Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

The funny thing is that the things you mentioned in the highlighted parts, were what drove me away from TJMK back in late 2011


Well, Liz Houle is just howling in whatever she writes about the Knox case. I'm curious how this childish post will be explained away by the usual suspect...?

I think vdL has made clear that he isn't interested in "the truth" with his comment to this review of his book called "Dark Matter", the interesting thing is that we are still waiting for book four, the one he had announced for "Spring 2016"

Thanks for the link to van der Leek's book review. Not only was the analysis of the "mysterious" phone number great for a laugh, but vdL's response was priceless. How anyone can think his POS book is anything but a POS is beyond comprehension.

 

[LondonJohn]

Looks like studying astrology isn't the only thing Houle and a certain someone have in common.

Holding any form of belief in the validity or credibility of astrology is an instant disqualification for any claim to being a sceptical or critical thinker. End of story.

You'd think that anyone who purports to be a serious investigative journalist (or, for that matter, anyone positing themselves as a serious online commentator on a criminal case....) would actually want to dissociate themselves from such arrant nonsense as astrology. The apparent fact that certain people actively want to broadcast their faith in that sort of medieval claptrap (which, it goes without saying, has repeatedly been conclusively exposed as entirely unscientific nonsense in proper trials), while at the same time want to be taken seriously as objective, rational commentators on the Knox/Sollecito case, is - needless to say - a gigantic red flag.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for the link to van der Leek's book review. Not only was the analysis of the "mysterious" phone number great for a laugh, but vdL's response was priceless. How anyone can think his POS book is anything but a POS is beyond comprehension.

Things like that unintentionally-hilarious snarky, thin-skinned outburst from vdL, or this priceless post here from Vixen the other day...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11426911#post11426911

...should serve as a handy cut-out-and-keep reminder of the agenda, intelligence and honesty of those sorts of arguments (and those who make them)

 

[Stacyhs]

Holding any form of belief in the validity or credibility of astrology is an instant disqualification for any claim to being a sceptical or critical thinker. End of story.

You'd think that anyone who purports to be a serious investigative journalist (or, for that matter, anyone positing themselves as a serious online commentator on a criminal case....) would actually want to dissociate themselves from such arrant nonsense as astrology. The apparent fact that certain people actively want to broadcast their faith in that sort of medieval claptrap (which, it goes without saying, has repeatedly been conclusively exposed as entirely unscientific nonsense in proper trials), while at the same time want to be taken seriously as objective, rational commentators on the Knox/Sollecito case, is - needless to say - a gigantic red flag.

I agree completely. Anyone purporting a belief in such nonsense is immediately revealed as having at least one foot outside reality. I wonder if they've also studied the "science" of phrenology.

 

[Stacyhs]

Things like that unintentionally-hilarious snarky, thin-skinned outburst from vdL, or this priceless post here from Vixen the other day...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11426911#post11426911

...should serve as a handy cut-out-and-keep reminder of the agenda, intelligence and honesty of those sorts of arguments (and those who make them)

Yes, that was absolutely priceless. A true window into her mind.

 

[Bill Williams]

The funny thing is that the things you mentioned in the highlighted parts, were what drove me away from TJMK back in late 2011


Well, Liz Houle is just howling in whatever she writes about the Knox case. I'm curious how this childish post will be explained away by the usual suspect...?

I think vdL has made clear that he isn't interested in "the truth" with his comment to this review of his book called "Dark Matter", the interesting thing is that we are still waiting for book four, the one he had announced for "Spring 2016"

I wish you hadn't provided the link to Nick van der Leek's reply to "CriWeZw's" review. It simply confirms an already entrenched confirmation bias of mine about NvdL and anyone who would proof-read for him.

We don't know anyone around here like that, do we?

What a hoot!! How many authors come to their own book's rescue with a reply which:

- suggests that identifying mistakes in the books is a "bias". (If it is, I hope more people have that as a bias!!)

- concedes that calling out the stupidity of the "No Answer" chapter in the book is only meant to bolster the reviewer's "brilliance", while highlighting the author's "stupidity", a concession from the author himself!! Indeed, it does make the reviewer look brilliant and (unchallenged) makes the author and proof-readers look stupid. But thanks anyway NvdL for pointing that out! Hoots!!!1

- the criticism above is that, despite the author implying that the reviewer was correct, the real mistake was that the reviewer did it, "with glee".

