in my bed. Airport authorities will confirm I never left the country. We have passport control here.

A whole team of judges assembled in the murder room and they could see there was ample room for them. As Mez was restrained by the perps, not sure why you think size matters.

 

[Vixen]

Evidence was presented. It is not true to say no evidence was presented. Helman appointed independent consultants to review Steffanoni's practice and the independent court appointed experts criticised Steffanoni's practice. What exactly is EFTI and what is its relevance? What ANSI standard do you claim the laboratory met? What is the evidence that the ISO standards were adhered to? The ISO standards were not laboratory practice but related to staff development. The laboratory did not meet published ENFSI standards.

Claim you. The lab was regulated by ENFSI. You claimed that this was something they subscribed to, themselves. I subscribe to two professional accountancy bodies (>£350 pa, which I take as a tax allowance) and am regulated by them, as were my bosses constantly visited by their body and ordered to comply with this that and the other, and paid something like £2K per annum per partner for the ignominy. Likewise, we are assured Stefanoni ran an orderly house, transparent and open.

As you know, Hellmann was repudiated and very heavily criticised by the Supreme Court. One of his unprofessional acts was to completely ignore the prosecution's submissions. He was bent.

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't have an alibi either Vixen. Think about this for about 5 seconds (minutes, hours, whatever it takes you) until a light bulb goes off.

After that clicks (get back to me in a few days. You may need to sleep on it.), realize the hypothesis is that a brutal 3-way murder occurred in a tiny bedroom. Yet somehow Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence of themselves, while Rudy's forensic evidence was everywhere.

I would tell you to chew on this last point for a bit, but you've been chewing on it for 8 years now and it still hasn't sunk in.

This is an imperfect analogy. But it's far more pertinent and appropriate to state that there must have been literally hundreds - and probably thousands - of people who were a) within walking or short driving distance of the girls' cottage in Perugia on the evening of 1st November 2007, b) physically capable of participating in this murder, and c) without a verifiable alibi for that evening (either by virtue of being alone, or by virtue of being in a house/apartment with a partner/relative who could also equally be a potential suspect and therefore unreliable as an alibi witness).

I go back once more to my mythical (but almost certainly borne out in reality) example of Mr and Mrs Bianchi, a middle-aged couple who lived 200 yards away from the girls' cottage, and who spent the whole evening together in their small apartment having dinner and watching TV, without using the internet or making/receiving any phone calls or visitors. I suppose Vixen would equally have no problem with Mr and Mrs Bianchi being charged and tried for the Kercher murder. After all, they couldn't prove their innocence, could they.....?