Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Sergei Walankov]

It's a shame Dr Gill didn't turn up at the trial to be cross-examined ...

... so I could dismiss him on the grounds that he was a defence witness.

 

[Planigale]

Mez' DNA came from fresh blood, so for Amanda's DNA mixed in in even higher quantity of DNA implies she too was bleeding at the same time, and indeed, we have her blood on the faucet, which she admitted was fresh.

As well as the bra-clasp, there was incriminating DNA on the knife. There was the ladies size 37 shoeprint in blood, with narrow ladies heel, three long fair hairs (definitely not Rudy's) , one gripped in Mez' hand, one 'downstairs', as it were, and one long strand across the top of Mez' bag, from whence probably the credit cards and second phone were removed. Only one of the three perps knew Mez had two phones to steal.

There is also the issue of bits of paper scattered over the duvet, in accordance with the bits scattered in Filomena's room, some of which had Amanda's footprints on. The paper was found on top of the duvet, so we can infer the 'burglary' happened after the murder, for sure.

A shard of glass from Filomena's room was found nearby the body, so as we know the burglary happened after the murder, and that Rudy, from his shoeprints left immediately towards the front door, then the person who left the shard was the person in Filomena's room performing the burglary.

Surprise surprise, one of the mixed DNA blood spots in Filomena's room (Mez' blood) was Amanda's. Mez' blood was trailed into the room, police believe, by Amanda, because of the mixed DNA.

Your claim that no DNA found of Amanda in Mez' room (even though she lived there and must have frequented it on occasion) proves she is innocent, must prove Rudy is innocent of the burglary as none of his DNA was found in Filomena's room.

You note the disparity in your logic, don't you? All DNA pointing to your heroes is 'contaminated' or 'planted by Stefanoni', yet that of Rudy is an absolute proof he is the sole perp.

Do at least try to aim for internal consistency in your theories.

This is not true. Even Steffanoni said that the source of the DNA could not be known. As has repeatedly been pointed out and you resist examining.

1) The source of the DNA cannot be known.
2) The time of deposition of the DNA cannot be known. It may have been before, after, or simultaneous with the blood it cannot be known.
3) Since such large areas were swiped by Steffanoni, it is impossible to know if the DNA was co-located with the blood stain, or if it was located elsewhere in the bidet / basin.

The concept of a 'mix' has led you into error. The mix was in the DNA extract from the swab, one cannot know if there was a mix of DNA in the basin / bidet, or if there were two deposits of DNA, separate in time and place of deposition.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's a shame Dr Gill didn't turn up at the trial to be cross-examined.

Vixen,
Didn't the court at that stage, who had full access to all expert witnesses including the court appointed independent ones Conti and Vecchiotti, decide that Stefanoni's work was flawed and declared Amanda and Raf innocent?

Why yes... yes it did.

So would it be accurate to say the only expert that has "supported" Stefanoni in any way was a paid prosecution expert for Mignini?

And, while we are on it, can you provide the exact quote with a citation from Novelli where he examined Stefanoni's work and stated her methods were robust and accurate? Because that's what we were looking for. Not a vague second hand endorsement through Nencini that Stefanoni was a super awesome tech that didn't need to follow proper protocols.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is not true. Even Steffanoni said that the source of the DNA could not be known. As has repeatedly been pointed out and you resist examining.

1) The source of the DNA cannot be known.
2) The time of deposition of the DNA cannot be known. It may have been before, after, or simultaneous with the blood it cannot be known.
3) Since such large areas were swiped by Steffanoni, it is impossible to know if the DNA was co-located with the blood stain, or if it was located elsewhere in the bidet / basin.

The concept of a 'mix' has led you into error. The mix was in the DNA extract from the swab, one cannot know if there was a mix of DNA in the basin / bidet, or if there were two deposits of DNA, separate in time and place of deposition.

As it is, we're a long way from "mixed blood" where guilters tried to invent a Knox nosebleed or somehow try to make the neck-hickey into a gaping wound.....