- yet despite all this, Mr. vdL warns the reviewer not to read the upcoming books because, "if you do learn something you will need to blame someone for that too."​

Is NvdL for real!? I mean, who would go out of their way to proofread for the guy and leave intact the date of June 1 for the murder!!??

You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wish you hadn't provided the link to Nick van der Leek's reply to "CriWeZw's" review. It simply confirms an already entrenched confirmation bias of mine about NvdL and anyone who would proof-read for him.

We don't know anyone around here like that, do we?

What a hoot!! How many authors come to their own book's rescue with a reply which:

- suggests that identifying mistakes in the books is a "bias". (If it is, I hope more people have that as a bias!!)

- concedes that calling out the stupidity of the "No Answer" chapter in the book is only meant to bolster the reviewer's "brilliance", while highlighting the author's "stupidity", a concession from the author himself!! Indeed, it does make the reviewer look brilliant and (unchallenged) makes the author and proof-readers look stupid. But thanks anyway NvdL for pointing that out! Hoots!!!1

- the criticism above is that, despite the author implying that the reviewer was correct, the real mistake was that the reviewer did it, "with glee".

- yet despite all this, Mr. vdL warns the reviewer not to read the upcoming books because, "if you do learn something you will need to blame someone for that too."​

Is NvdL for real!? I mean, who would go out of their way to proofread for the guy and leave intact the date of June 1 for the murder!!??

You cannot make this stuff up.

It is fair to say that whoever did the proof reading for vdL's execrable tome had a ruthless commitment to accuracy and fact-checking

 

[Bill Williams]

The following is from Lenroot Mays, from his blog The Auguries of Innocence. The points which Mr Mays raises remain the gold standard of the hurdle PGP need to jump over to make their case.

This is relevant here since we're fresh from being introduced to Nick van der Leek's trash, particularly the "No Answer" chapter from his silly book, a chapter which tries to tie Knox to Guede through a phone number which is i.d.'ed from phone logs - which is, in fact, her parents calling her and the calls go to voicemail.

Absolute stupidity on NvdL's part; but then again, even according to his proofreader, NvdL had not even heard of the case in May 2015, and by the end of the month had this cut-and-paste "book" out. Suitably "proofread" my Mensa geniuses who missed him dating the murder on June 1.

But on to Lenroot - deal with these issues, and we'll talk. My only quibble is that he, like a lot of others, sometimes ignores Raffaele as being caught up in the lunacy, too.

************************************************

Lenroot Mays - The Auguries of Innocence

When one steps back from the minute details of the case, it becomes immediately obvious that if you are to believe in Amanda Knox's guilt you must enter the world of fantasy and willingly suspend disbelief on a massive scale. You must, in short, become a believer in outlandish fairy tales. Here is a starter selection of some of the extravagant absurdities and improbabilities to which you must subscribe:

You have, first of all, to believe that Amanda Knox left the comforts of Raffaele's apartment on a cold November night for no discernible reason, and you must ignore the fact that no security cameras or remotely credible witnesses provided evidence that she had.​

You must believe that Amanda armed herself for the occasion with a large kitchen knife carried in her bag, and you must ignore the fact that she was not in the habit of doing such things, that no one saw this happen, and that there is no physical evidence whatsoever that it did.

You have to believe that by some as-yet-unspecified agency Knox met up with Guede, though, again, no remotely credible witness or camera puts them together. You must ignore the fact that she had previously had only the briefest introduction to Guede, and that the prosecution failed mightily despite enormous effort to find any further association between them.​

You have to assume that Amanda, a good student and athlete with no dark side or history of violence, could, without the barest hint of a plausible motive, butcher a lovely housemate whom she liked and esteemed.

You have to assume that Meredith died at least two hours later than established medical science says is physically possible.

