Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
spartacus said:
could you provide an "old" source then, other than rumour?
Click to expand...

This was posted 10 days ago, and linked to 13 pages back. It contains the following summary and faxes between Judge Hellmann and Dr Stefanoni...

April 14, 2011: Judge Hellmann’s court clerk (Maria Centorrini) faxes Dr. Stefanoni, telling her to send “as soon as possible” the items requested by Conti, the independent expert. She attaches Conti’s requests, already approved by the judge:

1. CD of the electropherograms relating to the bra clasp and knife deposed 10/8/2008 during preliminary hearings and found at Raffaele’s flat on Nov. 6, 2007.
2. CD RAW DATA (data relative to the general electrophoretic runs of the automatic sequencer).
3. All the transcriptions, in all the phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the CTP, including the documentation deposed (considerations and notes, including possible CDs).
4. CD film, photos, search reports on methods of checking evidence into custody, preservation, and transport to the police laboratory.

On April 20, 2011, Stefanoni send an “urgente” fax to the judge. She balks at producing the data and adds that the raw files request is too vague for her. The boldface and convoluted language below is hers, word for word:

In reference to the acquisition request of the CD RAW DATA, containing the DNA profiles (in the form of electropherograms), copies of the same were presented and had already been deposed in the court records on 9/25/2008 by Judge Paolo Micheli of the Perugia Court, and that all of the electropherograms pertaining to the genetic profiles extrapolated by the technical analyses have been gathered into a separate attached book separate from the body of the report.

In reference to the request of acquisition of CD RAW DATA, one is obligated to explain that the information in the form of this file in the sequencer is never an integral part of the technical report, as far as the object being tested by the forensic geneticist, namely the DNA profile, and that it is already reported in the electropherogram printout, connected to the technical report on which all of the useful date and an evaluation of the genetic profile are reported.

In addition, it is good to clarify that the files contained in the denominated sequencer “Sample File.fsa” contain subfolders denominated “Info,” “Raw Data” and “EPT Data” that do not allow any human intervention in order to modify and/or add data; and therefore, in this view, do not contribute to furnishing later elements to the genetic data evaluation.

Finally, the request asked for by the expert consultants relative to the acquisition of the CD RAW DATA appears incomplete in so much as the name of the “sample file” requested was not specified, without which the exact identification of the documented material the acquisition of which is asked for is not possible.

Cough up the files, Judge Hellmann immediately tells her in a terse, hand-written note that very same day. Resolve your own “perplexity,” he adds.

Dear Doctor Stefanoni,
I received your faxed note dated April 20th and take note of the relevant content. I ask you, however, regarding the official experts to kindly give to them copies of your and my responses communicated at the same time, consigning directly to them what is of interest, useful to acquire with the goal of completing the investigations, subject to the clarification of the perplexity that you mention.
Click to expand...
 
Diastole said:
The comment surfaced in a Dec. 13, 2009 letter, written in response to an article by Barbara Ellen in the Observer titled " The Persecution of Amanda Knox Goes On". The letter writer identifies himself. His name is does not immediately associate him to any of Kercher's friends who testified. I am unaware if his comments have been confirmed.
Click to expand...


Thank you Diastole,

It seems to be similar to the 'rape prank' where a single unconfirmed comment is taken as evidence without proof and repeated so many times that few where it came from.

It is a curious comment because a name was given. If it was real though, why wasn’t the remark brought up in trial? An opportunity to show Amanda Knox in a poor light or uncaring of Meredith Kercher would not have been turned away.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/dec/13/big-issue-kercher-knox-murder

■ My daughter was a Leeds student with Meredith in Perugia. They went out together on Halloween. When Amanda Knox was asked how she felt on 2 November, she said: "**** happens", which contrasts rather sharply with the contrived way she addressed the Italian court about "my friend Meredith".
This is the behaviour of the murderer or a psychopath. Sympathy for her is misplaced. She staked all on "reasonable doubt" and came up short. An innocent person would have had one coherent story to tell.
Marc Rivalland
London WC2
 
Diastole said:
The comment surfaced in a Dec. 13, 2009 letter, written in response to an article by Barbara Ellen in the Observer titled " The Persecution of Amanda Knox Goes On".
Click to expand...


I read some of the comments. It's really painful reading comment in older articles. Here's a sampling:


The question is this: why did Knox and Sollicito lie that they had already called for the police when police officers arrived on the scene of an apparently burglarized and bloodstained house?

From the first moment of this murder investigation lies have poured from the mouths of Knox and Sollicito

Knox was cited in Seattle for a near-riot at a party.that got out of control.

Perhaps some have gone to read the Michelli Report.... and have read the facts that the media (Knox PR machine) omitted.

they shattered the glass over the disrupted room!

I think it's funny how Americans react to "one of their own" getting into trouble abroad. A lot like the "Midnight Express" story/movie they tend to forget that the "poor innocent American" is actually guilty as hell. The Italian legal system functions well enough so I would suggest Americans go elsewhere to commit murder, the Italians will likely catch you and throw you in jail.


