The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Methos]

He was photographed by OGGI lying on the beach next to a mafia gangster.

You have had the photo provided to you before (cf the large tattoo on Raff's shoulder).

I said, the one of him lying on the beach chatting to a known identified mobster.

Since when did 'lying' mean 'standing up'?

Since when does said "lying on the beach" photo become the one "provided to (me) before" and showing the "large tattoo" which does not showing him "lying on the beach"?

As I said earlier, there is no such photo of RS lying on the beach next to a mafia gangster. If there were, you'd provide it. Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that RS was "Seen hanging out with Italian mobsters, who flock to DR because there is no extradition treaty." Stop lying.

I guess this is the oggi article (dated 10 dicembre 2013):
Raffaele Sollecito a Santo Domingo. In dolce compagnia
The gallery has this photo in it:

So there is a picture of Raffaele Sollecito lying on the beach next to "un amico romano" as the article says. But no word of that "amico romano" being a "known identified mobster".

 

[Stacyhs]

Here is the photo Vixen keeps referring to claiming RS is lying next to a 'mafia gangster'. The man is not identified nor does the OGGI story mention anything about any 'gangsters'. It's just another example of creating something from nothing.

ETA: Methos beat me to it. In Vixen's world, a 'Roman friend" becomes a "mafia gangster".

I'm surprised that Vixen hasn't claimed the girl in the photo is Amanda.

 

[Planigale]

Absolute rubbish! Of course they are allowed to. That is the whole point of being there. You can challenge any procedure during a trial. The forensic expert, for example, Dr Torres, who was there for Raff, would just simply have complained to Raff's lawyers who are then instructed to put in an application to the court for a hearing on the challenged point.

There were literally dozens of such applications and hearings during the lengthy trial on all sorts of technical and legal issues.

Failing that, Torres could have been subpoened to give evidence of all his complaints.

There were ZERO objections to Stefanoni's methods.

Thank you for making my point for me. Yes, the lawyers and led by them the expert witnesses can challenge any procedure during the trial. Not during the testing process in the laboratory.

What you said was, "The defence forensic witnesses who watched the testing did not raise any objections, either.'" You do seem to understand now that raising objections outside of the court during the testing process would be wrong and they should keep any concerns to themselves until they are raised in court during the trial. That nothing was said during the laboratory processing is irrelevant, that is neither the time nor the plce to raise issues about the methodology.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

A defendant has the right not to testify against themselves. Knox & Sollecito chose this option, why shouldn't Guede?

More of your usual piffle. Poor Rudy's sentence was confirmed 12/16/10. So how would testifying during the Hellman trial constitute testifying against himself? And as I already clearly stated, my question is why didn't he testify FOR the prosecution AGAINST Knox/Sollecito ABOUT the events in the cottage the night of 11/1/07? Why do you think the prosecution did not convince him to do this?

And why do you think Guede himself would not have WANTED to do this, you know, to make sure Knox/Sollecito were held responsible for their roles? I mean, the few remaining guilter nutcases usually call Guede the fall guy. And yet he could have easily testified against K/S. And didn't. How come?

 

[Stacyhs]

More of your usual piffle. Poor Rudy's sentence was confirmed 12/16/10. So how would testifying during the Hellman trial constitute testifying against himself? And as I already clearly stated, my question is why didn't he testify FOR the prosecution AGAINST Knox/Sollecito ABOUT the events in the cottage the night of 11/1/07? Why do you think the prosecution did not convince him to do this?

And why do you think Guede himself would not have WANTED to do this, you know, to make sure Knox/Sollecito were held responsible for their roles? I mean, the few remaining guilter nutcases usually call Guede the fall guy. And yet he could have easily testified against K/S. And didn't. How come?

Remember also that Knox tried to set him up to take the fall by pointing out his feces in the toilet and the bloody footprint on the rug. She also deliberately left other incriminating evidence of his while cleaning up her own. You'd think Guede would want to get even with her. Right?

 

[Vixen]

More of your usual piffle. Poor Rudy's sentence was confirmed 12/16/10. So how would testifying during the Hellman trial constitute testifying against himself? And as I already clearly stated, my question is why didn't he testify FOR the prosecution AGAINST Knox/Sollecito ABOUT the events in the cottage the night of 11/1/07? Why do you think the prosecution did not convince him to do this?

And why do you think Guede himself would not have WANTED to do this, you know, to make sure Knox/Sollecito were held responsible for their roles? I mean, the few remaining guilter nutcases usually call Guede the fall guy. And yet he could have easily testified against K/S. And didn't. How come?