Now All Vixen can manage is an inference, that somehow DNA of the quantity as found in someone's bathroom..... read that again, as found in someone's bathroom can only have been there as a result of bleeding.

In inferring that Vixen abandons the way guilters used to bring up this canard, because even Vixen is not so shameless as to advance the truly daffy; probably because there is no way to imagine Knox bleeding in the bathroom without first bleeding in the murder room if she'd been involved.

Which also goes back to the other canard guilters used to push - that the **whole** cottage is the crimescene. Of course, this was guilter-speak for ignoring the bedroom completely as if saying, "the whole cottage is the crimescene" suddenly makes it logical to forget that the bedroom itself was part of that crimescene.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please don't correct my subjective views and tell me what I think.

No amount of name citing will cancel the fact that the crime was committed and all the evidence points to just three people, rightly convicted, even if we ignore the DNA.

If we ignore the DNA we have to ignore it for Rudy, which means he gets off scot free, too.

Oh, boy. I stated the facts that I've never seen anyone here besides you call Meredith "Mez" (despite your claim) and that you had no familiar connection to her. How is that correcting your subjective views or telling you what to think?

Your "fact" is not a fact. It is your opinion not backed up by the evidence or the ISC.

If we ignore the DNA for Rudy, he still would be convicted; bloody shoeprints, bloody palm print under her body, fleeing the country, lying about meeting her at the nightclub and making an assignation with her, etc.

Give me one reasonable explanation as to why his DNA would innocently be on her purse.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Amanda's hair was dyed and the hair found in Meredith's room was not dyed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, boy. I stated the facts that I've never seen anyone here besides you call Meredith "Mez" (despite your claim) and that you had no familiar connection to her. How is that correcting your subjective views or telling you what to think?

Your "fact" is not a fact. It is your opinion not backed up by the evidence or the ISC.

If we ignore the DNA for Rudy, he still would be convicted; bloody shoeprints, bloody palm print under her body, fleeing the country, lying about meeting her at the nightclub and making an assignation with her, etc.

Give me one reasonable explanation as to why his DNA would innocently be on her purse.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Amanda's hair was dyed and the hair found in Meredith's room was not dyed.

Aside from not knowing what "name citing" refers to.... except to say that Vixen does have a habit of NOT name-citing her sources.....

This business of the thread about who has the right to use the term of familiarity, "Mez" - which I find offensive to be used by anyone other than family or close friends where the endearment is obvious....

Vixen has just shown how she simply cannot follow a thread. This is either willful or because of some limited capacity of comprehension.

Why do facts matter, when all you really want to do is show strangers on an obscure website like this one that you care so much? So much so that you steal the term of endearment most properly reserved for family and close friends.

How nutty is that?​

I simply filched the terminology of the people here. People who hate the idea of any justice for Mez, yet they sarcastically call her by what you call 'a term of endearment'.​

No you didn't. Who else here calls Meredith, "Mez"?

Odd. I've never seen anyone here, at least as long as I've been here, ever called Meredith anything but Meredith. You are the only one who calls her Mez. She wasn't your family member, friend, or even acquaintance.​

Please don't correct my subjective views and tell me what I think.​

What on earth does "what you think" and your "subjective views" have to do with pointing out to you that you are, in fact, the only one here who uses the term, "Mez"?

Oh, boy. I stated the facts that I've never seen anyone here besides you call Meredith "Mez" (despite your claim) and that you had no familiar connection to her. How is that correcting your subjective views or telling you what to think?​

Maybe we can return to something where you should be in a position to "name-cite".

Cite one name of a forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni. Better still, cite one forensic-DNA expert who disagrees with either of Conti-Vecchiotti or Dr. Peter Gill in their assessment of Stefanoni.

As mentioned above, we're sure you can "name-cite" and link to something that Prof. Novelli has written to refute Gill or Vecchiotti. Wait!? You can't!?

