The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Bill Williams]

This is utter nonsense. What the 'other prosecution experts' your refer to include are a hotch-potch of US armchair lawyers who like to reference their source as 'The Wisconsin Police Handbook.

Wow. Not even close. I was referring to an Italian professor who admitted under cross-examination tha Stefanoni's work in the case did not adhere to international standards. You invented a fantasy alternate scenario which was relevant to nothing.

As for 'negative controls, Vecchiotti and Conti were forced to admit under oath that Stefanoni HAD handed them over and via the Court so there are no two ways about it.

Stefanoni had done no such thing. Indeed another prosecution friendly forensic expert was asked about Stefanoni's work, and said that it was impossible to do because the negative controls were never made available.

Indeed at the Nencici trial, the Carabinieri Forensic people delivered their negative controls with the court as standard practice, so that their work could be checked by other experts.

That's called transparency and full disclosure, something Stefanoni did not it... evidence of which is that you and I are still arguing about it 13 years later!

 

[Vixen]

I see. When a court agrees with you, it settles judicial facts which are not to be argued with.

When a court disagrees with you, it is junk. The data which you parse in each could not be more different. When a court convicted the pair, you accept everything the court says without comment. When a court acquitted the pair, there's always some sort of conspiracy about Mafia, etc..... it gets really tiresome, because NOWHERE to you offer citations for your blathering.

There we sit.

The verdict is not the same as the facts found.

For example, the facts found might be your name, address and date of birth. That is quite separate from a verdict and whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, the facts found by the court remain the same, until such time they are sent back to a court to be reassessed, subject to an appeal on a point of law (for example, the judge who found those facts was fast asleep or drunk when he came to those findings, or otherwise erred on a legal issue or protocol, or reasonableness).

 

[Vixen]

The sole source of the 'Knox arrived later and Mez (the victim) let him in,' was Guede, who you just said, 'few believe anyway'.

You're nothing if not inconsistent.

Massei says it was Mez who arrived later with Guede already there with Knox. It matters little who arrived home first.

 

[Vixen]

Since Giacomo Silenzi had left Perugia days before the murder on Oct 29, the stain could not have been deposited by him for several days. So, which is it? Was Meredith "fastidious" as often claimed or did she sleep on a "manky old pillow" case with unwashed semen stains for several days? Apparently, she was going to sleep on it for yet another night as it was not put into the washing machine with her other things on Nov. 1.

If the stains were Silenzi's, what are the odds that those stains on the case would just happen to be placed directly below Kercher's genitals between her legs?

This is just another example of the illogical reasoning of Stefanoni and the prosecution.





LOL! Testing a suspected semen stain found under the genitals of a rape victim is "going on a 'fishing expedition'" "hoping to nail someone"???





You really don't see the irony in your claim that testing the stain was 'suspect centered', do you?





Oh, my. It was very clear that BOTH parties thought the pillow stains were an issue. The prosecution and Maresca didn't want it tested in case it didn't belong to Guede, Sollecito, or Silenzi because that would mean ANOTHER UNIDENTIFIED MAN could have killed Kercher. It's already been explained to you twice why the defense did not trust Stefanoni and later did request it be tested.

By fishing expedition, I was referring to TruthCalls assertion that the stain should have been tested to see if it was Guede's. It doesn't work like that. How it works, is the stain is test and THEN the profile is matched to whatever suspect. Not' Oh I say, Carruthers can you keep testing everything until you find something on this guy I want to nail?'

 

[Stacyhs]

It's lucky that Stefanoni is a professional scientist, objective and impartial and only interested in achieving scientific results by scientific methods and as expressed by scientific statistics as to the probability of her results being random.

Was it 'professional' to repeatedly refer to the footprints as 'luminol revealed' when she knew damn well that would imply to most people that blood was present when it wasn't?

Was it 'professional' not to reveal the negative TMB tests on those footprints?

Was it 'professional' to violate ENFSI anti-contamination protocols by:
1. not changing gloves between handling some pieces of evidence?
2. not disclosing anti-contamination steps taken in the lab such as
if or how surfaces were sterilized; what protective equipment was used; whether equipment was cleaned after each run; or how often technicians changed gloves.

