Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Samson]

From the transcript of the conversation between Dassey and his mother:

"M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
B. Ya
M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.
B. Yes, Well you now know I did it.
M. Huh
B. You know he always touched us and that.
M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that."

It is not clear what "it" refers to. He could have been referring to having had (unwanted) sexual contact with Avery which is what the conversation was about. He never told his mother that he had participated in the murder. In fact, what he does tell her is that he helped clean up some reddish-black "stuff" in the garage but no mention is made of a body even being there at the time:

"Brendan: Yeah. So if I was in the garage cleaning up that stuff on the floor, how much time will I get though for that?
Mum: What was it?"


Brendan: I don't know. It was this reddish-black stuff.

Redacting everything but what Brendan actually says in his various conversations with mom and the police, very little is left. Reddish black stuff is highly detailed in that context, and is no doubt true.
My favourite is when he tells mom he was guessing answers for the police, and horrified she says, but this was serious stuff Brendan, and he says

"But I guess when I'm doing my homework".

Jessie Miskelly and Teina Pora succumbed to interviews in almost identical fashion. These kids were all low IQ 17 year olds, and it is telling that Amanda, an intelligent 20 year old, finds herself guessing answers too, albeit in a language in which she is a beginner.
She did well with 4 years though, Pora did 22, Miskelly 17, and Brendan is still counting at 10.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do genuinely think that the study of the public debate (in the media and in online communities) about this case is worthy of its place in this thread: this is one of the first criminal cases in history where social media and online forums have fed upon - and informed - the media reporting of the case, and may well have had some form of impact upon the case itself.

On the twin (and closely-related) issues of a) the deliberately intense personalisation of the victim (to the point of super-humanisation and super-over-familiarisation) and b) the vilification of certain alleged perpetrators and those who speak in favour of them, I think many (most?) psychiatrists would perhaps argue that the following is taking place: it's a matter of individuals (and groups within which they coalesce and self-reinforce) constructing a scenario of the helpless victim fighting unfair forces beyond his/her control*, and employing that construction as a proxy for themselves. I suspect that many such individuals have believed themselves to have been personally damaged by "overwhelming forces beyond their control" in their own lives (e.g. sackings from jobs, failings in their personal lives, or direct/indirect victimhood of crime); they are vicariously identifying with the ultimate victim - the murder victim - to project their own issues. And in order to do so, the murder victim has to be helpless in the face of overwhelming force. Also, it appears a very common factor that the murder victims chosen for such projection are people with unfulfilled promise and nascent beauty (Meredith Kercher and Madeleine McCann fall perfectly into this role, of course - in Kercher's case, this would also explain why it's necessary to believe that Kercher was a brilliant, super-popular young woman of the highest possible moral standards, who would undoubtedly have gone on to achieve truly great things in life).

On the flip-side, many (most) psychiatrists might also postulate that the necessary parallel is to believe the (alleged) perpetrator(s) to be intensely evil people who genuinely delighted in the suffering of their victim. Any suggestion that the (alleged) perpetrators might be anything less is to introduce unwanted shades of grey, and to lessen the relief/catharsis being provided by the overall projection mechanism. After all, these individuals believe the architects of their own misfortune/downfall to be nefarious and in delight at the pain they've caused them, so the vilification of the (alleged) murderers in the projection exercise is simply an amplification of that (to match with the amplification of the victim being a murder victim).

Likewise, anyone speaking in favour of the (alleged) murderer(s) is seen, by extension, to be part of the "forces of evil" (hence the language along the lines of "your little darlings" and "murderer groupies"). And of course once the projection construction has taken place - in this particular instance, it's beautiful, popular Kercher (for which read: "me") being brutally held down, tortured and murdered by an evil gang featuring a heinous, conniving Knox, a weak but disturbed and violence-obsessed Sollecito, and a somewhat peripheral Guede (for which, collectively, read: "those who have damaged or destroyed me personally") - it cannot be challenged for fear of damaging the projection itself. Those who do challenge it must be attacked for being "on the side of the destroyers" and "against the honest, decent individual".