 

[Methos]

[...]
Now, isn't that a lame excuse? Mr van der Leek's reasons to "bring out the book ASAP" aside, the mistakes not corrected make the books look senseless, stupid and like an attempt to just cash in on a notorious case.

It could be you downloaded an early version of the book. Problem with Kindle is that once you have one edition you can't buy it again. I suggest you simply delete the one you have and ask amazon to send you the up to date version.

Yes, I bought the books shortly after they came out.
The problem is that minor corrections on the obvious mistakes won't make the books much better, because they'll still look like an attempt on making a quick buck on a notorious case and a try to turn the court of public opinion against Miss Knox. (Mr. van der Leek made a disturbing comment on TJMK in this regard...)
Can you spot the mistakes in the following two quotes from "Under Suspicion"?

Amanda Knox served less than 4 years, barely 0.14% of the 26 year sentence she could have, would have [or should have?] received had her conviction stuck. Is that justice? If Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, then who are Rudy Guede’s two other accomplices, and where
are they?

This narrative follows the storms and deceptions Italy’s prosecutors had to deal with between the early hours of November 6 2007 [the day Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were arrested] and October 29 2009 [the day Rudy Guede was sentenced for Meredith’s murder, and Knox and Sollecito were
formally charged of their crimes].

Without the mathematical error the first quote would fail to be as inflammatory as intended in this feigned outrage about the supposed injustice.

The second quote shows - just again - that Mr van der Leek and everyone else who had a hand in the writing and editing of this book have no idea (and/or no interest in) what they are writing about.

Prof Novelli might be one of Italy's leading geneticists, but if we apply your reasoning about the defense's experts, the same has to go for the experts for the prosecution: they were "paid shills".

But you might want to re-read what Prof. Novelli actually said:

The first statement was that you'll have to trust in the skills of the operator (Stefanoni). I'd subscribe to that if there wasn't evidence, that Dottoressa Stefanoni has lied to the court about the amount of DNA found in trace 36b and that documents for the court gave the wrong machine used for quantifying that sample (incompetence or deliberate falsifying are the options here)...

Prof Novelli's second statement was that "every DNA result taken since 1986" would have been in question if Dottoressa Stefanoni's results wouldn't have been accepted.
Pure nonsense, if you ask me, I guess there are forensic scientists in Italy who don't lie and who don't falsify documents for the court. ...

What Prof Novelli says is true.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Prof Novelli doesn't make sense, he's arguing that one would have to throw the whole basket of apples away, just because one found one rotten apple in it. And it's clear that any "trust" in dotoressa Stefanoni's "skills as an operator" is misplaced given the lies in court and the "mistakes" in her documents...

 

[Methos]

[...]
This claim of the phone outline on the floor in blood is the first I've seen in the almost 9 years since the murder. Hmmmm..... Citation, please. Or is this your secret source that you cannot/shall not reveal?
[...]

Just for the record:
Free_RudyGuede ‏@Free_RudyGuede 10. Aug.

 

[Bill Williams]

What Prof Novelli says is true.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Prof Novelli doesn't make sense, he's arguing that one would have to throw the whole basket of apples away, just because one found one rotten apple in it. And it's clear that any "trust" in dotoressa Stefanoni's "skills as an operator" is misplaced given the lies in court and the "mistakes" in her documents...

I tend to agree with Vixen here. The quote we're discussing and perhaps the only one currently available is not directly from Novelli.

It is the way Nencini incorporates Prof Novelli's testimony in front of another court, into Nencini's decision/verdict.

Nencini simplifies it into:

1) Novelli agreed that multiple amplifications are required by protocol.
2) Novelli agrees that Stefanoni did not follow protocol
3) Novelli said he'd seen the PDFs, and that he'd got them simply by asking
4) Novelli said that operator experience can sometimes compensate for the lack of multiple amplification (although Nencini doesn't tell us if Novelli thought this got Stefanoni off the hook)
5) That the main reason to support Stefanoni would be if the court didn't, then all forensic-DNA decisions made by the courts since the mid-1980s were possibly in dispute.​

That's it. That's the sum total of what we know about Prof Novelli, but as Judge Nencini summarized him.

