The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Bill Williams]

Criminal Law does its 'peer review' in the court room. The merits hearing is all.

Can you quote any legislation or criminal code that exempts any of the science introduced in court as being immune from peer review?

I thought not.

BTW - Marasca-Bruno's MR has a discussion within it on the problem of judges becoming the 'expert of the experts' and the limits judges have in understanding highly technical science.

You should read it sometime. Yet what you'll probably do is make the drive-by comment, and then dash ahead to more silly stuff.

 

[Vixen]

You continue to make claims but fail to quote and cite supporting evidence.

"Tagliabracci for the defence argued in court that the DNA testing was suspect centric. "

Please quote and cite where Tagliabracci did this. If you do not, like your previous claims that have gone unsupported by the requested evidence, then we can only infer it is not factual.

You don't seem very conversant with this case. Prof Tagliabracci argued on behalf of the defence of Sollecito that Stefanoni's methods of examining the knife was 'suspect-centric', both at the Massei trial and again at Nencini. Nencini having heard his objections, did not accept them, preferring the expert witness Stefanoni.

Examining some of the genetic loci present in the analysis made by Dr. Stefanoni, Prof. Tagliabracci arrived at different interpretations from the ones that Dr. Stefanoni explained during the various hearings and also in the conclusions section of her report (page 202). First of all, the consultant maintained that the interpretation given by Dr. Stefanoni and considered erroneous was a direct consequence of the application of the “suspect-centric” method by the biologist of the Scientific Police. This method of analysis, criticized by international protocols, consists in evaluating the result of an analysis by starting from the data it is to be compared with, i.e., starting from an already-known profile when seeking the identity of the analyzed sample. This operation is essentially the opposite of the correct one, which consists in first analyzing the sample and only subsequently, once the evaluation result is obtained, proceeding to compare it with the genetic profile of the suspect.

So, as you have been told, all of these issue were properly dealt with in court.

. In the second place, Prof. Tagliabracci criticized the result obtained by the biologist from the Scientific Police, in that on the assumption of the presence of more than two contributors in the trace, making it a mixed trace in which the proportion of the major contributor (Meredith Kercher) to the other contributors was to be considered on the order of magnitude of about 1 to 10, the analyzed sample presented the characteristics of [247] a “Low Copy Number” sample, making it necessary to repeat the analysis in order to have a reliable result, which was not done. Finally, concerning the Y haplotype that was found in the trace from Exhibit 165B, Prof. Tagliabracci, without actually advancing any criticisms of the interpretation of the data, emphasized that this type of analysis can exclude but cannot assert the presence of a given male individual, and thus cannot be used to assert that Raffaele Sollecito was present at the crime scene.

Nencini's verdict is

With respect to the first criticism, the Court holds that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni gave an adequate response in her explanations during the hearings at the First Instance Court (22 May 2009 hearing).

Furthermore, the result produced by the machine necessarily had to be interpreted in order to find the genotype, an interpretation which can physiologically give rise to different readings on the part of the various technical consultants and geneticists called upon to make it. Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.

From public records Date 30 January 2014, Deposited on 29 April 2014, no. 11/13 Reg.Gen. no. 9066/07 R.N.R. REPUBLIC OF ITALY In the name of the Italian People The Second Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence Composed of Messrs: 1. Dr. Alessandro Nencini, Presiding Judge and Extensor

So please stop making ill-founded accusations of wrongdoing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That is factually incorrect. The topic we were discussing was the Calunnia. Knox was convicted of Calunnia and remains convicted of it.

So I was right about the dumping on Knox's character bit but you *don't* hope history will eventually conclude she was a murderer?

 

[Vixen]

So I was right about the dumping on Knox's character bit but you *don't* hope history will eventually conclude she was a murderer?

Please note the topic of this thread and where it is situated.


Please keep your ad hominem to yourself.

 

[TruthCalls]

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?'

BS. I said the stain should have been tested, PERIOD!

You did ask the question "What is the further need?" and so I offered an opinion on what it might mean if it was Guede's. However, I have always maintained the stain should have been tested as a matter of course to see if it was semen, and if so, whose. Stop lying about what I've said.

 

[TruthCalls]

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


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

I'm sorry, but did I mention "rape" somewhere? I do believe I always refer to his action against Meredith as a sexual assault. You're free to look up that definition if you wish.