As I've stated many, many times before, I'm genuinely fascinated by the sociological and psychological/psychiatric aspects to the media coverage and online debates about this case. I think these aspect are absolutely worthy of study, and absolutely worthy of discussion/debate here. As I said above, I believe this is the case not least because it's a fascinating and illuminating phenomenon which is still in its relative infancy and will probably become more and more prevalent, but also because it might well have had some form of material impact on the fiascos that went on in various Italian courtrooms, especially between 2009 and 2013.


* In this particular case, I believe this factor underpins the apparent need for the pro-guilt narrative to believe that Kercher was attacked by a group of evil individuals, in the face of whom she never had a chance to fight back. And why the narrative also apparently needs to believe that Kercher was taunted and tortured while being restrained and held down. It's also (IMO) why it's difficult - to the point of impossible - for the pro-guilt narrative to accept the entirely reasonable proposition that Kercher was forced into compliant submission by just one person (Guede) acting alone. There needs to be no grey area in the narrative: Kercher has to have been outnumbered and overwhelmed, such that she never had a chance. It's also interesting how often the matter of Kercher's karate lessons come up in the pro-guilt narrative (though in reality, by all accounts, she went to some lessons but wasn't really much good at it....). The construction is this: Kercher would have been well-equipped and well-able to defend herself had she been in a "fair fight" (perhaps against just Knox, for example), but instead she was defeated in an "unfair fight".

 

[Samson]

Meanwhile Amanda is back in the news cycle.

Amanda Knox, Trump "has paid the lawyers'
The new president of the United States has contributed to the acquittal of his countryman, but it would be 'bitter' for non Thanksgiving

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox-trump-ha-pagato-i-legali/

After reading her withering criticism on her blog of The Donald before he was elected, I wonder if she has regrets.

 

[Samson]

I do genuinely think that the study of the public debate (in the media and in online communities) about this case is worthy of its place in this thread: this is one of the first criminal cases in history where social media and online forums have fed upon - and informed - the media reporting of the case, and may well have had some form of impact upon the case itself.

On the twin (and closely-related) issues of a) the deliberately intense personalisation of the victim (to the point of super-humanisation and super-over-familiarisation) and b) the vilification of certain alleged perpetrators and those who speak in favour of them, I think many (most?) psychiatrists would perhaps argue that the following is taking place: it's a matter of individuals (and groups within which they coalesce and self-reinforce) constructing a scenario of the helpless victim fighting unfair forces beyond his/her control*, and employing that construction as a proxy for themselves. I suspect that many such individuals have believed themselves to have been personally damaged by "forces beyond their control" in their own lives (e.g. sackings from jobs, failings in their personal lives, or direct/indirect victimhood of crime); they are vicariously identifying with the ultimate victim - the murder victim - to project their own issues. And in order to do so, the murder victim has to be helpless in the face of overwhelming force. Also, it appears a very common factor that the murder victims chosen for such projection are people with unfulfilled promise and nascent beauty (Meredith Kercher and Madeleine McCann fall perfectly into this role, of course - in Kercher's case, this would also explain why it's necessary to believe that Kercher was a brilliant, super-popular young woman of the highest possible moral standards, who would undoubtedly have gone on to achieve truly great things in life).

On the flip-side, many (most) psychiatrists might also postulate that the necessary parallel is to believe the (alleged) perpetrator(s) to be intensely evil people who genuinely delighted in the suffering of their victim. Any suggestion that the (alleged) perpetrators might be anything less is to introduce unwanted shades of grey, and to lessen the relief/catharsis being provided by the overall projection mechanism. After all, these individuals believe the architects of their own misfortune/downfall to be nefarious and in delight at the pain they've caused them, so the vilification of the (alleged) murderers in the projection exercise is simply an amplification of that (to match with the amplification of the victim being a murder victim).

Likewise, anyone speaking in favour of the (alleged) murderer(s) is seen, by extension, to be part of the "forces of evil" (hence the language along the lines of "your little darlings"). And of course once the projection construction has taken place - in this particular instance, it's beautiful, popular Kercher (for which read: "me") being brutally held down, tortured and murdered by an evil gang featuring a heinous, conniving Knox, a weak but disturbed and violence-obsessed Sollecito, and a somewhat peripheral Guede (for which, collectively, read: "those who have damaged or destroyed me personally") - it cannot be challenged for fear of damaging the projection itself. Those who do challenge it must be attacked for being "on the side of the destroyers" and "against the honest, decent individual".