And last, do you all remember this gem? :

A mountain of evidence points to a group attack on the victim, and that the members of that group were the trio convicted.


That ‘mountain of evidence’ is looking pretty FLAT.
 
snook1 said:
Actually, the footage that I've seen, is enough for me. I don't have to see anything more. Just seeing the mop's head being handled by Stefanoni who walks into the murder room like nothing ever happened... I mean, do they actually know that they shot themselves in the knee by shooting the video(s)?

And wrapping the mop's head just before going out of the cottage - that's hilarious. What's the reason to do that? I can't think of one, when they didn't do it on the murder scene.

It's funny also how PMF didn't even mention the mop incident. Obviously it's not in their interest. The same goes for all the other things that prove AK and RS's innocence.

They're still stuck on Frank, Doug Preston, Spezi...Lame.
Click to expand...


snook1,

I completely agree and I ALSO have noticed that the LINK masters of the guilter groups have not acknowledged this video in any way.

It is a bit like a crucifix to a vampire don't you think?

Since the video completely speaks for itself what can they say? They can't blame the Marriott / Fisher PR campaign for what Stefanoni does in the video. A PR firm couldn't have in their WILDEST dreams have thought up such a ridiculous video of a Forensic Expert collecting evidence. And as members of a cult the guilters can not acknowledge that her techniques were not only poor, but were literally laughable. At least laughable until reminded that this is the 'expert' that helped convict two innocent students for murder with 25yrs in jail, not so funny after that.


I do believe it's time for a new movie.

How about - 'Dumb and Dumber Play CSI' ?


Forensic Expert Patrizia Stefanoni Gift Wraps A Mop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=conjBUiEE9I
 
LondonJohn said:
The completely inadequate police testimony and evidence listed in Massei, and the total absence in either Massei or any court reports of any evidence of a proper police search of the ground, any detailed photos of the ground, or any sifting of the earth. Other than that, pure conjecture :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Yes...what he said...

I have been admonished by this site for some links I have used in the past and am therefore gun shy...or link shy as it were...


But I will add this from Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry...

"The early posturing of the break-in as a staged situation without a rigorous investigation and sound factual evidence to back it up resulted in the murder investigation being turned upside down from the beginning. The threshold for proving it was other than a burglary break-in as it outwardly appeared should have been very high. Instead the threshold for proving it was a burglary break-in was set very high and seriously handicapped by the failure of the police to perform due diligence in promptly investigating and fully documenting the inside and outside areas as a break-in."

Which comes from Ron Hendry's professional analysis of all available evidence which is comprehensively explained here...

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html


Of which I believe to be the best professional investigation available on the subject of why there was NO staged break-in. And additionally Mr. Hendry examines other issues in this case that debunks many of convicted prosecutor Mignini's wild speculations and formulates the known facts into a scientific and professional analysis of which I find his credentials to show him to be eminently qualified....therefore I hope I have added enough to justify my link and thus avoid further private notes from the mod.
 
'mountain of evidence'

Kaosium said:
Oh, there's a 'mountain of evidence' alright, Draca, it just doesn't implicate Raffaele and Amanda. ;)
Click to expand...


Kaosium,

Straight on. You are correct, there is indeed a 'mountain of evidence' against Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Massei and co.

You know, I like that phrase 'mountain of evidence'. Indeed there is a bit of poetry to it. I think I will use it from now on.

There is a 'mountain of evidence' that the authorities in this case were corrupt and incompetent. It amazingly enough is an ever growing list. I've been discussing this case since the verdict and this mountain just grows, and grows and grows. It's quite something.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hello everyone,
Does anyone know if Frank Sfarzo will still continue writing and reporting on his old blog, Perugia Shock?

It has been resurrected here:
http://perugiashock.com/
Click to expand...
Draca said:
Hi RW,

YES! He will be covering the May 21st court date. Hopefully the new site will be ready for him.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info, Draca!

As Frank Sfarzo had been defending Dr. Stefanoni's work over the last few months, I wish to ask him about this posting that fellow JREF member RandyN recently wrote, of which I hilited a bit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7178592#post7178592

"Stefanoni was also part of the prosecutorial meetings that put the case together.For example, in a meeting with Mignini, Giobbi, Intini, Giunta and where Stefanoni leads...she opens the meeting with this line..."Well, we all understand that the break-in was staged." Next she explains that "the victim was undressed after she died."

Moving on, Stefanoni began to choreograph Merediths last moments.

These meetings indicate that far from even trying to indicate a impartial and fair analysis...this shows Stefanoni up to her neck in the prosecutors case. She leads the meeting for *O%&#* sake."
Click to expand...


Why did Dr. Stefanoni get special permission to collect evidence, test this same evidence, and then also participate in prosecutorial meetings that put the case together that convicted Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
Kaosium,

Straight on. You are correct, there is indeed a 'mountain of evidence' against Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Massei and co.

You know, I like that phrase 'mountain of evidence'. Indeed there is a bit of poetry to it. I think I will use it from now on.
Click to expand...