You have to assume that Amanda cleaned up the scene of the murder so completely that no trace of her survived in the room where the murder took place - no DNA, fingerprints, hair, or traces of her clothing, etc. You must further ignore the fact that it is physically and scientifically impossible to clean a murder scene in this fashion without leaving evidence that you did so.​

You must assume that though the victim was hemorrhaging liters of blood, Amanda somehow managed to avoid getting even the smallest drop on her person or clothes, and somehow managed to avoid disturbing the blood in a way that signaled her presence.

You have to assume that Amanda engaged in yet another masterful act of deception by staging a break-in, something she could only accomplish through a series of diabolically clever intermediate steps that include:
Bringing a large rock into the apartment, opening the window in the direction of the wall, and then hurling the rock through so as to simulate its having come from the outside.​

Re-adjusting the windows, and then picking up bits of broken glass and throwing them across the room, precisely imitating the expected directional spray of a real break-in.

Moving shards from the rock that broke off when it hit the floor to a new spot that would suggest an entirely different entry trajectory, consistent with the spray of glass.​

In an especially clever trompe l'oeil, grabbing the rock once again and rolling it into a shopping bag on the floor, thereby creating a touch of verisimilitude that would fool all but the most lynx-eyed Perugian detectives.

You have to assume that instead of simply disposing of the murder weapon as any garden variety of criminal might have done, Amanda took the bloody knife back to the apartment where she continued to cook and prepare food with it over the next four days (No ordinary ghoul our Ms. Knox!).​

You have to assume that, instead of leaving the country like the victim's friends did, or getting a lawyer as her Italian flatmates did, or even going to the American Embassy as her family recommended, Amanda preferred to play a grueling, 40-hour+ cat and mouse game with the police - a tactic so pleasant that it left her stressed and exhausted to the point that one officer asked her if she needed medical attention.

You have to assume that the small army of investigators who awaited Amanda at the police station on November 5, some of whom were on special detail from Rome, were there just for the fun of it and because they had nothing better to do on a cold November midnight. You must further assume that the assemblage of this task force required no prior planning or authorization and had absolutely nothing to do with the fact Amanda's mother was flying in the next day to take charge of the situation and assist her daughter.​

You have to assume that when Amanda did "crumble" she did not: a) confess or b) attempt to shift the blame to her co-perpetrators, but c) blamed an innocent bystander she had every reason to expect would have an iron-clad alibi.

Surely, and as we are sane, reasonable people, the most fitting and proper response to this speculative daisy-chain of contrived nonsense is humor - derisive laughter, to be specific. It is just a breathtakingly foolish reconstruction of events and only card carrying fools would believe it.​

 

[Welshman]

I came across that one by some P.Q. Kidd, too. I did not buy it after reading the preview.

They do, as I wrote there is AFAIK only one major mistake about a certain phone call in "Waiting to Be Heard". (The rest are mistakes created by misinterpretation by people like Liz Houle...)


I don't have to download Liz Houle's book, because I have already read it on her own blog (Poor marketing strategy, if you ask me...).

The only difference between the two versions seem to be that she replaced the sometimes inaccurate quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" with some "explaination of what Amanda Knox wrote" in the "book" edition, probably to avoid copyright problems and that she added cartoonified versions of some well known pictures apparently for the same reason. So I have read the book and my criticism is on what I've read and not merely on the fact that the book exist.


You have already said that.
But let's take a closer look at Liz Houle's book, there are quite a few things I have issues with, just from the amazon preview.

Let's start at the beginning:

The link simply goes to the TJMK homepage and the post she "quotes" from has by now moved way down the page and in some time it won't be appearing on their "home" page at all. The link to the post would have been this one, but you'll have to go a long way through the ramblings on "tortured logic" which are indeed a very good example of tortured logic by some poster calling herself Chimera, who seemingly has the same MO as Liz Houle.
BTW: the "banging of a coke dealer for drugs" nonsense from the "quote" has been explained here.

After a bit of bla-bla about the "publication history" and a mention of the mighty and much feared Knox PR machine (my interpretation, not a quote), Liz houle now places an advertisement for Andrew Hodges' book "As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox". Dr Hodges takes the art of "I can read anything into any statement" also known as the pseudo science "statement analysis" to a new level. He was apparently betting on a cash in from the expected extradition battle, given the publication date. Hodges seems to be the other model for Ms Houle since as a first step she does the same as he does: Take something irrelevant, read a different meaning into it, blow this meaning out of proportion and interpret it the way you want.
The next step is dissecting this made up point and blame the original author for lying and misleading and whatever else comes to mind.