As I've stated many, many times before, I'm genuinely fascinated by the sociological and psychological/psychiatric aspects to the media coverage and online debates about this case. I think these aspect are absolutely worthy of study, and absolutely worthy of discussion/debate here. As I said above, I believe this is the case not least because it's a fascinating and illuminating phenomenon which is still in its relative infancy and will probably become more and more prevalent, but also because it might well have had some form of material impact on the fiascos that went on in various Italian courtrooms, especially between 2009 and 2013.

I too am fascinated, and it has certainly driven me to research local cases, where the facts are at total variance with the court findings and public opinion.
But there is no intelligent internet debate to be had in a small country, I don't know why. Suffice it to say the most read blog in New Zealand has wild supporters for the statement

Paulus Gnome

The jar is never empty to those who put nothing in.

David Bain killed his family and continues to want to be paid for doing so.
Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1 REPLY REPORTNOVEMBER 19, 2016 8:19AM""

This guy got to the privy council, his imprisonment was declared a miscarriage of justice, and he was factually and totally correctly acquitted at a new trial.

The Who killed Meredith Kercher case was powered in my opinion by the trans Atlantic and British/Italian furore, and the limitless permutations of protagonists and media. This is what gave it such huge traction. There is much hope for others, certainly the Avery/Dassey reversals are being internet driven, and the accelerating rate of exonerations is probably occurring with far greater case knowledge being pooled.

Fascinating indeed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Redacting everything but what Brendan actually says in his various conversations with mom and the police, very little is left. Reddish black stuff is highly detailed in that context, and is no doubt true.
My favourite is when he tells mom he was guessing answers for the police, and horrified she says, but this was serious stuff Brendan, and he says

"But I guess when I'm doing my homework".

Jessie Miskelly and Teina Pora succumbed to interviews in almost identical fashion. These kids were all low IQ 17 year olds, and it is telling that Amanda, an intelligent 20 year old, finds herself guessing answers too, albeit in a language in which she is a beginner.
She did well with 4 years though, Pora did 22, Miskelly 17, and Brendan is still counting at 10.

I think people need to start to realise that people with any level of lowered comprehension, intelligence or mental faculties can be coerced into false confessions. And that's especially true of younger people who are still (unless they are already repeat offenders with extensive experience with authority figures in law and order) in a psychological position of deference to people such as police officers and judicial figures.

Everyone should carefully look at this example:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1

I've mentioned this case before (I linked to the actual video of the interrogation before, but it will be fairly easy to find probably). The subject - Roberto Rocha - was coerced into making a false confession. The methods used by the police were stunningly similar to those used on Knox: "we know what happened and we already have the evidence to prove it"; repeated interruptions and negations of the suspect's denials; "tell us the truth or you'll be in huge trouble"; high levels of aggression, anger and intimidation from the interrogators; instructions from the interrogators that things would go well for the suspect if he "told the truth"; consistent leading and coaching of the suspect by interrogators in respect of details of the crime (once the false confession begins). And eventually Rocha "buckled and told them what they already knew to be the truth" (copyright: Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice).

The other stunning similarity comes from the extreme difficulty Rocha (and his lawyer and family) had in convincing the authorities that he had actually been in Brazil on the day of the murder (which was committed in Georgia, USA). As the article linked above points out:

The Rev. Joao Rocha, Roberto's father, provided all kinds of documentation to prove that: stamped passports, plane tickets, pictures, witnesses from the trip and even an X-ray of Roberto's mouth from a visit to a Brazilian dentist on July 2, 2002 -- the day of the murder.

"It was the best alibi that I could ever imagine a person having," Steel said.

But once Rocha confessed, police were slow to accept any other explanation. Hunton said that the proof Rocha was out of the country was "equivocal."