You seem to have all the answers: you tell us.

 

[Vixen]

I guess this is the oggi article (dated 10 dicembre 2013):
Raffaele Sollecito a Santo Domingo. In dolce compagnia
The gallery has this photo in it:

[qimg]https://static2.oggi.it/wp-content/uploads/oldgalleries/focus/raffaele-sollecito-ai-caraibi-le-foto-esclusive/s-playa-6.jpg?v=1401259844[/qimg]

So there is a picture of Raffaele Sollecito lying on the beach next to "un amico romano" as the article says. But no word of that "amico romano" being a "known identified mobster".

Doesn't that mean, 'A friend of Romano'?

 

[bagels]

You seem to have all the answers: you tell us.

It's rhetorical Vixen. It is obvious Rudy Guede had no information against Knox or Sollecito to give or he would have given it.

 

[Numbers]

I guess this is the oggi article (dated 10 dicembre 2013):
Raffaele Sollecito a Santo Domingo. In dolce compagnia
The gallery has this photo in it:

[qimg]https://static2.oggi.it/wp-content/uploads/oldgalleries/focus/raffaele-sollecito-ai-caraibi-le-foto-esclusive/s-playa-6.jpg?v=1401259844[/qimg]

So there is a picture of Raffaele Sollecito lying on the beach next to "un amico romano" as the article says. But no word of that "amico romano" being a "known identified mobster".

Google translate:

un amico romano = a Roman friend

 

[AnimalFriendly]

You seem to have all the answers: you tell us.

Well more answers than you anyway. Which isn't saying much. In fact, it ain't sayin' nothing.

I knew this post would bring out your cowardice once again. That's why I made it.

 

[TruthCalls]

Absolute nonsense.

Vixen, all you do with this response is prove you're either ill-informed on the facts of this case or you're willing to lie as an alternative to dealing with those facts.

Bill already cited Massei. I'm not sure where Massei came up with that unless the quantity of DNA not related to Meredith or Raffaele was more than I thought. Here is what Stefanoni said when giving testimony in court;

Stefanoni: How much total DNA there was, because there was a mix, I don’t distinguish DNA of the victim quantitatively from the DNA of Sollecito, I can distinguish it… rather, I can make a quantitative relationship between the two DNA only looking at the electropherogram. Therefore, looking at the electropherogram I estimated it to be a 1 to 6 ratio. That is, the victim’s DNA is 6 times more than the DNA of Sollecito, however…

Question: Let’s start by saying this, therefore in the area of the trace found on the hook we have a quantity of DNA attributable to the victim, which is 6 times more than that of Sollecito?

Stefanoni: Yes.

So Vixen, are you saying Stefanoni's testimony was absolute nonsense??? I mean, you couldn't have been referring to me because all I did was quote Stefanoni.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh dear. Why do surgeons before surgery scrub up to their elbows ultra-ultra- throughly and often with a scrubbing brush or harsh sponge before an operation?

That's right: germs and viruses can hide within the deep crevices of one's skin or nails.

Now imagine a kitchen knife covered with small scratches.

Or try brushing your teeth thoroughly and then adding a disclosure solution.

Suddenly all those minute specks of food, bacteria, grease, rye flour are highlighted because despite your scrubbing, it wasn't deep enough to reach the hidden striations.

Surgeons scrub because skin is porous and contain hair follicles, all areas where bacteria could be hanging out. A knife blade is made from metal. It is not porous. There is no place for blood or DNA to hide. The striation Stefanoni claims was hiding this DNA was so small not even she could locate it when asked to do so. She claimed she collected the sample about 2/3 of the way out to the tip - in fact the easiest place on a knife blade to clean. The knife, according to the police, was unusually clean - more so than the other knives in the draw. The police also claimed the apartment smelled of bleach.

So now, again, HOW does DNA survive a vigorous cleaning with bleach in perhaps the easiest place to clean a knife blade yet not even blood could survive in the hardest places to clean a knife?

And while you're answering that perhaps you could explain why Stefanoni marked 36C as negative for DNA and didn't amplify it, but marked 36B as positive for DNA (contrary to the lab equipment readings) and proceeded to amplify?

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to have all the answers: you tell us.