After this advertisement, Ms Houle tries to make the point, that Amanda Knox somehow was annoyed by Meredith Kercher taking up the remaining room at the cottage because she was speaking English, with the underlying unspoken suggestion that this could have somehow had been a reason for Amanda Knox to murder Meredith Kercher. The passage in the book reads:

On her Blog the passage reads:

It is noteworthy that the supposedly direct quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" are gone in the book version especially because they are not direct quotes at all. The passage in chapter 1 of "Waiting to Heard" reads:

So the "herds of American students.” and “exceptional and courageous.” are not direct quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" and replacing this non-quotes with something meaning something similar because of copyright reasons, waters down Ms Houle's suggestion of Amanda Knox wanting to avoid English speakers on her year abroad, Meredith Kercher's arrival spoiled that so Amanda Knox chose to kill her. even further.

I just can't understand how someone is able to read that meaning into the original paragraphs...

And in this way (misreading, making up then disproving) Ms Houle continues...

What Liz Houle is doing is similar to me stating the following:
"Liz Houle is a liar, she claims in her book that Amanda Knox's book has 500 pages. That is clearly wrong since Amazon lists the Hardcover edition as having 480 pages and the Paperback edition as having 496 pages. [add some self righteous ramblings and rantings here]"
Similar because the links to amazon I provided prove that I'm right and because I'm basing my rebuttal on something Ms Houle actually wrote and not on some "made into fitting my narrative" interpretation like she does...


I can't see how Mr Raper trying to sell very old whine (not a typo) in new bottles or Ms Houle's fighting against things she herself made up to shoot down, are doing anything to "set the record straight"?
In the case of Ms Houle it looks more like an attempt to get a new source of income because the examiner (the page she was publishing her cash-for-clicks articles before) has shut down as she has announced herself just days before going into self publishing mode... coincidence?


Wow, should I read this (applying Ms Houle's way of thinking) that you accuse Mr Robinson of dating Ms Knox solely because he thinks he can profit from his girlfiend's notoriety?


That comment was made because I don't want to have to cobble together the conversation by cross reading this thread and AAH.

...and before I have to re-do this post again because of a frequently crashing down computer, I'll hve to add this disclaimer (should be my signature):

"If you find a typo, you can keep it "

ETA: Ms Houle's book is a great and entertainig read, the only thing that's missing is this disclaimer:
"This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental."

I have read the beginning of the book and the book is basically nothing more than a long hate filled rant, an extended version of an article on TJMK. I have come across a falsehood in the book. Liz Hule claims Amanda contracted herpes. There is no medical record of this. Liz Hule accuses Amanda of lying but lies herself. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk, why does Liz Hule need to lie in her book? If there was so much solid evidence, why does Andrew Hodges in his book have to rely on crackpot theories?

 

[Vixen]

I have read the beginning of the book and the book is basically nothing more than a long hate filled rant, an extended version of an article on TJMK. I have come across a falsehood in the book. Liz Hule claims Amanda contracted herpes. There is no medical record of this. Liz Hule accuses Amanda of lying but lies herself. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk, why does Liz Hule need to lie in her book? If there was so much solid evidence, why does Andrew Hodges in his book have to rely on crackpot theories?

What's this here, in her pic? Some say the only reason ex-Liberal Democrat councillor Nigel Scott has the hots for her is because he specialises in Herpes and associated afflictions.

PS: Nigel, thanks for keeping Caledonian Road station open - very useful for Heathrow (no steps)!

 

[Mike1711]

What's this here, in her pic? Some say the only reason ex-Liberal Democrat councillor Nigel Scott has the hots for her is because he specialises in Herpes and associated afflictions.

Dunno. Give up. What is it?

Some say "The Stig" is a Martian with esp ability. ...and some say he isn't.

Some say a certain Mensa individual on this very site is the very reason the average Mensa IQ has been downgraded to "below average".

 

[Welshman]

What's this here, in her pic? Some say the only reason ex-Liberal Democrat councillor Nigel Scott has the hots for her is because he specialises in Herpes and associated afflictions.