It took a great deal of time and effort - and the belated realisation by the senior investigating officer that there were glaring contradictions, errors and improprieties in the videotape* of the interrogation - for police to drop the charges. Rocha apparently had a low mental age. Knox had been suffering significant sleep depravation at the time of her infamous 5th/6th November interrogation. Both are listed in the researched linked below as proven, tested factors underpinning false confessions:

http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/False Confession Research .htm

The matter of the blinkered refusal of the authorities to accept any evidence which disproves a "confession" of course chimes very strongly with issues in the Knox/Sollecito trial. The time of death (which could reasonably be narrowed down by factors such as the stomach contents analysis and the cellphone activity) simply did not fit with Knox or Sollecito being participants. So what did the police and prosecutors do? They just moved back the ToD arbitrarily to a later time which didn't absolve Knox/Sollecito - because they "knew" Knox and Sollecito had been involved and because Knox had "confessed". Likewise, the Kitchen knife from Sollecito's drawer showed a controversial and utterly scientifically-unsound (and more-or-less impossible in context) positive test for Kercher's DNA, and of course that fit nicely with Knox and Sollecito as participants (which the police and PM "knew", and which was supported by Knox's "confession"). But there was the bloody imprint at the crime scene of a totally different knife with an entirely different blade length and width - a knife which was wholly compatible with all the wounds inflicted upon Kercher, and a knife which logic clearly suggested had made ALL those wounds. But the police "knew" Knox and Sollecito had been involved - Sollecito's kitchen knife was handy evidence to support this "truth". Thus they invented the ludicrous scenario of multiple knives being held at Kercher's throat, then plunged into her throat, more-or-less simultaneously while she was being restrained. And so on......

And, lest we forget, the same blinkered refusal to accept evidence disproving a "confession" was on show in respect of Lumumba in this case too: a Swiss university professor found out about Lumumba's arrest from a friend in Italy (Knox's "confession" revolved around her meeting Lumumba on the night of the murder, and taking him to the cottage whereupon he had assaulted and killed Kercher), but he knew (with proof of dates and timings) that he had been talking with Lumumba throughout the time period when the murder could have occurred. The professor flew to Perugia on his own initiative (apparently having been given the cold shoulder when he telephoned the Perugia police), and gave a statement which clearly showed that Lumumba had a watertight alibi and could not therefore have been involved in the murder. But the police and PM already "knew the truth", and Lumumba's involvement was part of that "truth". And of course Knox had "confessed" to exactly that effect. And thus the police and PM initially refused to believe the professor's version of events - accusing him of either being mistaken or lying. It was only when unimpeachable timings records were produced and others came forward to support the professor's account that he was believed. Of course, by that time Guede was firmly in the frame, so it was wholly convenient for the police and PM to concoct the fable that their arrest of Lumumba was entirely down to deliberate and wilful lying and misdirection from Knox, and that their "truth" was still correct and intact - just with a substitution of Guede for Lumumba.


* And Rocha (and we, the wider public) is fortunate indeed that the video of his interrogation was part of the investigative material and was subsequently made public. I also suspect that its very existence - and its viewing by others in the wider criminal justice community - might very well have prompted the chief investigating officer to belatedly "discover" the gross improprieties within the interrogation. Had the video either never been made or never left the police station, the outcome might have been very, very different. Viz the interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on the night of 5th/6th November 2007 in the (new, hi-tech and fully equipped for recording) Perugia police HQ.............................

 

[LondonJohn]

Meanwhile Amanda is back in the news cycle.

Amanda Knox, Trump "has paid the lawyers'
The new president of the United States has contributed to the acquittal of his countryman, but it would be 'bitter' for non Thanksgiving

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox-trump-ha-pagato-i-legali/

After reading her withering criticism on her blog of The Donald before he was elected, I wonder if she has regrets.

It appears, on the face of it, that Knox (and her family) was placed in a rather difficult position here: obviously, Donald Trump was a high-profile public figure, both nationally (within the USA) and internationally, with a fairly high standing and reputation - so his speaking out in favour of Knox was of some help, use and support. And if, as it appears, he contributed to legal costs, then this too would have been extremely welcome (especially since the costs were on an ever-increasing scale, and the Knox family were by then running very low on resources). But the problem came when Trump used his pulpit and his support of Knox to say far more extreme things about the case and about Italy in general.