Nencini went even further to chastize Vecchiotti for not asking for the raw data files, the ones Novelli (it's claimed) got just for the asking.

It's at this point suspicion should be pointed Nencini's way for the way he spun all this. The defence asked many times for the raw data, the Hellmann court ordered the raw data to be turned over and then failed to sanction Stefanoni/the prosecution for defying the court.

And if by the time Conti-Vecchiotti needed the raw data file they were not in the trial-record to begin with.... well, you see the problem.

All Vixen claims is, "What Novelli said was true." That statement in isolation, and taking Nencini's view of things out, is perhaps true.

Trivia question - how many times is Prof. Novelli mentioned in the 450+ page Massei report?

 

[Numbers]

This excerpt from Professor Gill's article briefly discusses the scope of the miscarriage of justice in this case. While I believe he is correct in each aspect he brings forth, he fails to mention some of the violations of the rights of the defendants, such as the failure of the prosecution to provide the electronic raw data files of all DNA profiles and all positive and negative controls, or to test, or reveal test results from, various relevant materials, such as the putative semen stain - bearing the presumed murderer's shoe print - on the pillow that was found under Meredith Kercher.

Source: http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

...[H]ow many different ‘miscarriages of justice’ occurred in this case and how/why did they occur?

This question was motivated by an anonymous referee to this paper who asks “How many miscarriages of justice were there” and “could they have been averted?”

This case was unusual in that there was extraordinary worldwide publicity and scrutiny and it has been suggested that the prosecution machine was under pressure to produce results, and this in part led to the development of implausible propositions.

A miscarriage of justice relates solely to the event of the wrongful conviction an individual (there were two individuals hence the plural is used). However, the causes are typically propagated by multiple errors that are committed by all of the actors participating in the criminal justice system [2] —police, scientists, lawyers, judges. Examples of each are provided below:

(1) The Bleach cleaning hypothesis was propagated by the police—see news report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569485/Meredith-suspects-DNA-found-on-knife.html. Then the prosecution presented that theory at trial, eliciting testimony from one of the police officers that he sensed a strong smell of bleach while he was collecting evidence at Sollecito’s apartment and that the knife looked very clean. As far as we can tell, there was no evidence presented from the scientific experts on this topic.

(2) Testimony from scientific experts was misleading in at least one way. For example, the luminol evidence was reported as “presumably containing hematic substances,” despite the fact that confirmatory tests for blood came back negative. It was also testified that there was no reason to think the bra clasp had been compromised when it was dropped to the floor during the police investigation. In addition, the Conti-Vecchiotti report described the lab report as lacking in important details and containing arbitrary theories that could not be scientifically determined.

(3) It’s hard to say how the judges on each panel dealt with and deliberated on the case—that sort of information has not been reported, as far as we know. However, it is safe to say that there is ample evidence that judges underappreciated the defense’s logical arguments. For example, Judge Massei accepted the prosecution’s theory that Knox and Sollecito selectively cleaned the apartment of their DNA after Meredith was murdered.

(4) Could this injustice have been averted? Bad practices in evidence collection and examination certainly played a major role. If the crime scene, or collected items are compromised, nothing can be done to retrieve the situation. There is only one chance to do things properly—we cannot go back in time. DNA evidence is given great weight at trial and the evidence can so easily be compromised.

(5) However, the greatest responsibility to averting miscarriages of justice must reside with the judge, who is the ‘gatekeeper’, he must be completely impartial, and should at once recognize logical flaws in arguments, always erring on the side of caution. I therefore finish by repeating the poignant comment from the Marasca-Bruno motivation who issued the following guidance (section 9.2 above): “Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal…… even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.”

 

[Methos]

I tend to agree with Vixen here. The quote we're discussing and perhaps the only one currently available is not directly from Novelli.