Liz Hule was claiming in her book that Amanda had contracted herpes. Vixen claims the sore on Amanda's mouth was as a result of herpes. Is there any evidence in the form of medical records that Amanda had contracted herpes and received treatment for herpes. Was there any evidence that the mouth sore was caused by herpes.

 

[Bill Williams]

What's this here, in her pic? Some say the only reason ex-Liberal Democrat councillor Nigel Scott has the hots for her is because he specialises in Herpes and associated afflictions.

PS: Nigel, thanks for keeping Caledonian Road station open - very useful for Heathrow (no steps)!

It's a mystery why Vixen thinks she needs to sluttify her posts like this. It means she knows she has no case otherwise.

Psychiatrist shows a Rorschach ink blot, asks what she sees:

"Two people having sex next to a dead body."

Psychiatrist shows another Rorschach and asks again:

"Two people having sex next to a dead body."

Psychiatrist asks why everything has to do with weird sex?

"Me!? You're the one showing the disgusting pictures!"

 

[Vixen]

For anyone who would make reference to the peer-reviewed Prof Giuseppe Novelli as somehow sustaining Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and her work with relation to the prosecution of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox......

Did you know that Prof. Novelli rates not one mention in the Massei report from 2010? Not one.

In the Fall of 2013 for the Florence Trial, Judge Nencini tasked officers of the Carabinieri in Rome to provide technical expertise on:

​

In other words, Prof Novelli reported to the Hellmann court in 2011 purportedly in support of Dr. Stefanoni.

Of that 6 Sept 2011 report, Nencini quotes it as sustaining the 1 in 300 million billion that the knife trace was no one's other than Meredith Kercher's. With the exception of the issue of trace 36I, the RIS Carabinieri said nothing about Novelli's alleged support of Stefanoni's overall work.

Nencini then goes on examining Novelli's testimony to the Hellmann court - incredibly, Nencini accepts Novelli's tortured logic that:

- if this had been a paternity case then the quantity of available DNA would be unlimited, and therefore able to produce a result beyond doubt

- why should, then, this logic NOT apply to a one-off sample when there is no "quantity of DNA" to retest.

- therefore, the 1 in 300 million billion odds of identity with Kercher should stand​

Once again, it should be noted that this is not necessarily Prof. Novelli talking - this is Judge Nencini outlining what he regards as definitive in Prof. Novelli's report!

And further, this is not Prof. Novelli defending his own work, it is Nencini commenting on Conti-Vecchiotti's criticism of Stefanoni's work.

Then to the chase - the issue of multiple amplifications as part of protocol. The evidence that interested Judge Nencini is what Prof. Novelli said about this imperfect world we live in.

- incredibly, Prof. Novelli (rightly) says that multiple amplifications IS part of the protocol.

- more incredibly, "but there is also experience, common sense and the ability of a technician to be able to decide, faced with a given situation, what they should do."​

In other words, we are thrown back into what was wrong with Massei's 2010 reason for believing Stefanoni. We should trust her. Why?

​

What follows in the Nencini report is this: Nencini sets it up by saying that the defence was right - yes, Nencini admits the defence objections were right - to object to only a single amplification being made.

Read that again. Nencini agrees with the objection that the defence made on this whole line of "support" Nencini draws from Novelli about Stefanoni.

And what Nencini then does - which is a reason stated by Marasca-Bruno as a reason to annul his conviction - Nencini then substitutes himself as a jurist for this seemingly scientific saw-off in the evidence; which is actually not a saw-off when you think about it - even Nencini agrees with the defence objection.

It's just that Nencini on his own, with no outside scientific, third-party support - substitutes his own opinion for the obvious scientific one:

​

Read that rationale again. The evidence is not a rigorous element of proof - but we should keep it anyway. In the face of the only independent experts who say otherwise (Conti-Vecchiotti) Nencini simply substitutes himself as knowing better.
For heaven's sake, Nencini even admits that Conti-Vecchiotti handed in an expert report. What "expert reason", then, did Nencini appeal to to ignore it? The RIS Carabinieri? No, all the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial, particularly under cross examinination by Bongiorno, is echo what Prof Novelli had written in 2011 - that protocol demanded multiple amplifications; and perhaps one might also be guided by statistics when none are possible. But the RIS Carabinieri expressed no opinion as to whether or not Stefanoni might be trusted with that special talent.