Stefanoni's work left much to be desired.

In addition, it is statutory to allow the defence expert witness to observe the proceedings.

YEA! Progress is being made! At least you're no longer claiming "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing!

 

[Stacyhs]

I suggest you look up the definition of 'rape'. It is not something that happens outwith the body of the victim.

I suggest you stop playing these ridiculous games. Unless you now want to claim that semen found directly under a rape victim's genitals between her legs is not evidence of that sexual assault because it was found 'outside' the body? Is it, Vixen? Is that what you are now claiming?

It was grotty rented student accommodation. Who knows how many people have slept on the same bed and bedding?

Do you also want to claim that Kercher was so dirty that she never washed her bedding in the several weeks she lived there? EWWWWWW!

As Nencini's court reasoned, even if you do have a DNA profile, how do you date it? If Sollecito's, he'll just claim it happened another time.

If it was Guede's, it would date it to that night as, even he admitted, he had never been in that apartment before. It would also prove he was lying about only being in the living room where he and Kercher were just doing some "heavy petting".

If it were Sollecito's and he claimed it was just from another time, one would have to believe that Kercher was having sex with a man she'd only met a few days before while also sleeping with Silenzi. Who do you think would believe that?

Try again.

 

[Bill Williams]

The verdict is not the same as the facts found.

For example, the facts found might be your name, address and date of birth. That is quite separate from a verdict and whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, the facts found by the court remain the same, until such time they are sent back to a court to be reassessed, subject to an appeal on a point of law (for example, the judge who found those facts was fast asleep or drunk when he came to those findings, or otherwise erred on a legal issue or protocol, or reasonableness).

Blather and hooey, relevant to nothing, meant to fill the thread with noise.

You should begin answering questions put to you.

 

[Stacyhs]

YOU are the one who made the claim a request was made "AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence" so I provided quotes from both Massei and Nencini MR's proving this to be wrong, and THIS is how you respond? Just admit you were wrong.

What is the further need? Because Guede's story was consensual petting, which ended because of no condom, and him heading off to the bathroom. In other words, no orgasm. So now, if the stain is tested and it turns out to be semen belonging to Guede, that puts the sexual assault into an entirely different light.

By fishing expedition, I was referring to TruthCalls assertion that the stain should have been tested to see if it was Guede's. It doesn't work like that. How it works, is the stain is test and THEN the profile is matched to whatever suspect. Not' Oh I say, Carruthers can you keep testing everything until you find something on this guy I want to nail?'

OH, yes ...it DOES work that way. Let's take a trip down memory lane:

1. Police claim the bloody shoe prints are left by Sollecito. When this is disproven, the police send the gang back to the cottage six weeks later to specifically collect the bra hook. Why? To see if they can connect Sollecito to it because they lost the only evidence of him in that room. Unless you'd like to claim they were looking for more evidence of Guede because they didn't have enough already?

2. When the knife is tested, only one very low count DNA sample of Kercher is (allegedly) found. So what do they do when that's discredited by C & V? Chieffi orders 36i to be tested. Do you think they were looking for more of Knox's DNA on that knife? Or Sollecito's? Do you?

Oh I say, Patrizia, can you keep testing everything until you find something on this pair I want to nail?'


Bang.Bang.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I see. When a court agrees with you, it settles judicial facts which are not to be argued with.

When a court disagrees with you, it is junk. The data which you parse in each could not be more different. When a court convicted the pair, you accept everything the court says without comment. When a court acquitted the pair, there's always some sort of conspiracy about Mafia, etc..... it gets really tiresome, because NOWHERE to you offer citations for your blathering.

There we sit.

The verdict is not the same as the facts found.

Thank you , Captain Obvious. Now, would you like to actually address the point of Bill's post?

For example, the facts found might be your name, address and date of birth. That is quite separate from a verdict and whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, the facts found by the court remain the same, until such time they are sent back to a court to be reassessed, subject to an appeal on a point of law (for example, the judge who found those facts was fast asleep or drunk when he came to those findings, or otherwise erred on a legal issue or protocol, or reasonableness).