Translation: I can't provide any rational, logical explanation: I just make stuff up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Surgeons scrub because skin is porous and contain hair follicles, all areas where bacteria could be hanging out. A knife blade is made from metal. It is not porous. There is no place for blood or DNA to hide. The striation Stefanoni claims was hiding this DNA was so small not even she could locate it when asked to do so. She claimed she collected the sample about 2/3 of the way out to the tip - in fact the easiest place on a knife blade to clean. The knife, according to the police, was unusually clean - more so than the other knives in the draw. The police also claimed the apartment smelled of bleach.

So now, again, HOW does DNA survive a vigorous cleaning with bleach in perhaps the easiest place to clean a knife blade yet not even blood could survive in the hardest places to clean a knife?

And while you're answering that perhaps you could explain why Stefanoni marked 36C as negative for DNA and didn't amplify it, but marked 36B as positive for DNA (contrary to the lab equipment readings) and proceeded to amplify?

These questions should not be asked of Vixen.

These questions should be asked of Judge Massei and Judge Nencini. They are the one who convicted on bogus evidence.

As an aside, part of the reason why the 2013 1st Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court overturned the 2011 Hellmann acquittals, was because (as it said) the Hellmann court abdicated its judicial role by allowing the, then, DNA experts (Conti-Vecchiotti) to make the de facto judicial decision about the extra sample on Exhibit 36, the knife. (That sample turned out to belong to Amanda Knox, adding nothing to the case.)

But in 2009, Judge Massei turned over his judicial responsibility to be the judicial expert, by allowing Stefanoni's faulty forensics' decision making to stand, when it was absolute rubbish.

Here's what Massei said about how Sample 36b had survived the bleaching of the knife....

Even the point in which Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had found the substance
which, when tested, furnished Meredith’s biological profile, presents its own
consistency and logic with the result obtained. This was taken from the side of the
knife blade where there were scratches, such that, in the tiny little grooves that these scratches must have formed, biological material might have remained, resistant – u
unlike that which would have been present on the rest of the blade – to cleaning
which, although it appeared to have left the knife extremely clean (as has been
affirmed), might not have been able to remove the biological material that ended up
in these very tiny grooves, where it remained.​

Despite all the "might nots", and "must haves", Massei declares all of this as perfectly reliable!!!

Probables become certainties.

On the basis of the foregoing, it should therefore be affirmed that the analysis of
trace 36B, which detected the presence DNA attributable to Meredith, appears to be completely reliable.​

It is not Vixen who should be hung out to dry for this, it should be the trial judges who found all these guesses and surmises to be certainties.

 

[Vixen]

Surgeons scrub because skin is porous and contain hair follicles, all areas where bacteria could be hanging out. A knife blade is made from metal. It is not porous. There is no place for blood or DNA to hide. The striation Stefanoni claims was hiding this DNA was so small not even she could locate it when asked to do so. She claimed she collected the sample about 2/3 of the way out to the tip - in fact the easiest place on a knife blade to clean. The knife, according to the police, was unusually clean - more so than the other knives in the draw. The police also claimed the apartment smelled of bleach.

So now, again, HOW does DNA survive a vigorous cleaning with bleach in perhaps the easiest place to clean a knife blade yet not even blood could survive in the hardest places to clean a knife?

And while you're answering that perhaps you could explain why Stefanoni marked 36C as negative for DNA and didn't amplify it, but marked 36B as positive for DNA (contrary to the lab equipment readings) and proceeded to amplify?

Skin is NOT porous. Its function is to act as a barrier to the outside world. Things like moisturisers work because they help prevent moisture from the skin escaping. (Water escapes from the skin faster than any moisturiser can keep it in.) Few things penetrate the skin, and if they do it is only superficially. One thing that DOES penetrate through, as far as the fourth layer, is Aloe Vera. Kept in the fridge, this is wonderfully cool and soothing for dry skin and I have never had an allergic reaction.

There are high resolution photos of the striation marks on the blade.

You can't see photos of someone's DNA so why would you expect to see an enlarged photo of minute scratches on a knife?

It's a quasi and unreasonable demand for evidence beyond the call of duty. Fingerprints are only taken once and nobody demands to see them in court. They just accept the experts' word the fingerprint is there, and it matches the defendant on up to eighteen to twenty points.

 

[Stacyhs]

The knife, according to the police, was unusually clean - more so than the other knives in the draw.

I've always thought that was an incredibly dishonest, but revealing, thing for the police to say. How did it compare to the other knives? Were some rusty? Did some have dried food on them? How exactly does a knife look "unusually clean"? It was obviously an attempt on the police's part to imply the knife had been cleaned with bleach.

 

[Vixen]

These questions should not be asked of Vixen.