Yes, good question... who knows. Can you prove that wasn't new sheets that Meredith brought along, or can you prove they weren't perfectly clean before the attack? You can't. You simply make something up in a desperate effort to excuse an inexcusable error by the SP.

Yes, just one more prime example of the illogical reasoning exhibited by the Nencini court. If DNA was useless if undated, then why test for DNA at all... you can't ever date when it was deposited.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not so. The Chieffi Supreme Court already finalised the Calunnia conviction.

Uhm.... that's exactly what I stated. This is the second sentence of the post of mine to which you responded (my bolding for emphasis):

The Knox criminal slander conviction, at the time of the Marasca SC judgement and MR, stood as a SC-affirmed settled conviction.

Might I suggest you read my posts more carefully before attempting a response?

 

[LondonJohn]

Utter nonsense. Sollecito was a fourth-year IT student. IT students are said t be amongst the brightest. Sollecito was also a self-confident braggadoccio who swaggered into the Questera with a knife in his possession. On another occasion, when the police told him to attend the Questura at 22:00, Sollecito admonished them for interrupting his meal. That doesn't sound like a mouth-breathing drooling wilting flower who can't remember what he was doing on the night of a terrifying murder. Gimme a break.

And this is precisely the sort of bollocks put forth by people who clearly have no understanding whatsoever about coerced statements (especially when those coerced statements are extracted through the use of authority and threats).

Sollecito, in his 5th November interrogation, was told by the police that they (the police) were certain Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder. And then they told Sollecito that he'd better stop lying (Sollecito had consistently, up to that point, told the police that he and Knox had been together in his apartment all evening/night of 1st/2nd November) or else he would find himself in very serious legal trouble. We know for sure that the police told Sollecito to stop "covering" for Knox - the police were by that point convinced that a) Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder, and therefore b) Sollecito must have been lying to protect Knox when he'd stated that he and Knox had been alone together in his apartment throughout the critical evening/night.

There's plenty of information - in the form of academic research and investigate journalism - about coerced false confessions/statements, most of which involve police interrogations. There's also video evidence of police unlawfully coercing a healthy young adult man into admitting to a murder - when (luckily for him) unimpeachable documentary evidence (in the form of airline tickets) proved that he was thousands of miles away from the murder scene at the time of the crime.

I suggest you might benefit from doing some decent research into coerced false confessions/statements. It sounds like you might be both surprised and educated by what you'll find.

 

[LondonJohn]

Garafano didn't attempt to manipulate the outcome of the trial, as Peter Shill did, with his crafty 'Do you know who I am' legerdemain act. The sheer arrogance of the guy, thinking he can get someone off a murder rap by claiming he knows better than the Scientific Police. I wonder how much Mr. Sollecito Snr paid him for that.

Thing is though: he did know better than Stefanoni and her team. In fact, he knew much, much better than Stefanoni and her team.

Oh and several other eminent forensic scientists and geneticists from around the world - all of whom ripped apart Stefanoni's disgraceful ignorance and lies wrt her low-template DNA analysis - also knew much, much better than Stefanoni and her team*.

And fortunately for justice, the Marasca Supreme Court panel knew better than Stefanoni and her team when it threw out all the forensic "evidence" against Knox/Sollecito, owing to the fundamental (and irreparable) unreliability of that "evidence".

Stefanoni's work on the low-template DNA wrt Knox and Sollecito was disgracefully incompetent. Every step in the process - from collection at the crime scene to storage**/transportation to lab analysis to matching - was conducted in a cavalier and wholly inappropriate manner which demonstrated a total lack of adherence to the crucial procedures and protocols that are demanded when working with low-template DNA samples.


* Funny, isn't it, how not one disinterested expert in forensic science or genetics from around the world came forward to endorse Stefanoni's low-template DNA work in this case. Why do you think that might be, Vixen....?

** And who can forget Stefanoni leaving the blood-soaked towels - which were obviously of potentially huge forensic value at the time they were collected from the cottage - sitting in a dumped pile in her lab, meaning that they soon went mouldy and were consequently useless for any attempt at forensic examination. World-class eh, Vixen? Oh and what about her inexplicable and incompetent storage of the bra clasp, with its metal hook, immersed in liquid in a plastic test tube... resulting in the hook quickly rusting, rendering it entirely useless for any further forensic analysis. Still a big fan of Stefanoni, Vixen?

 

[LondonJohn]

Criminal Law does its 'peer review' in the court room. The merits hearing is all.

There's plenty of material available online about appellate courts, and their role/remit/function/responsibility/powers. If you're interested in looking into this area properly, that is....

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't seem very conversant with this case. Prof Tagliabracci argued on behalf of the defence of Sollecito that Stefanoni's methods of examining the knife was 'suspect-centric', both at the Massei trial and again at Nencini. Nencini having heard his objections, did not accept them, preferring the expert witness Stefanoni.

What Nencini thought is utterly irrelevant. His findings and verdict were totally expunged by the Supreme Court verdict. Didn't you know that?

So, as you have been told, all of these issue were properly dealt with in court.

And as you have been told, multiple times now, the Supreme Court verdict not only struck out every single decision/determination/finding of fact of the lower courts.... it also explicitly admonished the lower courts for the way they "properly dealt with" the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution.

Nencini's verdict is

From public records Date 30 January 2014, Deposited on 29 April 2014, no. 11/13 Reg.Gen. no. 9066/07 R.N.R. REPUBLIC OF ITALY In the name of the Italian People The Second Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence Composed of Messrs: 1. Dr. Alessandro Nencini, Presiding Judge and Extensor

Once again: everything Nencini's court decided is now utterly null and void. Judicially, it no longer exists. So maybe you should stop using the Nencini (and Massei) MR to support your argument. Those lower courts were (correctly) found by the SC to have been grossly errant in their determinations wrt the forensic evidence in this case.

So please stop making ill-founded accusations of wrongdoing.

And once again: please stop using the discredited, worthless and judicially non-existent verdicts of the lower courts to support your arguments.

 

[Stacyhs]

You don't seem very conversant with this case. Prof Tagliabracci argued on behalf of the defence of Sollecito that Stefanoni's methods of examining the knife was 'suspect-centric', both at the Massei trial and again at Nencini. Nencini having heard his objections, did not accept them, preferring the expert witness Stefanoni.



So, as you have been told, all of these issue were properly dealt with in court.




Nencini's verdict is



From public records Date 30 January 2014, Deposited on 29 April 2014, no. 11/13 Reg.Gen. no. 9066/07 R.N.R. REPUBLIC OF ITALY In the name of the Italian People The Second Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence Composed of Messrs: 1. Dr. Alessandro Nencini, Presiding Judge and Extensor

Well, CONGRATULATIONS , Vixen! You've FINALLY quoted and cited supporting evidence of a claim! Is this progress? However, since you have shown that you actually do understand how this is done, it just further demonstrates that you failure to provide evidence of innumerable other claims, despite numerous requests to do so, is because you can't do so.

But, let me ask you this: Just how does this support Knox's guilt?

So please stop making ill-founded accusations of wrongdoing.

What accusations of wrongdoing did I make, Vixen?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

YOU made a claim that "How it works, is the stain is test and THEN the profile is matched to whatever suspect.[/HILITE] Not' Oh I say, Carruthers can you keep testing everything until you find something on this guy I want to nail?'"

I gave two examples where they were doing exactly that. Both of which you ignored. Or do you really want to claim that the SP didn't go back to get the bra clasp 6 weeks later only AFTER Sollecito's shoe prints were ruled out and sample 36i was ordered tested AFTER the alleged Kercher DNA on the knife was ruled not credible?

 

[Numbers]

The Nencini and Massei courts violated Italian procedural law CPP 192, paragraph 2 by using inadmissible, unreliable, and non-credible alleged evidence to form inferences of "fact".
That is one of the many reasons why the Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini judgment. When the Marasca CSC panel delivered its judgment, the Massei judgment had been already quashed by the Hellmann court of appeal. Despite your abysmal mischaracterizations of Italian law, it is the Marasca CSC panel judgment of acquittal that is the final judgment of the charges against Knox and Sollecito.
The only exception to the finality of that judgment is the possible revision under Italian law of Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, which had been made final by the Chieffi CSC panel. That judgment was found to be the result of an unfair trial [due] to [Italy committing] two violations of international law by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy.

Absolute nonsense. The Supreme Court does not find facts nor weigh up evidence. All it does is rubber stamp the verdict of the appeal court or refer it back. In this case, it anulled the sentences but didn't state that any of the facts were defective.
..../QUOTE]

1. The first paragraph of the quoted post consists entirely of false statements. See CPP Articles 606 and 620 to read the actual legal authority of the CSC.