What would/should any reasonable person in Knox's (and Knox's family's) position have done at this point? On the one hand, Trump's "heart" was in the right place, he was speaking from a position of a certain knowledge and understanding of the case, and he had a certain amount of credibility and exposure within the media (and thus the wider public). It can only have been welcome that Trump was successfully disseminating a message that Knox had been unjustly found guilty and that she ought to be acquitted. And the money, it goes without saying, was very welcome - and I'm sure the Knox family were very grateful. But the extreme additional rhetoric from Trump about Italy was clearly (to any reasonable observer, including Knox and her family), extremely unhelpful to her cause, and could even have been used against her in the judicial process itself. That part of Trump's "support" could prove disastrously unhelpful to Knox (and Sollecito).

So, in the light of that, what could/should Knox (or her family) have done? Should they have publicly disowned Trump? Should they - privately or publicly - have handed his money back? My personal belief - and what I believe I would have done in the same circumstances - is that the Knox family did essentially the right thing: they declined to endorse or acknowledge Trump's extreme comments, and maintained an arm's-length relationship with him from that point onwards. They were also (IMO) correct to keep the money: it was given and received in good faith, and for decent reasons.

(A simplistic analogy might be a friend coming over for Christmas lunch, giving you a very lovely and thoughtful present, then having a few drinks and making some racist remarks in respect of a movie you were watching on TV with your whole family present. Would you give him back the gift he'd given you and tell him to leave and that you never wanted to see him again? Probably not, I'd wager. You'd probably keep the present, make it known to him (in a private one-to-one in the kitchen, and not in front of your whole family) that you disliked his racist remarks and never wanted to hear him repeat them, especially in front of your family, and keep him as a friend - albeit possibly under an altered level of friendship and trust.)

 

[Samson]

I think people need to start to realise that people with any level of lowered comprehension, intelligence or mental faculties can be coerced into false confessions. And that's especially true of younger people who are still (unless they are already repeat offenders with extensive experience with authority figures in law and order) in a psychological position of deference to people such as police officers and judicial figures.

Everyone should carefully look at this example:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1

I've mentioned this case before (I linked to the actual video of the interrogation before, but it will be fairly easy to find probably). The subject - Roberto Rocha - was coerced into making a false confession. The methods used by the police were stunningly similar to those used on Knox: "we know what happened and we already have the evidence to prove it"; repeated interruptions and negations of the suspect's denials; "tell us the truth or you'll be in huge trouble"; high levels of aggression, anger and intimidation from the interrogators; instructions from the interrogators that things would go well for the suspect if he "told the truth"; consistent leading and coaching of the suspect by interrogators in respect of details of the crime (once the false confession begins). And eventually Rocha "buckled and told them what they already knew to be the truth" (copyright: Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice).

The other stunning similarity comes from the extreme difficulty Rocha (and his lawyer and family) had in convincing the authorities that he had actually been in Brazil on the day of the murder (which was committed in Georgia, USA). As the article linked above points out:

The Rev. Joao Rocha, Roberto's father, provided all kinds of documentation to prove that: stamped passports, plane tickets, pictures, witnesses from the trip and even an X-ray of Roberto's mouth from a visit to a Brazilian dentist on July 2, 2002 -- the day of the murder.

"It was the best alibi that I could ever imagine a person having," Steel said.

But once Rocha confessed, police were slow to accept any other explanation. Hunton said that the proof Rocha was out of the country was "equivocal."