These questions should be asked of Judge Massei and Judge Nencini. They are the one who convicted on bogus evidence.

As an aside, part of the reason why the 2013 1st Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court overturned the 2011 Hellmann acquittals, was because (as it said) the Hellmann court abdicated its judicial role by allowing the, then, DNA experts (Conti-Vecchiotti) to make the de facto judicial decision about the extra sample on Exhibit 36, the knife. (That sample turned out to belong to Amanda Knox, adding nothing to the case.)

But in 2009, Judge Massei turned over his judicial responsibility to be the judicial expert, by allowing Stefanoni's faulty forensics' decision making to stand, when it was absolute rubbish.

Here's what Massei said about how Sample 36b had survived the bleaching of the knife....

​

Despite all the "might nots", and "must haves", Massei declares all of this as perfectly reliable!!!

Probables become certainties.

​

It is not Vixen who should be hung out to dry for this, it should be the trial judges who found all these guesses and surmises to be certainties.

The trial judges who are generally of the upper classes, best educated and the brightest of their generation? Bill Williams sitting behind his keyboard knows better than criminal judges who have dealt with all kinds of criminals and are experts at sniffing out a lie when they hear one. (cf Massei's exchange with Knox when she claimed she banged on Mez' locked door because she was worried 'she might be hurt in there'. For Massei, this claim was like a fart in a lift and he deconstructed her BS elegantly and with verve. But no, according to BiWi he's a 'very stupid guy'.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Skin is NOT porous. Its function is to act as a barrier to the outside world. Things like moisturisers work because they help prevent moisture from the skin escaping. (Water escapes from the skin faster than any moisturiser can keep it in.) Few things penetrate the skin, and if they do it is only superficially. One thing that DOES penetrate through, as far as the fourth layer, is Aloe Vera. Kept in the fridge, this is wonderfully cool and soothing for dry skin and I have never had an allergic reaction.

There are high resolution photos of the striation marks on the blade.

You can't see photos of someone's DNA so why would you expect to see an enlarged photo of minute scratches on a knife?

It's a quasi and unreasonable demand for evidence beyond the call of duty. Fingerprints are only taken once and nobody demands to see them in court. They just accept the experts' word the fingerprint is there, and it matches the defendant on up to eighteen to twenty points.

Whether skin is porous or not is irrelevant to my original point and question. Surgeons do not scrub with BLEACH so your reference to them scrubbing before surgery is not relevant. I'll ask once again the question which you ignored:

Do you claim that MK's DNA survived a cleaning with bleach that removed all traces of blood from the knife, even in hidden, protected places? Please do not dodge answering again.

 

[Stacyhs]

The trial judges who are generally of the upper classes, best educated and the brightest of their generation? Bill Williams sitting behind his keyboard knows better than criminal judges who have dealt with all kinds of criminals and are experts at sniffing out a lie when they hear one. (cf Massei's exchange with Knox when she claimed she banged on Mez' locked door because she was worried 'she might be hurt in there'. For Massei, this claim was like a fart in a lift and he deconstructed her BS elegantly and with verve. But no, according to BiWi he's a 'very stupid guy'.)

Why is it that when you agree with the judges, they are the "best educated and the brightest of their generation", but when you don't agree with them, they're "bent" and "illogical"?

Judges are no better at 'sniffing out a lie' than anyone else...and neither are police as studies have shown. Once again, you just make crap up whenever it suits you and present it as fact. Massei wasn't 'stupid' but he was illogical in many of his conclusions which is why he was overturned. See Hellmann and Marasca.

ETA: Being from the 'upper classes' is not a prerequisite for being intelligent or educated. I find it interesting that you felt the need to include that.

ETAA: "he deconstructed her BS elegantly and with verve. " LOL! What next? A tribute to his sparkling eyes?

 

[Vixen]

Whether skin is porous or not is irrelevant to my original point and question. Surgeons do not scrub with BLEACH so your reference to them scrubbing before surgery is not relevant. I'll ask once again the question which you ignored:

Do you claim that MK's DNA survived a cleaning with bleach that removed all traces of blood from the knife, even in hidden, protected places? Please do not dodge answering again.

Meredith's DNA DID survive a thorough cleaning of the knife.

Murderers might think they have committed the perfect crime but sometimes the victim comes back to haunt them with their calling card. For example, Steven Avery's car keys with Theresa Halbach's DNA and speck of blood in her car of Avery which Zellner despicably and falsely tried to claim was planted by the police.