So who supported Stefanoni's work?

No one. Neither Novelli in 2011 nor the RIS Carabinieri in 2013, who both had actually sustained the need for multiple amplifications so that protocol can be met; while at the same time failing to identify Stefanoni as one of those rare, experienced technical operators who should be allowed to throw protocol away.

One final thing about the alleged presence of the negative controls.

Nencini actually blames Vecchiotti for not specifically asking Stefanoni to hand them over. That's right - Vecchiotti is blamed by Nencini for something Stefanoni should have done as a matter of course.

On top of this Nencini compounds his lunacy by saying that Prof Novelli claims to have seen the negative controls at the Hellmann Trial in 2011. If that were true, why would Vecchiotti have had to have asked Stefanoni? They simply would have been part of the trial record in 2011!

​

For one thing, did any court, anywhere prove there was the absence of contamination? No. The courts from Chieffi's 2013 ISC ruling onward said it was the defence's role to prove a route of contamination.

The rest of the "argument" Nencini uses about Novelli's opinions relates to the testability of trace 36I, which in the end, once tested, added nothing to the case.

Does anyone still wish to pull out Prof. Novelli as being a peer-reviewed (which he is) forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work? I know that Nencini did exactly that; yet couched it in terms reminiscent of Judge Massei in 2010 who decided things in terms of "who do you trust, the prosecution (Stefanoni) or the defence."

Massei refused to appoint an independent forensic-DNA expert so as to relieve himself, acc. to law, of the burden of substituting the judge as an expert over the experts.

Nencini did the same thing. With the exception of the issue of trace 36I, the RIS Carabinieri said nothing about Novelli's alleged support of Stefanoni's overall work. The RIS Carabinieri talked about applying a "Likelihood Ratio", but in fact themselves simply restated the need for international protocols to be followed, and Nencini cites nothing that the RIS Carabinieri tells his court, as to why this "likelihood ratio" applies to Stefanoni and her work.

Marasca-Bruno (in part) spotted that and trashed all the judicial renderings which convicted, convicting on the basis of a judge substituting himself as a supra-expert on these matters.

This is where Marasca erred. It wasn't under its jurisdiction to 'trash all the judicial renderings which convicted, convicting on the basis of a judge substituting himself as a supra-expert on these matters'; the only function of any appeal court is to hear the points of law being appealed and to review the judgment that came to that reasoning.

Nencini only had to show that his verdict (to uphold the findings of Massei as legally correct and a decision within the confines of a 'reasonable' one) was also 'reasonable' and within the reasonable scope, even if another court might have decided differently.

Marasca, fronted by two judges who had been appointed judges by virtue of their political office, had to twist and turn to accommodate Bongiorno, and it was telling they announced á la Hellmann, 'anything is possible' or something similar, foreshadowing they had already come to a verdict before the hearing and all they had to do now was to somehow shoe horn some reasoning for it. Enter, two and half days of submissions for Bongiorno to help them with their cut and paste out of a 306 page appeal,many of the points of law therein, already rejected by Chiefi res judicata.

The only remit Marasca had was to ajudge whether the verdict of Nencini was within the range of a 'reasonable' one, even if they might have found differently. It was defective in giving a verdict on the issue of contamination without sending it back down to be properly tried.

Nencini, as a judge, had the power to prefer the submissions of one expert over another.

As for Stefanoni, she did amplify the LCN to obtain the result that it was Mez' DNA.

 

[Vixen]

I am not in a position of commenting on if Necini willfully lied - but reading the way Nencini handles Prof Novelli, Dr. Vecchiotti, the RIS Carabinieri and Dr. Stefanoni......

...... it is very clear that contrary to proper judicial practise, Nencini substituted himself as a supra-expert of the DNA evidence over and against independent forensic-DNA experts. If Nencini had a hunch that Conti-Vecchiotti's report was bogus, he had NO independent reason for thinking this.


Once again, I am in no position to specifically say Nencini outright lied.