It took a great deal of time and effort - and the belated realisation by the senior investigating officer that there were glaring contradictions, errors and improprieties in the videotape* of the interrogation - for police to drop the charges. Rocha apparently had a low mental age. Knox had been suffering significant sleep depravation at the time of her infamous 5th/6th November interrogation. Both are listed in the researched linked below as proven, tested factors underpinning false confessions:

http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/False Confession Research .htm

The matter of the blinkered refusal of the authorities to accept any evidence which disproves a "confession" of course chimes very strongly with issues in the Knox/Sollecito trial. The time of death (which could reasonably be narrowed down by factors such as the stomach contents analysis and the cellphone activity) simply did not fit with Knox or Sollecito being participants. So what did the police and prosecutors do? They just moved back the ToD arbitrarily to a later time which didn't absolve Knox/Sollecito - because they "knew" Knox and Sollecito had been involved and because Knox had "confessed". Likewise, the Kitchen knife from Sollecito's drawer showed a controversial and utterly scientifically-unsound (and more-or-less impossible in context) positive test for Kercher's DNA, and of course that fit nicely with Knox and Sollecito as participants (which the police and PM "knew", and which was supported by Knox's "confession"). But there was the bloody imprint at the crime scene of a totally different knife with an entirely different blade length and width - a knife which was wholly compatible with all the wounds inflicted upon Kercher, and a knife which logic clearly suggested had made ALL those wounds. But the police "knew" Knox and Sollecito had been involved - Sollecito's kitchen knife was handy evidence to support this "truth". Thus they invented the ludicrous scenario of multiple knives being held at Kercher's throat, then plunged into her throat, more-or-less simultaneously while she was being restrained. And so on......

And, lest we forget, the same blinkered refusal to accept evidence disproving a "confession" was on show in respect of Lumumba in this case too: a Swiss university professor found out about Lumumba's arrest from a friend in Italy (Knox's "confession" revolved around her meeting Lumumba on the night of the murder, and taking him to the cottage whereupon he had assaulted and killed Kercher), but he knew (with proof of dates and timings) that he had been talking with Lumumba throughout the time period when the murder could have occurred. The professor flew to Perugia on his own initiative (apparently having been given the cold shoulder when he telephoned the Perugia police), and gave a statement which clearly showed that Lumumba had a watertight alibi and could not therefore have been involved in the murder. But the police and PM already "knew the truth", and Lumumba's involvement was part of that "truth". And of course Knox had "confessed" to exactly that effect. And thus the police and PM initially refused to believe the professor's version of events - accusing him of either being mistaken or lying. It was only when unimpeachable timings records were produced and others came forward to support the professor's account that he was believed. Of course, by that time Guede was firmly in the frame, so it was wholly convenient for the police and PM to concoct the fable that their arrest of Lumumba was entirely down to deliberate and wilful lying and misdirection from Knox, and that their "truth" was still correct and intact - just with a substitution of Guede for Lumumba.


* And Rocha (and we, the wider public) is fortunate indeed that the video of his interrogation was part of the investigative material and was subsequently made public. I also suspect that its very existence - and its viewing by others in the wider criminal justice community - might very well have prompted the chief investigating officer to belatedly "discover" the gross improprieties within the interrogation. Had the video either never been made or never left the police station, the outcome might have been very, very different. Viz the interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on the night of 5th/6th November 2007 in the (new, hi-tech and fully equipped for recording) Perugia police HQ.............................

False confessions often partner close to foolproof alibis. This is not surprising, you can't be in two places at once.
Jessie Miskelley, Most of the Norfolk for example. Miskelley was at a wrestling match, and some of the Norfolk four, at least were at sea, on duty.

A really good case where an alibi was deemed valid by a "maverick" prosecutor was Jack Daniel McCullough who didn't kill Maria Riddulph, he was 40 miles away on snow covered roads, which unfortunately merely serves as an exception proving the rule. He was released after only 4 years.

Ultimately Russ Faria's alibi prevailed, but Leah Askey went right to the wire with her wicked fictions, just lately being exposed for an affair with one of the police.

By some of the above standards, Raffaele and Amanda had technically weak alibis, where the contentious TOD evidence was very good, but could be stretched to afford some sort of opening.

 

[Vixen]

For Planigale:

Here's a Sunday challenge. Point us all to the webpage that sets out the 'international standards' re DNA sampling that you, Hellmann, Vecchiotti and Marasca-Bruno are so fond of referring to.

 

[Bill Williams]

For Planigale:

Here's a Sunday challenge. Point us all to the webpage that sets out the 'international standards' re DNA sampling that you, Hellmann, Vecchiotti and Marasca-Bruno are so fond of referring to.