Oh, I see the answer is 'No'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Massei says it was Mez Meredith who arrived later with Guede already there with Knox. It matters little who arrived home first.

Um...no he doesn't say that. He says the exact opposite on pg 363:

Therefore Amanda and Raffaele, most likely accompanied by Rudy who had asked or had been invited to go with them to the house on Via della Pergola, arrived in that apartment around 23.00 pm; Meredith was already in the apartment, having gone back home around 21.00 pm, after having spent the afternoon and the evening with her own English friends.

As for Massei, what can you say about the logic of a judge who claimed Amanda knew Guede "well"?

...cannot be excluded since the acquaintance could have been formed the very evening of 1 November through Amanda who knew both well,

A judge who declared Amanda's footprints where in Meredith's blood when he acknowledged himself the TMB tests were all negative and Stefanoni had confirmed a negative TMB result meant no blood was present?

But, wait! There's more!

A judge who, in an effort to explain why Amanda would have a kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment when he claimed the murder was spontaneous and not pre-planned, claimed she was carrying around a huge, unprotected blade butcher knife in her cloth bag for 'protection'. A bag that showed no cuts or tears or any other evidence of a sharp knife in it. Yep! That's some logic there!

 

[Bill Williams]

OH, yes ...it DOES work that way. Let's take a trip down memory lane:

1. Police claim the bloody shoe prints are left by Sollecito. When this is disproven, the police send the gang back to the cottage six weeks later to specifically collect the bra hook. Why? To see if they can connect Sollecito to it because they lost the only evidence of him in that room. Unless you'd like to claim they were looking for more evidence of Guede because they didn't have enough already?

2. When the knife is tested, only one very low count DNA sample of Kercher is (allegedly) found. So what do they do when that's discredited by C & V? Chieffi orders 36i to be tested. Do you think they were looking for more of Knox's DNA on that knife? Or Sollecito's? Do you?

Oh I say, Patrizia, can you keep testing everything until you find something on this pair I want to nail?'


Bang.Bang.

Pro-Mignini author John Follain wrote in "A Death in Italy" that Mignini spend the first year of AK's and RS's preventative detention wonder why RS wasn't 'breaking', and continuing to not turn on Amanda.

Without Raffaele, Follain implied, there was nothing - not really against Knox.

Remember what saved the case for Mignini? It was when the year-limit was approaching, when they were either formally charged, or released....

... that journalists dug up Quintavalle, the store keeper, and Nara, the neighbour who said she heard screams.

That came up as the year was about to expire, so at least Mignini had *something* to take to court, absent Raffaele taking a deal to get at Knox.

As it was, when Stefanoni's forensic claims finally were analyzed by independent experts, the DNA fell apart - meaning mainly that there was no case against Sollecito.

With no case against him, what was the case against Knox? Even Stefanoni had not found anything which could be traced back to her, meaning she'd never been in the murderroom.

If Knox had returned to stage a sexual assault, how on earth had she managed not to step in blood?

In any event, the fact if no evidence against the pair is what acquitted the pair. Mignini waited and waited and waited, but a smoking gun was never found.

Raffaele risked everything for the truth about Knox, that she was innocent. And he knew it. And Mignini trying to tie him to the murder - hoping Raffaele would buckle, by taking a plea - eventually was a losing prosecution strategy.

Raffaele stood firm. And with no case against him, what was the case against Knox?

 

[Stacyhs]

Chieffi sent it to Nencini Appeal court with the directions to re-examine C&V's testimony and it was found to be a crock. They lied about the DNA near the blade being 'too LCN' to test.

LOL! And yet every single independent DNA expert who reviewed Stefanoni's work on the bra and knife agreed with C & V's report and none agreed with Stefanoni's.

Would you like, yet again, a list of all those prominent scientists? Here's the list of those that agree with Stefanoni:

Couple of crooks.

And there it is! The "go to" accusation for any judge, expert, or witness who doesn't agree with your opinion. All dozens of them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Pro-Mignini author John Follain wrote in "A Death in Italy" that Mignini spend the first year of AK's and RS's preventative detention wonder why RS wasn't 'breaking', and continuing to not turn on Amanda.

Without Raffaele, Follain implied, there was nothing - not really against Knox.