It is true, though, that Nencini twisted facts like a pretzel. Nencini accepted Rudy Guede's view that the murder came about because Meredith and Amanda were fighting over rent money. No one other than Rudy ever claimed this - yet it became the motive Nencini cited, over and against the "pooh-in-the-toilet" motive Prosecutor Crini advanced at trial (once again, with no evidence to support that one!)

Is it a lie for Nencini to accept the rent-money motive from Rudy, but not accept Rudy's view that it was Meredith who had let him in and that his DNA got inside her vagina by consent?

Did Nencini "lie" when he opined, again with no evidence other than his own hunch, that Rudy would never have broken in through Filomena's window because that was a known M.O. of his (known to the PLE) and that no self-respecting burglar would have done anything other than pick the front-door lock?

Are those lies?

Or is it as Marasca-Bruno wrote in Sept 2015 - that a judge cannot substitute a hunch for the evidence?

In Italy, it is mandatory for a judge to construct a motive. I didn't agree with Nencini changing it from Massei's, 'sex game gone wrong' (a very lenient view IMV) to 'fight over toilet mess and rent money', but it is within a judge's remit to reconstruct a possible motive.

The only thing that can be appealed are points of law (and much more rarely, perversity, 'public interest' and [vanishingly rare] 'new evidence'). If the judge comes up with a 'wrong motive' (and let's face it, only the perps know whether it is right or wrong) that's not grounds for annulment or acquittal, given the facts of murder and sexual assault have been proven as a fact by the trial court.

Marasca might be your new heroes, after Hellmann, but what good is a corrupt verdict? In any case, even Marasca remains scathing of Amanda and Raff, calling their behaviour 'highly suspicious' and that they lied 'umpteen times'.

 

[Vixen]

Did not Vixen assure us that all those things were typos? Yes, all of them!

f you are talking about Nencini saying it was Sollecito's DNA on the knife, it was obvious to anybody with an inkling of sense it was a typo, of the kind that often creeps into long legal docs. It's something the secretaries and the sign -off judge/s fail to notice ATT.

 

[Vixen]

Just checking in, I can't help marveling at your body of work Vixen.
And maybe Mr Best should be a Bond character. I like the notion.

More George Best, than James Bond, I would have thought.

 

[Bill Williams]

In Italy, it is mandatory for a judge to construct a motive. I didn't agree with Nencini changing it from Massei's, 'sex game gone wrong' (a very lenient view IMV) to 'fight over toilet mess and rent money', but it is within a judge's remit to reconstruct a possible motive.

The only thing that can be appealed are points of law (and much more rarely, perversity, 'public interest' and [vanishingly rare] 'new evidence'). If the judge comes up with a 'wrong motive' (and let's face it, only the perps know whether it is right or wrong) that's not grounds for annulment or acquittal, given the facts of murder and sexual assault have been proven as a fact by the trial court.

Marasca might be your new heroes, after Hellmann, but what good is a corrupt verdict? In any case, even Marasca remains scathing of Amanda and Raff, calling their behaviour 'highly suspicious' and that they lied 'umpteen times'.

Simply repeating this without demonstrating it does no good.

 

[Vixen]

No "we" don't. This is a claim you alone have been making on this thread for months now - simply ignoring all contrary proof.

LOL! Bongiorno paid Gill. Receipts please. This is as silly as your repeated claim that PIP posters are paid by the Gogerty-Marriott PR Monolith!

Never saw the evidence first hand? That's because Stefanoni destroyed it! Sample 36B is destroyed by necessity, the bra-clasp by Stefanoni's sheer incompetence. A forensic expert tends to comment on those sorts of colossal errors.

Talk about begging the question. You realize, do you not, that Filomena was allowed access to "rummage through her room," (cf. John Follain's, "A Death in Italy") with the permission of authorities both before and after Meredith's body was found!? How did Amanda manage that!? She certainly is an all powerful witch, isn't she - your astrology training should point that out!

It is a hoot reading your confirmation biased, "begging the question" posts and claims.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, Amanda and Raffaele WERE at the crimescene before the body's discovery. Everyone admits that.

The "twisted logic" comes from your refusal to read Section 9.4ff from the point of view that Marasca/Bruno sets out in 9.2/9.3. Marasca-Bruno's timeline is an amalgam of timelines taken from both pro-prosecution and anti-prosecution submissions.