Perhaps Prof Novelli can help. He's the prosecution friendly expert who told the Hellmann court that Stefanoni didn't follow them.

 

[Planigale]

For Planigale:

Here's a Sunday challenge. Point us all to the webpage that sets out the 'international standards' re DNA sampling that you, Hellmann, Vecchiotti and Marasca-Bruno are so fond of referring to.

Not publicly accessible or lost with time but for instance
http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/f...e_contamantion_prevention_final_-_v2010_0.pdf

http://www.enfsi.eu/documents/best-practice-manuals
Reading how Steffanoni should have examined hair is worthwhile!
http://www.enfsi.eu/documents/forensic-guidelines
The references sections will take you to other documents.

Since steffanoni said she followed international standards then she presumably accepted these existed and as you say Vecchioti pointed out she failed to follow the guideline Steffanoni referenced. See references in Vecchioti Conti report.

 

[Vixen]

Not publicly accessible or lost with time but for instance
http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/f...e_contamantion_prevention_final_-_v2010_0.pdf

http://www.enfsi.eu/documents/best-practice-manuals
Reading how Steffanoni should have examined hair is worthwhile!
http://www.enfsi.eu/documents/forensic-guidelines
The references sections will take you to other documents.

Since steffanoni said she followed international standards then she presumably accepted these existed and as you say Vecchioti pointed out she failed to follow the guideline Steffanoni referenced. See references in Vecchioti Conti report.

Er, hang on. You have cited ENFSI web pages. The Rome laboratories were and are full members of ENFSI and follow all of its guidelines. The 'E' in ENFSI means 'EUROPEAN'.

You, Hellmann, Vechhiotti Marasca claim Rome failed to follow 'international standards', and if you recall, that was the key reason for acquitting the kids.

Try again. Or do you want to declare?

 

[Vixen]

Swept along on a wave of her own lies, we are now entertained by the spectacle of Amanda claiming that Donald Trump’s support for her, after her original conviction, only made it worse for her, because after all, the Italians were riding on anti-American feelings in convicting her and Raff. But not anti-African, as Rudy did do it. That’s different.

Amanda is now claiming, in her fervent support for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton, that she despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five, whom he still refers to as ‘guilty’, despite their exoneration, as contrasted with her, whom he described as ‘completely innocent’. She sees racism in his stance. Oh, the irony of Amanda fingering an innocent black man for Mez’ murder.

Paradoxically, Amanda seems to be saying, "They are innocent and Trump calls them guilty, whereas I am guilty and Trump calls me innocent. All because he’s a racist."

Amanda vocally states she does not stand with Trump and why should she vote for him, just because he supported her and helped fund her defence? These are all good commendable points. But before we get carried away, whoa! Let’s stop and take a reality check.

For the astonishing fact to come out of all of this, is that Amanda should indeed be grateful to Trump. Of course, not to agree with his political views. However, had her conviction been upheld by the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court, as all the legal experts expected, Trump, as President of the United States has the power to refuse her extradition. Not directly, as that is a veto for the State Secretary, but that power is there.

We saw it when Maria Cantwell, senator for Seattle put out a press release - which was taken up globally – calling for the then-State Secretary John Kerry and the Obama administration that the USA should intervene to free Amanda Knox because of the clear anti-American sentiment of the Italian judicial system, she states.

Maria Cantwell even made an appointment to see Hillary Clinton the next secretary of state saying she had been strongly petitioned by friends of Amanda Knox.

However, didn’t the makers of the Netflix film ‘Amanda Knox’, 2016, assert it was the tabloid journalists who had bullied the Italian police and courts? We see immediately that, true, whilst the mass media is intensely powerful in influencing opinion, it doesn’t actually do anything, except reflect social mores. The real movers and shakers being politicians and political advisers.

From day one, Amanda Knox had the full weight of American politicians behind her, and, rather than Nick Pisa being responsible for her conviction, it is surely the likes of Donald Trump and influencers in the US State Department responsible for getting her off the charges? It can be readily seen Amanda has a debt of gratitude owing to these shady enforcers behind the scenes.