It is the way Nencini incorporates Prof Novelli's testimony in front of another court, into Nencini's decision/verdict.

Nencini simplifies it into:

1) Novelli agreed that multiple amplifications are required by protocol.
2) Novelli agrees that Stefanoni did not follow protocol
3) Novelli said he'd seen the PDFs, and that he'd got them simply by asking
4) Novelli said that operator experience can sometimes compensate for the lack of multiple amplification (although Nencini doesn't tell us if Novelli thought this got Stefanoni off the hook)
5) That the main reason to support Stefanoni would be if the court didn't, then all forensic-DNA decisions made by the courts since the mid-1980s were possibly in dispute.​

That's it. That's the sum total of what we know about Prof Novelli, but as Judge Nencini summarized him.

Nencini went even further to chastize Vecchiotti for not asking for the raw data files, the ones Novelli (it's claimed) got just for the asking.

It's at this point suspicion should be pointed Nencini's way for the way he spun all this. The defence asked many times for the raw data, the Hellmann court ordered the raw data to be turned over and then failed to sanction Stefanoni/the prosecution for defying the court.

And if by the time Conti-Vecchiotti needed the raw data file they were not in the trial-record to begin with.... well, you see the problem.

All Vixen claims is, "What Novelli said was true." That statement in isolation, and taking Nencini's view of things out, is perhaps true.

Trivia question - how many times is Prof. Novelli mentioned in the 450+ page Massei report?

Since Prof Novelli only testyfied on September 6th, 2011, I think it's save to say that he isn't mentioned in judge Massei's (431 pages) report...

 

[Bill Williams]

Since Prof Novelli only testyfied on September 6th, 2011, I think it's save to say that he isn't mentioned in judge Massei's (431 pages) report...

Exactly.

Novelli had no impact on the Hellmann court. Then all of a sudden more than 2 years later cites him as having something to do with unpiling the mess.

Meaning - the problem was not Novelli per se, but Nencini trying to shoe horn a guilty verdict out of what he had in front of him.

Which required the Marasca court to finally stop.

 

[Numbers]

Since Prof Novelli only testyfied on September 6th, 2011, I think it's save to say that he isn't mentioned in judge Massei's (431 pages) report...

The section with Novelli's testimony begins on page 51 of the September 6, 2011 transcript.

The Massei court motivation report was dated December 4-5, 2009.

Just to make this more clear, Novelli did not testify before the Massei court.

 

[Stacyhs]

Just for the record:
Free_RudyGuede ‏@Free_RudyGuede 10. Aug.

LOL! You've got to be kidding! No wonder I've never heard of these outlines on the floor before; they don't exist.

 

[Numbers]

Here is the way the Hellmann court MR described Stefanoni's perjury - or memory lapse - relating to the quantification of the alleged DNA on the blade and the influence of the failure to quantify the alleged DNA on the blade (it was an amount "too low" to quantify, and thus may have been ZERO) and the statements of Novelli:

On the other hand, Dr. Stefanoni (Scientific Police), apparently due to an understandable memory lapse, stated before the GUP that she quantified the extract using Real Time PCR (a system which allows the extract to be precisely quantified before it is amplified), and then clarified that she had not used Real Time for this extract, but the Quibit Fluorimeter, which gave the result “not interpretable”. However, Dr. Stefanoni nonetheless considered it suitable for continuing to the subsequent stages, at the end of which she identified Meredith Kercher’s DNA in the graph.
Now, according to the Expert Panel, the most likely outcome if the sample which was amplified had been correctly quantified using the Real Time PCR method, is that it would have been classified LCN/Low Copy Number (due to the fact that the electrophoresis graph shows peaks below the 50 RFU threshold and allele imbalance (Hb=φa/φb >0.60) indicative of a Low Copy Number sample). That is to say: an amount not able to give reliable results if treated in the same way as an extract of greater quantity, and, therefore, only able to be processed further if particular measures [accorgimenti] are taken, as advised by the authors who have dealt with the problems associated with LCN samples. However, these measures do not appear to have been employed, or correctly employed, by the Scientific Police.

These measures concern all phases of the procedure, from evidence collection to quantification, amplification and interpretation of the graph resulting from the electrophoresis. They are intended to reduce the contamination risk in each phase to the minimum possible (a risk which understandably increases as the amount of DNA to be examined decreases) as well as [reducing] the occurrence of stochastic phenomena and, ultimately, errors in the interpretation of the profile.

Amongst these measures, one which is particularly important in ensuring a reliable result is replicate analysis: ....

Now, that the extract obtained by the Scientific Police was an LCN [sample] is not in doubt: both because the limits which define this category are objective reference parameters for the scientific community as a whole, as also stated by the defence consultants (who, aside from their role in the present proceedings, are all scholars and professionals of established reputation, who certainly cannot be induced by the role they have taken on to affirm the existence of scientifically erroneous principles and concepts); and because this was also substantially confirmed by the consultants of the civil parties and Dr. Stefanoni herself, as well as Prof. Novelli, the Public Minister’s consultant (again, certainly none of these could be induced by their role [in the present proceedings] to make statements contradicting established principles within the scientific community). But it is equally certain that at least one of the most important measures (aside from the problems associated with the evidence collection and the lack of traceability of all stages of the analytical procedure) was not implemented: the sample was not divided into at least two parts [aliquote], subjecting each to the procedure, in order to then record the presence or otherwise of the same alleles in the two replicated samples [replicati].
....

Now, Prof. Novelli and then the Public Minister himself claimed that it is not enough to say that the result stems from contamination: the burden is on those claiming contamination to prove its origin.
However, this argument cannot be accepted, because it would ultimately mean treating the possibility of contamination on a legal level as an objection of a civil nature.

That is, one cannot say: I have proven that the genetic profile is yours; now you prove that the DNA was left on the item not by direct contact, but by contamination. No, it cannot work like this.

In the context of criminal proceedings – as is well known – it is incumbent upon the Public Minister who sustains an accusation in court [sostiene l’accusa in giudizio] (the terminology is used in article 125 of the Regulations for Implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to prove the existence of all the elements upon which the accusation is based. Therefore, when one of the elements has a scientific component, the outcome of an analytical procedure, the burden is also that of proving the result was obtained using a procedure which guarantees the integrity of the item from the moment of collection to the moment of analysis.
Above all, in identifying a genetic profile on an item, it is important that the whole procedure is carried out in full observance of the rules set out by the Scientific Community. These are certainly not legal rules (we are not talking here of a State law, as Dr. Stefanoni pointed out) but instead guarantee the reliability of the result; and given that the essential precautions to prevent possible contamination are amongst these rules, it is understandable that respect for them cannot be assumed, but must be proven by those using that result to sustain their accusation. Therefore, once there is no proof that the precautions which guarantee the result is not due to contamination were respected, it is by no means necessary to also prove the specific source of the contamination.....

Prof. Novelli argued that systems currently exist able to analyse such low quantities, albeit still on the cutting edge [in uno stato di avanguardia]. This Court holds, however, that it is precisely the fact they are still cutting-edge, practically in an experimental phase, which precludes us from basing a belief in guilt on the results obtained with the application of such systems: the Judge can do no else but base his or her opinions on the technical systems and established scientific knowledge from a particular time period – the period in which s/he is called to judge – and not on others still in an experimental phase. This, once again, to reach a decision of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is, therefore, precisely this greater guarantee of a reliable result, due to the rules developed for this purpose by the Scientific Community having been respected, which leads this Court to accept the conclusions of the Expert Panel, consistent with the aforementioned rules.

It should again be observed that, since the unreliability of the result primarily renders the circumstantial evidence which should be represented by that result materially non-existent, rather than equivocal in its significance (in fact, it is difficult to understand how one can be scientific by halves: the result is scientifically accurate or it is not, in a true sense, a result) any attempt to clarify its significance by placing it in the context of other results from the proceedings should be resisted, once its unreliability has been determined. Nonetheless, if the aforementioned result is placed in the context of other results from the present proceedings, its unreliability remains definitively proven.....

Source: https://hellmannreport.wordpress.co...cision/expert-review-of-exhibits-36-and-165b/

 

[Vixen]

More than Two major flaws in your claims:

On the gloves thing: have you ever tried to wipe your a... wearing gloves (It's save to say that that action took place before Guede attacked and killed Meredith Kercher).

If you want to play a word game here, I think that leaving one's DNA inside another one's genitals without their consent could be called "rape", even if the legal terms and definitions are different.

Let's assume just for a minute that Guede was really concerned about protection on his imagined date (a story you seem to believe given your comments), Meredith Kercher's "friends" reported that she was quite upset about the contents of a transparent bag her roommate had in the shared bathroom... That alone should have sunk Guede's "date" story...

Again, no "couple of knives", just one, discarded and never searched for...

You might want to explain, why the not involvement of a "lightweight glass-breaking hammer" is important?


If you'd taken a closer look at the court records you'd know the reason for the highlighted part: The inside of the bag was never tested for DNA...

Is the source for the "outline in blood" of "One of the phones" also the one for the "the body was staged to resemble the picture in the manga" theory?

As you know, unlike the kids, Rudy's story has remained pretty consistent (if obviously painting himself in a good light). I give Rudy a 5% chance that it may have happened as he said, re the sex, given how persistent Italian men are (and Rudy is largely culturally Italian) they think a lady just needs persuading. Considering the PIP theory is that Rudy was a sole burglar who was interrupted by Mez, whereupon he savagely raped and killed her, it is surprising there is none of his semen to be found. I don't know if forensics are able to tell if a woman is raped by someone wearing a condom, but the act of putting on a condom, doesn't indicate an aggressive rapist who could not care less if he gives his victim an STI or HIV.

Rudy did not have a criminal record so we cannot assume he was worried about being identified, although he may have been aware his DNA was on his migrant-status data base.

Even then it doesn't sound like someone overcome by a violent urge to rape.

The stain on the pillow is not necessarily semen at all, from its flourescent quality, it is almost certainly vaseline.

 

[Annella]

LOL! You've got to be kidding! No wonder I've never heard of these outlines on the floor before; they don't exist.

The particular tweeter Methos referenced also has discovered where TWO knives rested on the floor amidst the blood, he actually shows where the screw on one of the knives left a mark! I wonder if he has enlightened the proper authorities about these discoveries.

While I am here, has anybody heard how the 'armchair detective' Gabriele Belcastro got on presenting his case re the corrupt Court of Cassation to the Florence Court? There has been nary a word from him for weeks!

 

[Vixen]

Here is the way the Hellmann court MR described Stefanoni's perjury - or memory lapse - relating to the quantification of the alleged DNA on the blade and the influence of the failure to quantify the alleged DNA on the blade (it was an amount "too low" to quantify, and thus may have been ZERO) and the statements of Novelli:



Source: https://hellmannreport.wordpress.co...cision/expert-review-of-exhibits-36-and-165b/

...you do know Hellmann was expunged...?

 

[Vixen]

Just for the record:
Free_RudyGuede ‏@Free_RudyGuede 10. Aug.

Yes, I did see his tweet.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy did not have a criminal record so we cannot assume he was worried about being identified, although he may have been aware his DNA was on his migrant-status data base.

Even then it doesn't sound like someone overcome by a violent urge to rape.

The stain on the pillow is not necessarily semen at all, from its flourescent quality, it is almost certainly vaseline.

I have never understood Rudy-apologists.

Even Judge Massei knew what Rudy was capable of - saying that Rudy needed no incentive from anyone to begin the attack on Meredith.

Now there is Vixen vouching for what a nice guy he is.