But you just keep on keeping on, with what "we" know!

Yet in grand Vixen style, you claim that Novelli provides a reference for Stefanoni, by quoting Nencini!!!!! And the quote that Nencini uses is to prove that even Novelli agrees that Stefanoni did not follow protocol.

Whose side are you on!?

Curt Knox confirmed he hired Gogerty-Marriott within two days of his sprog being arrested.

Stefanoni used up all of the LC sample as there were only five cells of Mez retrieved, compared to hundreds for Amanda. The defence forensic experts were there. Torre for Raff witnessed the procedure and the subsequent result and there is no doubt the DNA found on the knife was Mez'. His whinging that because the amount of material was scant therefore it should be disregarded is weasally defence reasoning.

As for the bra clasp. Clearly the assumption was it was made of stainless steel. OK, so it was tin/iron which rusted quickly in the solution. However, the DNA test had been done and verified by the defence, hence there was no requisition to keep repeating the test. Fingerprints are only ever done once. Fingerprint analysis gives ID with just eighteen points of 'compatibility', yet no-one ever challenges fingerprint evidence. Yet DNA analysis is compatible on billions to one against it being any other individual, millions to one more chance of accuracy than a fingerprint.

Yes, Filomena was 'allowed to rummage around' because Amanda and Raff (who where legally upheld to be at the murder scene by Massei, Nencini and Marasca) failed to report a murder/accident/death. If they had been decent citizens, they would have called for assistance, reported the death, or suspected death, and thus the police would have known to immediately seal off the crime scene.

Section 10 of Marasca is a reiteration of their verdict. Therefore, the penultimate section, Section 9 is ipso facto the conclusion, with all the previous section the discussion of the main issues leading up to it.

Given that some of the points are highly original (for example, Amanda's calumny about Patrick being her covering up for Rudy, to fool the neighbours who might have seen a Black guy leaving the cottage, according to Marasca) and the fact they found of Amanda washing off Mez's blood and shedding epithial [_sp?]cells caused by rubbing her hands, it is obviously not so that Section 9 "is just a synopsis of all the other findings of previous courts''.

If that was the case, there would have been a following section saying why they disagreed with each of the points in Section 9, but there was not.

Do look up 'report writing' if you are not sure of a report layout.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is where Marasca erred. It wasn't under its jurisdiction to 'trash all the judicial renderings which convicted, convicting on the basis of a judge substituting himself as a supra-expert on these matters'; the only function of any appeal court is to hear the points of law being appealed and to review the judgment that came to that reasoning.

Nencini only had to show that his verdict (to uphold the findings of Massei as legally correct and a decision within the confines of a 'reasonable' one) was also 'reasonable' and within the reasonable scope, even if another court might have decided differently.

Marasca, fronted by two judges who had been appointed judges by virtue of their political office, had to twist and turn to accommodate Bongiorno, and it was telling they announced á la Hellmann, 'anything is possible' or something similar, foreshadowing they had already come to a verdict before the hearing and all they had to do now was to somehow shoe horn some reasoning for it. Enter, two and half days of submissions for Bongiorno to help them with their cut and paste out of a 306 page appeal,many of the points of law therein, already rejected by Chiefi res judicata.

The only remit Marasca had was to ajudge whether the verdict of Nencini was within the range of a 'reasonable' one, even if they might have found differently. It was defective in giving a verdict on the issue of contamination without sending it back down to be properly tried.

Nencini, as a judge, had the power to prefer the submissions of one expert over another.

As for Stefanoni, she did amplify the LCN to obtain the result that it was Mez' DNA.

"Had to accommodate Bongiorno"!? Where did you pull this factoid from?

The only remit Marasca had was to ajudge whether the verdict of Nencini was within the range of a 'reasonable' one, even if they might have found differently.​

Agreed.

Nencini was not within the realm of reasonable. One of the reasons is that (acc. to Marasca) Nencini had no independent expert-DNA analysis to back up his "hunch". As well, when Nencini quoted Novelli, he was actually buttressing the need for Stefanoni to have had at least a second amplification, yet Nencini convicted anyway.

Wrongly.