So, if Amanda strongly opposes Trump's opposition to abortion on demand, for example, then she should fully reimburse his gesture, as a matter of principle.

(I realise principles and morals are difficult concepts for sociopaths to get their heads around.)

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps Prof Novelli can help. He's the prosecution friendly expert who told the Hellmann court that Stefanoni didn't follow them.

Nicely sidestepped.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nicely sidestepped.

Huh!? Novelli said multiple amplifications were protocol. Stefanoni did not do that. You're making no sense.

No matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

Paradoxically, Amanda seems to be saying, "They are innocent and Trump calls them guilty, whereas I am guilty and Trump calls me innocent. All because he’s a racist."

In what parallel universe does this even make sense? Why is ANYONE interested in what a confirmation biased guilter claims someone else "seems to be" saying?

We saw it when Maria Cantwell, senator for Seattle put out a press release - which was taken up globally – calling for the then-State Secretary John Kerry and the Obama administration that the USA should intervene to free Amanda Knox because of the clear anti-American sentiment of the Italian judicial system, she states.

Maria Cantwell even made an appointment to see Hillary Clinton the next secretary of state saying she had been strongly petitioned by friends of Amanda Knox.

Sigh.

If you're going to foment conspiracy thinking, at least get it right. It's up to you to fix your mistake.

(I realise principles and morals are difficult concepts for sociopaths to get their heads around.)

More projection.

 

[Planigale]

Er, hang on. You have cited ENFSI web pages. The Rome laboratories were and are full members of ENFSI and follow all of its guidelines. The 'E' in ENFSI means 'EUROPEAN'.

You, Hellmann, Vechhiotti Marasca claim Rome failed to follow 'international standards', and if you recall, that was the key reason for acquitting the kids.

Try again. Or do you want to declare?

No, they were not members at the time. (They had not met accreditation requirements). Even if they were members that does not mean Steffanoni followed the guidelines in this case (and did not).

 

[Bill Williams]

Er, hang on. You have cited ENFSI web pages. The Rome laboratories were and are full members of ENFSI and follow all of its guidelines. The 'E' in ENFSI means 'EUROPEAN'.

You, Hellmann, Vechhiotti Marasca claim Rome failed to follow 'international standards', and if you recall, that was the key reason for acquitting the kids.

Try again. Or do you want to declare?

................ as did even the prosecution expert, Prof Novelli. It seems to be the one thing ALL the experts were agreed upon, Stefanoni's lab did not follow international protocols, exp. when it come to amplifications.

I think that's what Planigale wanted to declare.

 

[Planigale]

................ as did even the prosecution expert, Prof Novelli. It seems to be the one thing ALL the experts were agreed upon, Stefanoni's lab did not follow international protocols, exp. when it come to amplifications.

I think that's what Planigale wanted to declare.

Thank you.

 

[Vixen]

No, they were not members at the time. (They had not met accreditation requirements). Even if they were members that does not mean Steffanoni followed the guidelines in this case (and did not).

Rome laboratories were fully regulated by ENFSI.

Vecchiotti hoodwinked the courts with a Rag, Tag and Bobtail list of obscure quasi-'international standards'.

IOW the so-called 'failure to meet international standards' - the reason given by Hellmann and Marasca for acquitting the kids, is nothing but a hoax.

There is no such thing as 'international standards'. So of course nobody has ever met them.

Who is the lying crook, Vecchiotti, Hellmann and Marasca, or Stefanoni, Massei, Nencini and Chieffi? (Rhetorical question.)

International Forensic Biometric Standard Still at ‘Step Zero,’ Says American Expert

'"A Dutch team said last week that they were developing "worldwide standards to validate evidentiary value methods” which would standardize the way forensic scientists compare and contrast information across borders, and between investigations and agencies.'

http://www.forensicmag.com/news/201...standard-still-step-zero-says-american-expert

Q.E.D. ::

 

[js202]

The psychosis being manifested pell mell within the thread today has me seeking out ways to block this website. As with Trump news, I fear I must protect myself from my tendencies to read material that disturbs an otherwise tranquil Sunday with my family.