:cool:

There's a mountain of evidence produced by a disingenuous prosecution which due to the retrocausality of the 'investigation' led to outright mendacity in court. It has been established in this thread that they are compulsive liars who engaged in a PR campaign to turn two little angels into remorseless sex-killers in the eyes of the twenty-five judges order to secure their convictions.


Draca said:
There is a 'mountain of evidence' that the authorities in this case were corrupt and incompetent. It amazingly enough is an ever growing list. I've been discussing this case since the verdict and this mountain just grows, and grows and grows. It's quite something.
Click to expand...

Which is it though? For each of them I mean? Corrupt, incompetent, or both? At what point in the process did they become so, too? Inquiring minds want to know! :p
 
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,
Anonymous commenter Zorba wrote, “Yes and you mention narcissism again Stint, look at Sollecito, what does he do after months and months of prison life? He walks into court as though he thinks he is on a Milanese catwalk showing off his awful new haircut, the other times he was always definitely enjoying having one of his own shirts on, with the little crocodiles, showing, in his mind, I have money, I am well off, I am worthy, I am valuable, I am not this, I am not the pauper, I have power.” So it looks as if we have some agreement about the haircut.

MaryH,
Apparently it is not just the colors but also the little crocodiles that can send a message. In this context I recall that one of the three indicted Duke lacrosse players, David Evans, spent some time with his father choosing the right shirt on the day that he gave a statement to the press (which was also the day of his arrest). He did not want to look too preppy. Is there a study showing whether or not a color or style of shirt or dress that influence the jury in a subliminal way?
Click to expand...


Without a doubt, studies have been done, halides1. Even if they hadn't, it wouldn't stop jury consultants from offering advice on the subject. :)

Zorba doesn't seem to realize that a vintage Izod can be had for as little as .99 on eBay -- in baby duckling yellow, no less.

(And it's an alligator, not a crocodile.)
 
pilot padron said:
Having read the several rather frantic but unimpressive 'rebuttals' to my original post; my primary reply is a respectful request to just re-read (slowly) the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out as a parameter to my statement.

This, since to the letter, nearly every rebuttal remarkably but expectedly fulfilled my expectations and deliberately directly violated one or more (some 'rebuttals violated *all*) of the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out.

Possibly the only replies that were exceptions to the above violations, are in themselves the best argument that my original statement was correct.

The exception (and usual, expected echo from loyal disciple) to which I direct the remainder of this reply:

Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.

In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)

Live with it.
Click to expand...


pilot, pilot, pilot. Did you even read my answer to your post? You have not responded to it, you know.

I did read (slowly) your "simple easy to follow parameters" slowly, and, as I said, I can abide by 1, 2 and 4, but I can't follow 3 without cancelling out 1. Which would you have me follow -- 1 or 3?
 
Mary_H said:
pilot, pilot, pilot. Did you even read my answer to your post? You have not responded to it, you know.

I did read (slowly) your "simple easy to follow parameters" slowly, and, as I said, I can abide by 1, 2 and 4, but I can't follow 3 without canceling out 1. Which would you have me follow -- 1 or 3?
Click to expand...

I want to know who won first prize by violating all his strictures. I'm afraid my reply only managed three by the most generous accounting. :(
 
bri1 said:
OK so, (and I might never get the opportunity to say this again) but I agree with Pilot! Insofaras he is correct that one or more people did call Amanda Knox a pathological liar.

However Mary H's original post stating that she hadn't heard of one single person calling Amanda a pathological liar was in response to your comment "she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar." <snip>
Click to expand...


Yes, pilot's original claim was, "Let's not use innuendo, but instead use the 'recorded' words of an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory 'best truths that she can think of', that she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar."

Now pilot seems to want to move the goalposts (something he asks that we not do) and try to change his claim to a simpler one: a few people called Amanda some kind of liar. That's fine, as long as he either withdraws or supports the rest of his claim about why some people called Amanda a liar.
 
Kaosium said:
I want to know who won first prize by violating all his strictures. I'm afraid my reply only managed three by the most generous accounting. :(
Click to expand...


Well, your rebuttal was frantic and unimpressive, that's the important thing.
 
Rhea said:
<snip>Yes, you are right, the statement that Mary H. made was factually wrong, people did call Amanda a pathological liar, but I thought it was just so painfully obvious that she didn't mean the people who only knew Amanda after she was accused of murder, since it certainly didn't come as a surprise for Mary that people like Mignini would and did call her that (that's what their case consists of mostly; "Amanda is a liar" a "manipulator" we all know that).

Well, Mary H. can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment … What I think is, if it is so obvious what somebody meant, it can be pure sophistry to react purely technical; somebody did call her a liar, fully aware that this is not what she meant …
Click to expand...


Don't mind if I do correct you if you're wrong, Rhea. ;) I stated that I was not aware of anyone who had come into contact with Amanda who had called her a classic pathological liar. That is a true statement. To a certain extent, pilot has corrected me, if we move the goalposts -- I now know that a couple of people did call Amanda some kind of liar.

The phrase "classic pathological liar" implies a psychiatric diagnosis. I don't know of anyone involved in this case who is qualified to make that diagnosis. That's the main reason I doubted that anyone had ever called her that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom