Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote

Garofani. Torrecelli. Both top of their field and highly respected.

First off, thank you for at least providing names. Yet a very cursory Google search, particularly to do with Luciano Garofano, exposes the source of those claims. They are Harry Rag's claims.... a guilter would comment-bombed news sights on his view of Knox being obviously guilty. HarryRag claimed that Garofano said that Knox's DNA was found on the victim's bra - something that IIRC was never once entered into evidence at any of the trials.

But thanks for at least offering the names. Those weren't the two I read about - one who supported Stefanoni's work, but conceded that she had not followed international standards. The other saying that Stefanoni's work was probably all right, except he had not seen the negative controls so that was something less than a solid opinion.

In any event, thank you. My guess is that you just took their names out of that posting HarryRag used to blanket news-comments sections with, but I have no proof that you did that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then again, Luciano Garofano is mentioned in Darkness Descending, one of the more questionable books about the case.

Even so, this was the conclusion that that title came up with in quoting Garofano's opinions on the case:

This from The Independent in Nov 2010

Uniquely among the many books published on the case, Darkness Descending has the advantage of a leading Italian detective as one of the three co-authors.

"Luciano Garofano retired from the Carabinieri last year as head of their forensic department," says British crime writer Graham Johnson, who collaborated on the book with documentary-maker Paul Russell (also British) and Garofano. "If the Carabinieri had got the emergency call before the police," says Johnson, "Garofano would have been in charge of the investigation.

"Garofano didn't come to firm conclusions about who was the murderer. He said, there's no smoking gun, and because it's a matter of uncertainty, he was reluctant to give a conclusive judgement on it. But he did come to different judgements from the prosecution and other people attached to the case. "For instance, he felt that the police relied too heavily on traces of DNA on the alleged murder weapon [a kitchen knife, found not at the crime scene, but in the flat rented by Raffaele Sollecito where Amanda and Raffaele claim that they spent the night of 1 November]. He felt that the sample, claimed by the prosecution to be Amanda's, was too small to produce an effective and reliable DNA model."

So, what's that about Garofano being someone who supported Stefanoni's work? The embarrassment of the guilter position continues unabated.

It seems that being ill informed of the claims one makes is the guilter style.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Bill's citation above:

If the Carabinieri had got the emergency call before the police," says Johnson, "Garofano would have been in charge of the investigation.

Ahem... the Carabinieri did get the 112 call before the postales arrived. More importantly, the postales were never in charge of the murder investigation. So, why was Garofano not put in charge of the investigation?

Garofano's opinion has been disputed by other forensic DNA experts like Krane, Hampikian, and Halkides:

The false equivalence between mixed DNA and mixed blood dates back at least to the publication of the book Darkness Descending. In this book Colonel Luciano Garofano, a retired officer of the Carabinieri, said, “However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast. We have the same result on the cotton-bud box. The light switch was over-scrubbed, but from the film the way the cotton-bud was good enough. There too we have mixed blood. So that's pretty significant for Amanda, Unfortunately for her, she bled at the same time Meredith was bleeding. That's a lot to explain." (Darkness Descending, page 371).

There are several reasons why Garofano’s interpretations are wrong. In response to a question of mine, Professor Dan Krane wrote, “Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?” Professor Greg Hampikian concurred with the view that peak heights were not an indication of whether or not blood was the source of DNA. The peak heights for Raffaele’s profile on the cigarette butt were reported to me as being about the same height as those on the cotton box, and the former are presumably from saliva.

.... this paper also showed that saliva gave tall peaks in DNA profiling, which is one more indication that peak height cannot be used to infer the biological origin of a sample.

ETA: I expected the head of the Carabinieri forensics department to have a Ph.D. or, at least, a master's degree. But, interestingly, Garofano's academic background consists of a BS in Biology (like Stefanoni) and a Specialization in Forensic Toxicology.

 

[Bill Williams]

From Bill's citation above:



Ahem... the Carabinieri did get the 112 call before the postales arrived. More importantly, the postales were never in charge of the murder investigation. So, why was Garofano not put in charge of the investigation?

Garofano's opinion has been disputed by other forensic DNA experts like Krane, Hampikian, and Halkides:



ETA: I expected the head of the Carabinieri forensics department to have a Ph.D. or, at least, a master's degree. But, interestingly, Garofano's academic background consists of a BS in Biology (like Stefanoni) and a Specialization in Forensic Toxicology.

The Independent newspaper from 2010 quotes Darkness Descending, a guilter staple, citing that Garofano had no faith in the original prosecution's work.

Your post documents something a bit different, that Garafano, although embedded the Carabinieri, did not have what could be called a full measure of training, leading trained DNA experts to dispute his findings on certain things - all in favour of the original defence. (Unless I am reading your post wrong.)

Either way, I had asked Vixen for a DNA expert who'd supported Stefanoni's original DNA work. Vixen gave Garofano's name. My bias is that she offered Garafano's name simply because it had shown up in Harry Rag's, guilter screed.....

So, I am no further in having my original question answered. Does that surprise anyone?

 

[Vixen]

First off, thank you for at least providing names. Yet a very cursory Google search, particularly to do with Luciano Garofano, exposes the source of those claims. They are Harry Rag's claims.... a guilter would comment-bombed news sights on his view of Knox being obviously guilty. HarryRag claimed that Garofano said that Knox's DNA was found on the victim's bra - something that IIRC was never once entered into evidence at any of the trials.

But thanks for at least offering the names. Those weren't the two I read about - one who supported Stefanoni's work, but conceded that she had not followed international standards. The other saying that Stefanoni's work was probably all right, except he had not seen the negative controls so that was something less than a solid opinion.

In any event, thank you. My guess is that you just took their names out of that posting HarryRag used to blanket news-comments sections with, but I have no proof that you did that.

Garafano wrote his report for the authors of Darkness Descending. He was free to provide whatever opinion he wanted. It is all in the public domain and nothing to do with Harry Rag.

 

[Vixen]

From Bill's citation above:



Ahem... the Carabinieri did get the 112 call before the postales arrived. More importantly, the postales were never in charge of the murder investigation. So, why was Garofano not put in charge of the investigation?

Garofano's opinion has been disputed by other forensic DNA experts like Krane, Hampikian, and Halkides:



ETA: I expected the head of the Carabinieri forensics department to have a Ph.D. or, at least, a master's degree. But, interestingly, Garofano's academic background consists of a BS in Biology (like Stefanoni) and a Specialization in Forensic Toxicology.

You have been told several times now that there are more professions than academia. Only an ignoramus believes a research fellow is better qualified than a professional expert.

AI Overview

No, academia is not the only profession where expertise is valued and developed. While academia is certainly a field known for its focus on specialized knowledge and research, many other professions require and foster expertise. Examples include medicine, law, engineering, and various specialized trades.

 

[Vixen]

The Independent newspaper from 2010 quotes Darkness Descending, a guilter staple, citing that Garofano had no faith in the original prosecution's work.

Your post documents something a bit different, that Garafano, although embedded the Carabinieri, did not have what could be called a full measure of training, leading trained DNA experts to dispute his findings on certain things - all in favour of the original defence. (Unless I am reading your post wrong.)

Either way, I had asked Vixen for a DNA expert who'd supported Stefanoni's original DNA work. Vixen gave Garofano's name. My bias is that she offered Garafano's name simply because it had shown up in Harry Rag's, guilter screed.....

So, I am no further in having my original question answered. Does that surprise anyone?

It's hardly a guilter staple as it gives plenty of space to Knox' family.

 

[Vixen]

Once again... this is a discussion of whether Stefanoni was suspect centric in her analysis. You can continue to trot out non-sequitur comments, but we can all see you're refusing to address the issue because you know she absolutely was. Why not address the actual issue for a change!

As for following ENFSI... I call your attention to Section 8.2 of the ENFSI Best Practices Manual for Scene of Crime Examination.



I'm quite certain they did NOT follow ENFSI standards with the knife, as the bold passage above underscores. That knife should NOT have been removed from the collection bag until it got to the lab. Failure to comply with ENFSI SHOULD have rendered the knife inadmissible.

So now you have TWO issues to address... suspect centric analysis, and failure to comply with ENFSI standards.

And my guess.... you'll either ignore this, or veer off on an unrelated tangent because you just can't admit when you're wrong.

Nencini rejected Tagliabracci's claim it was suspectcentric. The Rome Scientific Police follow ENFSI. It is the professional standard. Just like I automatically abide by my professional accountancy standards and HMRC/taxation standards. You aren't a member of the profession unless you have shown yourself competent in these standards. It's rather facile to keep claiming Stefanoni wasn't up to ENFSI standards just because you say so.

 

[Vixen]

No. You're just claiming that as an excuse to avoid discussing the fact that the the shape of the big toe clearly doesn't match Raffaele's reference footprint.



View attachment 63026

View attachment 63027

View attachment 63028

So, Vixen, if you can "see the truth of the matter," then please explain to us why the big toe prints look nothing alike, the measurements don't fit, and most of the reference points don't line up.


Which is also either inconclusive or fatally defective.

This is what the Massei court concluded about Prof Vinci's claims:

However, the Court cannot agree with one point of departure, which is the operation that consists of detaching the small mark from the big toe print, since this results in a clearly visible resizing of the big toe.

This operation rests on the assumption that there is an interruption of continuity in the print (tables on pp. 45-46 of the report), but this starting point is not at all convincing, given that the photograph provided as documentary evidence of this appears to show exactly the contrary. The base of the material in the disputed point (in this portion of the mat, the terrycloth [also] has a decorative protuberance) shows that the trace of blood is a single unit on all of the curl (flourish), and is uniformly linked, forming a single unit with all the other parts of the material on which the big toe was placed. For these reasons, the proof that this mark is actually the mark of the second toe (missing in the morphology of Sollecito's foot) appears totally weak and unsatisfactory.

Finally, although it is possible to agree that in the calculation of the width of the big toe (of approximately 30mm.) the point of measuring may fall in an unstained place, nevertheless a comprehensive view of the bathmat clearly shows why this was done. Considering (see attached photo 17 of the ERT showing a complete view of the bathmat print) that the small region under discussion is part of the tip of the big toe, the point on the right of the toe giving the 30mm measurement lies along the line descending perpendicularly from that tip, without any widening.

In brief, the suggestion that the extension of the big toe trace be sacrificed, interpreting it instead as the print of the second toe, appears far from realistic. Furthermore, the association of the bathmat footprint with Guede's foot (see the CDROM provided by Professor Vinci showing the "superimposition sequence" for Guede's foot and for Knox's) appears, frankly, as strained, given that Guede's footprint, apart from having a morphology [380] which is generally longer and more tapered, also has a second toe print which unequivocally falls quite far from the big toe print, so that the small mark whose detachment from the big toe is in question here could hardly be attributed to the second toe of the co-accused.

Finally, there is a piece of data which the Court has uncontrovertibly adopted: the same images of the bathmat, shown in deepened colours by the lighting equipment of the Crimescope, do actually increase the impression of solidity of the size of the big toe (and also of the metatarsus), and augment the perception of the unity with the rest of the small mark whose detachment was suggested.

The consequence is that the Court does not hold as practicable the alternative version aimed at confuting or undermining the judgement of probable identity formulated by the Scientific Police, which instead finds itself strengthened.

Perugia, 4-5 December 2009 Drafters [Estensori]^[1]:

Dr Beatrice Cristiani, judge

Dr Giancarlo Massei, president.

---

[1] Estensore = a person who draws up a legal document

 

[Vixen]

What does Nencini Appeal Court rule re Vinci's claim it could be Guede's bare footprint on the bathmat ~vs~ Rinaldi-Boemia for the Scientific Police?

"According to the prosecution’s hypothesis (expert witness Rinaldi, in the court files), the outline is seemingly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot, whereas the Defense has contested this specific attribution (expert witness Vinci, in the court files) since the preliminary enquiry. While it is understood that we will return to this issue later, there are already some fixed points that can nonetheless be determined now. In the first place, this is clearly the outline of a foot without footwear, of a male person (given the dimensions of the footprint), a person who had earlier stepped barefoot in the copious puddles of Meredith Kercher’s blood that were present in her bedroom and who had then gone into the small bathroom, probably to wash himself. In the second place, the outline is certainly incompatible with an attribution to Rudy Hermann Guede, since, even leaving aside the different morphological configuration of Guede’s foot, the attribution of the latter to footprint “5 A” (the print of the Nike Outbreak model 2 mens’ sports shoe) [which is] now undisputed evidence, and [which was] originally mistakenly attributed to Raffaele Sollecito, leads [the Court] to hold that it is highly likely, if not certain, that Guede, during the time he was moving around inside the apartment after the perpetration of the crime was wearing sports shoes on both his feet and was not moving around with one foot bare and the other in footwear. "

<snip>

"Finally, the outline imprinted on the small light blue mat found in the small bathroom presents us with another fact that constitutes, in the Court’s opinion, an element of deductive proof. Since no similar outlines were found in the immediate surroundings and since, as far as the print on the small mat is concerned, there was the outline of [only] a “half foot”, one must therefore presume that the back part of the sole (the heel) was pressed against the tiles, where for that matter no relative print was found. Both these circumstances further confirm that, after the murder, someone took pains to undertake an intensive clean-up of the traces of the murder in the rooms of the Via della Pergola apartment - a clean-up that obviously involved the floor tiles but not the light blue mat on which the blood had been absorbed given the porous nature of the material of which it is made."
[The reasoning:]

"This Court holds that the observations of Prof. Vinci cannot be accepted for the following reasons. [259] In the first place, the presence of the second toe of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito impressed in the print on the blue bathmat is not very significant, since it could be the consequence of stepping onto a soft material which will move under the pressure of a foot, allowing this second toe to make a mark which it would not make on a rigid surface. Secondly, the decision to separate a piece of a blood stain, which then ceases to form part of the big toe but rather becomes a separate element, was made by the consultant based solely on a matter of opinion and open to contradiction by a different perception. This Court, looking at the imprint, does not perceive anything that resembles anything other than a clear and complete single imprint of a big toe. It should also be noted that, even if we do separate a part of the stain, making the big toe smaller, and believe in the imprint of the second toe, which Raffaele Sollecito's foot would not have made, we still are not left with a footprint that is compatible with the foot of Rudy Hermann Guede, which has a much more tapered form than that of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito. To conclude, the footprint on the bathmat is incompatible in size with the foot of Amanda Marie Knox. If we accepted Prof. Vinci’s hypothesis that it is incompatible with Raffaele Sollecito, and we know it isn't Rudy Guede, the print would have to be attributable to a fourth person, still unknown and clearly an accomplice of Rudy Hermann Guede. This would be completely at odds with all of the other evidence collected. Consequently, it is not possible to accept the alternative version that rejects the judgment of probable identity made by the Scientific Police early on, a judgment that is, if anything, strengthened by everything later brought to light in this case."

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 2. Dr. Luciana Cicerchia, Judge of the Court of Appeal 3. Mrs. Elena Perrucci, Lay Judge 4. Mrs. Lucia Bargelli, Lay Judge 5. Mrs. Veronica Alessi, Lay Judge 6. Mrs. Marisa Lippi, Lay Judge 7. Mrs. Genny Ballerini, Lay Judge 8. Mr. Giovanni Cocco, Lay Judge in the presence of the Prosecution represented by the Assistant General State Prosecutor Dr. Alessandro Crini

You will note the prosecutor is Crini, not Mignini. The facts found by Massei and upheld on appeal by Nencini in respect of whose footprint is in the victim's blood on the bathmat has never been retried and remains as the factual position. The fact is, the footprint on the bathmat is that of Raffaele Sollecito, who stepped in the blood of Meredith Kercher. The fact he was acquitted due to 'insufficient evidence' does not change this factual information, as tried, tested and cross-examined in court.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

What does Nencini Appeal Court rule re Vinci's claim it could be Guede's bare footprint on the bathmat ~vs~ Rinaldi-Boemia for the Scientific Police?

"According to the prosecution’s hypothesis (expert witness Rinaldi, in the court files), the outline is seemingly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot, whereas the Defense has contested this specific attribution (expert witness Vinci, in the court files) since the preliminary enquiry. While it is understood that we will return to this issue later, there are already some fixed points that can nonetheless be determined now. In the first place, this is clearly the outline of a foot without footwear, of a male person (given the dimensions of the footprint), a person who had earlier stepped barefoot in the copious puddles of Meredith Kercher’s blood that were present in her bedroom and who had then gone into the small bathroom, probably to wash himself. In the second place, the outline is certainly incompatible with an attribution to Rudy Hermann Guede, since, even leaving aside the different morphological configuration of Guede’s foot, the attribution of the latter to footprint “5 A” (the print of the Nike Outbreak model 2 mens’ sports shoe) [which is] now undisputed evidence, and [which was] originally mistakenly attributed to Raffaele Sollecito, leads [the Court] to hold that it is highly likely, if not certain, that Guede, during the time he was moving around inside the apartment after the perpetration of the crime was wearing sports shoes on both his feet and was not moving around with one foot bare and the other in footwear. "

<snip>

"Finally, the outline imprinted on the small light blue mat found in the small bathroom presents us with another fact that constitutes, in the Court’s opinion, an element of deductive proof. Since no similar outlines were found in the immediate surroundings and since, as far as the print on the small mat is concerned, there was the outline of [only] a “half foot”, one must therefore presume that the back part of the sole (the heel) was pressed against the tiles, where for that matter no relative print was found. Both these circumstances further confirm that, after the murder, someone took pains to undertake an intensive clean-up of the traces of the murder in the rooms of the Via della Pergola apartment - a clean-up that obviously involved the floor tiles but not the light blue mat on which the blood had been absorbed given the porous nature of the material of which it is made."
[The reasoning:]

"This Court holds that the observations of Prof. Vinci cannot be accepted for the following reasons. [259] In the first place, the presence of the second toe of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito impressed in the print on the blue bathmat is not very significant, since it could be the consequence of stepping onto a soft material which will move under the pressure of a foot, allowing this second toe to make a mark which it would not make on a rigid surface. Secondly, the decision to separate a piece of a blood stain, which then ceases to form part of the big toe but rather becomes a separate element, was made by the consultant based solely on a matter of opinion and open to contradiction by a different perception. This Court, looking at the imprint, does not perceive anything that resembles anything other than a clear and complete single imprint of a big toe. It should also be noted that, even if we do separate a part of the stain, making the big toe smaller, and believe in the imprint of the second toe, which Raffaele Sollecito's foot would not have made, we still are not left with a footprint that is compatible with the foot of Rudy Hermann Guede, which has a much more tapered form than that of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito. To conclude, the footprint on the bathmat is incompatible in size with the foot of Amanda Marie Knox. If we accepted Prof. Vinci’s hypothesis that it is incompatible with Raffaele Sollecito, and we know it isn't Rudy Guede, the print would have to be attributable to a fourth person, still unknown and clearly an accomplice of Rudy Hermann Guede. This would be completely at odds with all of the other evidence collected. Consequently, it is not possible to accept the alternative version that rejects the judgment of probable identity made by the Scientific Police early on, a judgment that is, if anything, strengthened by everything later brought to light in this case."

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 2. Dr. Luciana Cicerchia, Judge of the Court of Appeal 3. Mrs. Elena Perrucci, Lay Judge 4. Mrs. Lucia Bargelli, Lay Judge 5. Mrs. Veronica Alessi, Lay Judge 6. Mrs. Marisa Lippi, Lay Judge 7. Mrs. Genny Ballerini, Lay Judge 8. Mr. Giovanni Cocco, Lay Judge in the presence of the Prosecution represented by the Assistant General State Prosecutor Dr. Alessandro Crini

You will note the prosecutor is Crini, not Mignini. The facts found by Massei and upheld on appeal by Nencini in respect of whose footprint is in the victim's blood on the bathmat has never been retried and remains as the factual position. The fact is, the footprint on the bathmat is that of Raffaele Sollecito, who stepped in the blood of Meredith Kercher. The fact he was acquitted due to 'insufficient evidence' does not change this factual information, as tried, tested and cross-examined in court.

Every time I read Nencini I marvel at his stupidity. "It can't be Rudy's foot, he wore shoes! Shoes can never be removed!"

Also, the blood on the mat was diluted. The notion that someone was stepping in "copious amounts of blood" is not in any way evidenced.

Good thing Nencini is annulled.

 

[Vixen]

Every time I read Nencini I marvel at his stupidity. "It can't be Rudy's foot, he wore shoes! Shoes can never be removed!"

Also, the blood on the mat was diluted. The notion that someone was stepping in "copious amounts of blood" is not in any way evidenced.

Good thing Nencini is annulled.

What you fail to grasp is that Nencini, qualified judge, is stating the fact found after weighing up the evidence and cross-examining top expert professionals in their field. The fact it is Sollecito's footprint was thus proven (having been measured, examined and analysed by forensic scientific police and the defence experts, and their being cross-examined by all sides after their presentation to the court). I love how AK/RS fans believe their half-baked conjecture is equivalent to a proven fact as established by a criminal court of law. It be like:

JUDGE HIPLER: BK has taken a plea deal and pleaded guilty to four murders.
Probergers (for it is they): Ah, but it could've been the door dash man. Our belief is just as good as your established fact! If it was BK he would have and he could have done this that and the other but he wouldn't have left it behind so he couldn't have and he wouldn't have pointed it out to the police!

Fact is: Guede's luminol-highlighted shoeprint leads straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. Guede had no possible reason to return and clean up the footprints leading up to the bathmat, nor zoom around on a towel, let alone take off one shoe and sock, and then hop out of the door.

 

[Numbers]

What you fail to grasp is that Nencini, qualified judge, is stating the fact found after weighing up the evidence and cross-examining top expert professionals in their field. The fact it is Sollecito's footprint was thus proven (having been measured, examined and analysed by forensic scientific police and the defence experts, and their being cross-examined by all sides after their presentation to the court). I love how AK/RS fans believe their half-baked conjecture is equivalent to a proven fact as established by a criminal court of law. It be like:

JUDGE HIPLER: BK has taken a plea deal and pleaded guilty to four murders.
Probergers (for it is they): Ah, but it could've been the door dash man. Our belief is just as good as your established fact! If it was BK he would have and he could have done this that and the other but he wouldn't have left it behind so he couldn't have and he wouldn't have pointed it out to the police!

Fact is: Guede's luminol-highlighted shoeprint leads straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. Guede had no possible reason to return and clean up the footprints leading up to the bathmat, nor zoom around on a towel, let alone take off one shoe and sock, and then hop out of the door.

What your numerous posts on the subject of "facts" derived by the Italian courts fail to recognize is that these are "judicial facts" - not empirical facts, but inferences derived often contrary to Italian law CPP Article 192, paragraph 2. That law requires that a lawful judicial fact - an inference - can only exist lawfully if it is inferred from evidence that is "serious, precise, and consistent". Thus, under that law, the courts and judges who inferred a "judicial fact" that the footprint was made by Sollecito were making an unlawful inference. The judgments of the Massei court and the Nencini court were quashed, so the "judicial facts" they found are no longer exist under Italian law.

Art. 192.

Valutazione della prova.

2. L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/11/13/prove-disposizioni-generali

 

[Matthew Best]

The NY Times has an 18 August 2025 article on the Hulu mini-series The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox that will be streamed starting 20 August 2025. Here's an excerpt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/arts/television/amanda-knox-hulu-show-grace-van-patten.html

In the UK (and elsewhere) this will be available on Disney+ from tomorrow:

ORIGINAL LIMITED SERIES “THE TWISTED TALE OF AMANDA KNOX” PREMIERES AUGUST 20TH EXCLUSIVELY ON DISNEY+

press.disney.co.uk

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote

You have been told several times now that there are more professions than academia. Only an ignoramus believes a research fellow is better qualified than a professional expert.

AI Overview

No, academia is not the only profession where expertise is valued and developed. While academia is certainly a field known for its focus on specialized knowledge and research, many other professions require and foster expertise. Examples include medicine, law, engineering, and various specialized trades.

Wow. It is clear that you believe what you posted.

Yet this adds nothing to the discussion about the two names you mentioned which you claimed supported Stefanoni's original DNA work. Instead of refuting Darkness Descending's claims about Garofano's opinions, you simply say that you did not get any of your own citations (which you have not supplied) from HarryRag.

Okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you.... except this thread is no more enlightened as to how you compose an argument. I'm not sure where you came up with the distinctions between 'research fellows' and 'professional experts', as if the former are not part of the latter....

 

[Vixen]

What your numerous posts on the subject of "facts" derived by the Italian courts fail to recognize is that these are "judicial facts" - not empirical facts, but inferences derived often contrary to Italian law CPP Article 192, paragraph 2. That law requires that a lawful judicial fact - an inference - can only exist lawfully if it is inferred from evidence that is "serious, precise, and consistent". Thus, under that law, the courts and judges who inferred a "judicial fact" that the footprint was made by Sollecito were making an unlawful inference. The judgments of the Massei court and the Nencini court were quashed, so the "judicial facts" they found are no longer exist under Italian law.



Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/11/13/prove-disposizioni-generali

That is not so. The facts remain. The M-B court didn't send them back down. The Supreme Court's reasoning based on the final appeal is purely hypothetical and nothing to do with facts. For example, it claims it is 'illogical' that there could have been cleaning up in the hallway despite the bathmat footprint not having any leading up to it and confirming the pair had all night to clean up, knowing as Knox did, the other housemates would not be home that night. Simply saying the investigation was 'flawed' and chucking in a reference to Gallileo is not stating a fact, it is pure supposition. The fact there is no logic or basis for the claims shows just what a poor barrister Bongiorno is. But it shows despite having zero bar skills, she had 'influence' and backchanneling to work a political acquittal. It's not a real acquittal.

 

[Vixen]

Wow. It is clear that you believe what you posted.

Yet this adds nothing to the discussion about the two names you mentioned which you claimed supported Stefanoni's original DNA work. Instead of refuting Darkness Descending's claims about Garofano's opinions, you simply say that you did not get any of your own citations (which you have not supplied) from HarryRag.

Okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you.... except this thread is no more enlightened as to how you compose an argument. I'm not sure where you came up with the distinctions between 'research fellows' and 'professional experts', as if the former are not part of the latter....

The idea that academia somehow trumps everything else is a common belief amongst the average population. A poster the other day took great offence when I pointed out that a particular doctor was a doctor of philosophy rather than a doctor of medicine (a distinction which was relevant to the context). The poster had a weird idea that one was superior to the other and it was somehow an insult. The poster Stacyhs' belief that only someone in academia is an expert reminds me of an old aunt of my ex-'s who liked to claim a bachelor of arts was superior to a bachelor of science and really believed it. Stacyhs' belief that Garafano is not as good as a university lecturer because she can't see a 'PhD'is hilarious.

Luciano Garafano:

Carabinieri Corps

Scientific Investigations Department

1978 - 2009

Brigadier General

Chemical-Biological Section of the Carabinieri Scientific Investigations Center in Rome Parma Section of the RIS

Luciano Garofano - Wikipedia

it.wikipedia.org

 

[AmyStrange]

The idea that academia somehow trumps everything else is a common belief amongst the average population. A poster the other day took great offence when I pointed out that a particular doctor was a doctor of philosophy rather than a doctor of medicine (a distinction which was relevant to the context). The poster had a weird idea that one was superior to the other and it was somehow an insult. The poster Stacyhs' belief that only someone in academia is an expert reminds me of an old aunt of my ex-'s who liked to claim a bachelor of arts was superior to a bachelor of science and really believed it. Stacyhs' belief that Garafano is not as good as a university lecturer because she can't see a 'PhD'is hilarious.

Luciano Garafano:

More jokes from the guilter squad... bwahahahahahaha

 

[Disbelief]

That is not so. The facts remain. The M-B court didn't send them back down. The Supreme Court's reasoning based on the final appeal is purely hypothetical and nothing to do with facts. For example, it claims it is 'illogical' that there could have been cleaning up in the hallway despite the bathmat footprint not having any leading up to it and confirming the pair had all night to clean up, knowing as Knox did, the other housemates would not be home that night. Simply saying the investigation was 'flawed' and chucking in a reference to Gallileo is not stating a fact, it is pure supposition. The fact there is no logic or basis for the claims shows just what a poor barrister Bongiorno is. But it shows despite having zero bar skills, she had 'influence' and backchanneling to work a political acquittal. It's not a real acquittal.

Bolding mine. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night. In the real world, it's a real acquittal.

 

[TruthCalls]

You know, I accept your not ignorant, but damn woman... stubborn definitely seems to fit.

Nencini rejected Tagliabracci's claim it was suspectcentric.

What Nencini did or didn't do is irrelevant. The question is for YOU to answer.

Stefanoni left 12 alleles, all above 50 RFU, off the RTIGF. The ONLY reason those alleles were left off is because they did not fit Meredith or Raffaele's profile, and that, by it's very definition, is suspect centric. Now, can YOU cite any other credible reason to leave THOSE 12 alleles off the report?

Conversely, she DID include 22 alleles that were well BELOW 50 RFU, which by definition, can not be considered reliable peaks. The only reason they are IN the RTIGF is because they match Meredith's profile, and that too is suspect centric.

The Rome Scientific Police follow ENFSI. It is the professional standard. Just like I automatically abide by my professional accountancy standards and HMRC/taxation standards. You aren't a member of the profession unless you have shown yourself competent in these standards. It's rather facile to keep claiming Stefanoni wasn't up to ENFSI standards just because you say so.

Perhaps you missed the part that I quoted straight from the ENFSI Best Practices document which PROVES they did NOT follow ENFSI when they removed the knife from the collection bag NOT in the laboratory as MANDATED by ENFSI.

ENFSI Best Practice Manual
for Scene of Crime Examination
ENFSI-BPM-SOC-01

In fact, since you apparently didn't see it, I will repost a portion of section 8.2 - Preservation and Packaging

Packages should be sealed in such a way that all gaps are covered and secure, e.g. folded
bags should be sealed with adhesive tape along all open edges and not by stapling.

Once sealed, packages should not be re-opened outside of the laboratory environment. If under exceptional circumstances they are re-opened then comprehensive documentation detailing the conditions under which they are opened must be made.

I even highlighted the relevant part for your benefit, and just in case your color blind and can't see the highlighting, I underlined it for you as well.

I am not aware of any "exceptional circumstances" that warranted the action, nor was there any "comprehensive documentation detailing the conditions under which they are opened MUST BE MADE" (capitalization by me just in case you missed the highlighting and the underlining).

So please explain how this is "...because you say so."