Remember what saved the case for Mignini? It was when the year-limit was approaching, when they were either formally charged, or released....

... that journalists dug up Quintavalle, the store keeper, and Nara, the neighbour who said she heard screams.

That came up as the year was about to expire, so at least Mignini had *something* to take to court, absent Raffaele taking a deal to get at Knox.

As it was, when Stefanoni's forensic claims finally were analyzed by independent experts, the DNA fell apart - meaning mainly that there was no case against Sollecito.

With no case against him, what was the case against Knox? Even Stefanoni had not found anything which could be traced back to her, meaning she'd never been in the murderroom.

If Knox had returned to stage a sexual assault, how on earth had she managed not to step in blood?

In any event, the fact if no evidence against the pair is what acquitted the pair. Mignini waited and waited and waited, but a smoking gun was never found.

Raffaele risked everything for the truth about Knox, that she was innocent. And he knew it. And Mignini trying to tie him to the murder - hoping Raffaele would buckle, by taking a plea - eventually was a losing prosecution strategy.

Raffaele stood firm. And with no case against him, what was the case against Knox?

Exactly, Bill. Logic is not a PGP's strongpoint or, apparently, the convicting judges. If they staged the murder scene, SOMETHING of their presence would have been found. Of course, there is always the possibility that they both hovered over the floors and wore hazmat suits.

 

[Stacyhs]

Still waiting for a quote and citation that the defense concurred there was a scratch/striation on the knife.

I'm beginning to suspect Vixen may never provide one. Hmmmm....one has to wonder why that is?

 

[Stacyhs]

Still waiting for a quote and citation that the defense concurred there was a scratch/striation on the knife.

I'm beginning to suspect Vixen may never provide one. Hmmmm....one has to wonder why that is?

 

[Numbers]

Chieffi sent it to Nencini Appeal court with the directions to re-examine C&V's testimony and it was found to be a crock. They lied about the DNA near the blade being 'too LCN' to test.


Couple of crooks.

OH, yes ...it DOES work that way. Let's take a trip down memory lane:

1. Police claim the bloody shoe prints are left by Sollecito. When this is disproven, the police send the gang back to the cottage six weeks later to specifically collect the bra hook. Why? To see if they can connect Sollecito to it because they lost the only evidence of him in that room. Unless you'd like to claim they were looking for more evidence of Guede because they didn't have enough already?

2. When the knife is tested, only one very low count DNA sample of Kercher is (allegedly) found. So what do they do when that's discredited by C & V? Chieffi orders 36i to be tested. Do you think they were looking for more of Knox's DNA on that knife? Or Sollecito's? Do you?

Oh I say, Patrizia, can you keep testing everything until you find something on this pair I want to nail?'

Bang.Bang.

We should recall that Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative real-time PCR DNA analysis equipment was not working properly, switched to Qubit fluorescence quantitation for the knife samples. That method is not specific to human DNA and is not highly sensitive. The Qubit reading was that no DNA was detectable in samples 36B (the knife blade) and C. She tested 36B despite there being no detectable DNA by her method, although she did not for the other samples where there was no DNA detectable by Qubit. The amount of DNA seemingly present in the single sample of 36B tested was similar to the amount in at least one of her contaminated negative (that is, no DNA intentionally added) controls. There were inconsistencies and missing data on methodology in Stefanoni's original lab records which lead to significant uncertainties as to the reliability and scientific integrity of the results for sample 36B. The results for 36B cannot be considered admissible forensic evidence according to international standards for DNA profile testing.

See: http://amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

 

[TomG]

From:




Why the burglary happened AFTER the murder:




See exhibit Q, a postcard scattered on the floor of Filomena's room as part of the 'burglary' scene.



and



and



Massei concludes re the mise-en-scène:




Q.E.D.::

You didn't mention the glass fragment in your original post or mention which court. You said:

The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.

It's more than likely that Rudy carried the glass fragment in to Meredith's room on his clothing or shoe. After all he DID climb through a shattered window, but thanks for reminding me of just how bananas Massei's theorizing was. None of which indicates that a break-in was posthumously staged. I don't see what relevance it has anyway since M/B is the last legal word on the case, though you are welcome to make sense of it in a timeline and narrative if you like. Should be fun.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

Article 360

Non-repeatable technical ascertainment

1. If the ascertainment provided for in Article 359 involves persons, objects or places which are subject to
change, the Public Prosecutor shall inform, without delay, the suspect, the victim and the lawyers of the
day, time and place set for the assignment of the non-repeatable technical ascertainment and of the right
to appoint technical consultants.
2. The provisions of Article 364, paragraph 2, shall apply.
3. The lawyers as well as the possibly appointed technical consultants have the right to be present during
the assignment of the non-repeatable technical ascertainment, participate in the ascertainment and make their own observations and reservations.
4. If, prior to the assignment of the ascertainment, the suspected person requests a special evidentiary
hearing, the Public Prosecutor shall order that no ascertainment be carried out. However, such
ascertainment shall be performed in case a delay may compromise their result.
4-his. The reservation specified in paragraph 4 shall cease to be effective and may not be made again if
the request for a special evidentiary hearing is not submitted within ten days of the making of the
reservation.
5. Without prejudice to the case in which the reservation requesting a special evidentiary hearing is
ineffective in accordance with paragraph 4-bis, if the Public Prosecutor orders that ascertainment be
carried out, in spite of the explicit reservation made by the suspect and even if the conditions referred to
in the last part of paragraph 4 are not met, the results of the ascertainment shall not be used during the
trial.

https://canestrinilex.com/assets/Up...-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-canestriniLex.pdf


Statute: a law that has been formally approved and written down. - Cambridge English Dictionary

Statutory: decided, controlled, or required by law - ibid

Statutory means relating to rules or laws which have been formally written down. - Colllins


NB it does not mean the same as 'compulsory'.

 

[Vixen]

OH, yes ...it DOES work that way. Let's take a trip down memory lane:

1. Police claim the bloody shoe prints are left by Sollecito. When this is disproven, the police send the gang back to the cottage six weeks later to specifically collect the bra hook. Why? To see if they can connect Sollecito to it because they lost the only evidence of him in that room. Unless you'd like to claim they were looking for more evidence of Guede because they didn't have enough already?

2. When the knife is tested, only one very low count DNA sample of Kercher is (allegedly) found. So what do they do when that's discredited by C & V? Chieffi orders 36i to be tested. Do you think they were looking for more of Knox's DNA on that knife? Or Sollecito's? Do you?

Oh I say, Patrizia, can you keep testing everything until you find something on this pair I want to nail?'


Bang.Bang.

Please try to follow how this was dealt with in court, legally. Tagliabracci for the defence argued in court that the DNA testing was suspect centric. This was weighed up by the court and cross-examined. The claim was rejected.

There was no finding that the forensic police had been suspect-centric but entirely objective and impartial.

 

[Vixen]

Um...no he doesn't say that. He says the exact opposite on pg 363:
Quote:
Therefore Amanda and Raffaele, most likely accompanied by Rudy who had asked or had been invited to go with them to the house on Via della Pergola, arrived in that apartment around 23.00 pm; Meredith was already in the apartment, having gone back home around 21.00 pm, after having spent the afternoon and the evening with her own English friends.

There you go then: Kokomanni was right.

As for Massei, what can you say about the logic of a judge who claimed Amanda knew Guede "well"?


A judge who declared Amanda's footprints where in Meredith's blood when he acknowledged himself the TMB tests were all negative and Stefanoni had confirmed a negative TMB result meant no blood was present?

But, wait! There's more!

A judge who, in an effort to explain why Amanda would have a kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment when he claimed the murder was spontaneous and not pre-planned, claimed she was carrying around a huge, unprotected blade butcher knife in her cloth bag for 'protection'. A bag that showed no cuts or tears or any other evidence of a sharp knife in it. Yep! That's some logic there!

Knox and Guede shared a joint together. Guede said Knox was giving him the glad eye. On a street corner when Guede was standing with his basketball chums, including the boys downstairs, Knox came up to him and said, "Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle. [Remember?]' as they had chatted in Le Chic.

Do you have a problem with that?

She only knew Sollecito less than a week.