....

Although this has been discussed many times on several continuations of this thread, there seems to be considerable confusion among the PGP, and perhaps others, about the role of the CSC under Italian law.

In part, this confusion be the result of the abbreviated and somewhat misleading treatment of the function of the CSC in many lay descriptions, such as those found in Wikipedia articles. The confusion may also result in part from misunderstandings of what constitutes "law" in Italy (and other jurisdictions, but our concern is Italy) compared to what constitutes "merits".

In fact, there is an overlap of the "law" and "merits" in Italy because a number of Italian laws relate to, for example:

how may evidence be gathered and treated - the law states that there are lawful and unlawful methods to gather evidence,

whether all the critical evidence has or has not been gathered,

whether each item of the alleged evidence gathered is usable or not in court,

whether each of the inferences made based upon elements of alleged evidence is legally valid,

whether each of the inferences based on the evidence is logical or reasonable,

and whether the overall chain of reasoning - the grounds of the judgment - is logical or reasonable.

To support a verdict of guilt, the grounds of the judgment may not be illogical, unreasonable, missing or incomplete, inconsistent, or contradictory, because according to Italian law, a verdict of guilt may only be declared if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The CSC is authorized under Italian law to examine all of the above issues of law and which involve consideration of the alleged evidence.

Some of the relevant laws include but are not limited to CPP Articles 63, 64, 187 - 193, 194 - 271, 533, 606, 620, 621, 623, and 624.

As mentioned many times before, CPP Article 606 defines the lawful arguments allowed for an appeal to the CSC to be admissible. Therefore, the CSC may lawfully address such arguments, including those which relate to evidence and the evaluation of evidence, inferences derived from evidence, and the chain of reasoning (grounds) of a judgment.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

When proved by cited evidence that you were wrong about what Massei said, rather than admit it, you resort to this nonsense. Sad. More than sad

Knox and Guede shared a joint together.

Well, now...that is certainly evidence that Knox "knew Guede well"!

Guede said Knox was giving him the glad eye.

Guede said a lot of things we all know are bull feces. Or do you think he was really invited by Meredith to come over and they were into heavy petting on the living room couch?

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.

Even Guede's own deposition doesn't agree with that. Nor do the testimonies of Silenzi and Marzan.

We accompanied Owen back to Alex’s house, because he was completely drunk and after we went back to the center, we were there a while, it would have been about two O’clock at night then we decided that it was late and each went to his own house. On leaving Rock Castle’s the Italian guys recognized me, the two Italian guys, because I hadn’t noticed them.

No, I don’t know where she came from however when this girl came I was a bit tipsy and so I saw this girl that was there with the guys and I started to talk with her. She started saying she was from Seattle, and so on and there I, I had like a flashback and I said “but I know you” and Amanda said to me “yes, we’ve already met at the Pub Le Chic”… and there I lost sight of my friends who most likely seeing me talking with these went off, and there I expressed the wish to go back home all together and we went down together for each to go to their own home…

Neither Silenzi's nor Marzan's testimonies say Guede was with anyone else or that Amanda said "Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle. [Remember?]". Nor does Knox describe it in her book the way you describe it.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I have a problem with a judge, or you, mischaracterizing Knox's and Guede's relationship.

She only knew Sollecito less than a week.

Yes, and she knew Guede even less...much less. So to suggest that she convinced either, much less both, to participate in a sexual assault/murder is beyond ludicrous.

 

[TruthCalls]

Unfortunately for your story, police phone log retrievals placed her near the basketball court and not 'home all night'. Even Sollecito told the police she was out until 1:00am. Or perhaps you can explain why you think Guede is a liar but Sollecito is not, or Knox, despite scientific evidence that their movements are not what they say on the tin.

First, it's not my story, it was Amanda's and Raffaele's account of the evening.

Second, you made the claim "Knox, in her first statement to the police stated that she had met Patrik in he baseball court and they had returned to the cottage together" when clearly that was not the first thing she told the police. Not even close. But I'm sure you have your reasons for lying about that.

Third, phone logs did NOT place her near the basketball court. If you think otherwise then prove it. Just remember, we all have her phone log so we know what towers were handling her calls, and besides, the last entry in the log for that night was at 20:35:48 and we know Popovic sees her at Raffaele's just five minutes later, which makes your claim impossible.

Finally, I've asked you at least three times in the past 1.5 days WHY would Amanda and Raffaele stage a sexual assault if they already knew one had happened. You keep claiming the scene was staged, so you should have an answer for this question.

 

[Stacyhs]

Patrizia Stefnanoni's testimony, which was accepted by the court, as per her presentation.

LOL. "The" court. There was more than one, Vixen. The one that counted in the end, did not.


Not sure why you and the producers of the Netflix film try to encourage a false belief in the hoax 'there was no scratch mark'. Have to instil a suspicion of a Conspiracy Theory against 'the kids', eh?
[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52511701326_033ae96fbc.jpg[/qimg][/QUOTE]

Oh, wow. Just wow. Classic Vixen. Moving the goalpost there much and claiming things were said that never were?
You claimed that THE DEFENSE AGREED THERE WAS A STRIATION/SCRATCH. This proves no such thing...and you know it. Which is why you've never, ever, quoted and cited them doing so.

I just watched again the Netflix docu and nowhere in it do they say there were no scratch marks on the blade.

What I said was that Stefanoni could not find the scratch mark she claimed held MK's DNA and neither could anyone else. You have failed to produce anyone finding THAT striation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Judges do not hypothesise. Judges are paid to judge. They are expected to come to a decision. Judges are not paid to philosophise. A Supreme Court Judge is paid to make a final determination.

Really? Judges do not hypothesize? That is exactly what Massei did when
it was hypothesized that Knox's footprints were in Meredith's blood despite the negative TMB tests and Stefanoni's own testimony that a negative TMB test means no blood is present. It's exactly what Massei did when it was claimed Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood when NO forensic evidence was presented showing this.

In Italy, this duty goes further. A judge is obliged to provide written reasons for the decision he or she has come to. In determining that Knox was guilty, as charged, for the crime of Calunnia, those words about Knox covering up for Guede are the written reasons for the verdict.

Having said that, the reason given is unusual insofar no lower court found that 'Knox covered up for Guede', so a bit of a curve ball.

"Unusual" is a bit of an understatement. There was no evidence that Knox covered up for Guede and logic shows otherwise. Pointing out his crap in the toilet and the bath mat to the police and not removing his bloody shoeprints are hardly the actions of someone 'covering up' for another person

 

[Stacyhs]

Peter Gill was not a witness at the trial. He was not cross-examined. He did not see the primary evidence nor the treatment of same.

Gill didn't have to be a witness at trial or cross examined. What he did see was exactly what many experts see when asked for a second opinion. His professional opinion was open for any other expert to see. Can you provide another expert disagreeing with that opinion?

As for your would, could, should, anyone can rationalise anything.

You've finally said something we both can agree on.


rationaliseIf you read Sollecito's second statement to the police, you will see that Sollecito does indeed confirm that his first statement was just an alibi for Knox, which she had asked him to provide and that this was a crock. He actually throws her under the bus and says she didn't return to his bedsit until 1:00. Such an honour bound chap! Bill Williams' chest will be bursting with pride for 'the kid'.[/QUOTE]

And did he stick with that statement? Hint: No, he did not.

 

[Stacyhs]

Utter nonsense. Sollecito was a fourth-year IT student. IT students are said t be amongst the brightest. Sollecito was also a self-confident braggadoccio who swaggered into the Questera with a knife in his possession.

Have you considered writing fiction? Oh, you have!

On another occasion, when the police told him to attend the Questura at 22:00, Sollecito admonished them for interrupting his meal.

No, he did not 'admonish them for interrupting his meal'; he was irritated at being called in at 10:00 at night to reiterate, yet again, what he'd already told them more than once.

That doesn't sound like a mouth-breathing drooling wilting flower who can't remember what he was doing on the night of a terrifying murder. Gimme a break.

Hmmmmm...yet you think this young man who is "among the brightest" and whowasn't "a mouth-breathing drooling wilting flower" was so stupid and weak that he agreed to engage in a sexual assault and murder of a girl he barely knew at the behest of a girl he'd known for a week! So which is it, Vixen? As previously said, "pick a lane". If this thread were a car with 'lane alert' , it would be going off continuously.

 

[Bill Williams]

Criminal Law does its 'peer review' in the court room. The merits hearing is all.

So, then you're now claiming that women have Y-haplotypes, like Nencini wrote in his motivations report.