Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dougm]

["I think she (*Doctor* Stefanoni) managed to get the court's full attention and to have damaged the independent forensic work."

But oh dear, yes, this must be little other than just more:
1) "passed off perceived wisdom"....
2) "ignorant individual,who stupidly misunderstood......."
3)"The precise *impression* the aforementioned "idiot was under"
4) BTW is it so unacceptable to cut and paste when quoting another ?? Really

(yet again those mystical mind reading talents appear for above #1-3)

Yawn.

ETA:
And more of Doctor Stefanoni is scheduled for tomorrow.
Sleep well

It would be nice to be able to present counter arguments to this, except that I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect few others do either.

 

[smkovalinksy]

["I think she (*Doctor* Stefanoni) managed to get the court's full attention and to have damaged the independent forensic work."

But oh dear, yes, this must be little other than just more:
1) "passed off perceived wisdom"....
2) "ignorant individual,who stupidly misunderstood......."
3)"The precise *impression* the aforementioned "idiot was under"
4) BTW is it so unacceptable to cut and paste when quoting another ?? Really

(yet again those mystical mind reading talents appear for above #1-3)

Yawn.

ETA:
And more of Doctor Stefanoni is scheduled for tomorrow.
Sleep well

Why did you not simply supply the link, so that I would know it was a CNN piece quoting Francesco Maresca??? And no, I will not sleep well. Not well at all.......

 

[smkovalinksy]

I see...pilot pardon is so afraid of anyone telling the truth about him, that he reports every single post that even gets close to "outing him" as a sad person.

He consantly is offending many people from JREF back at his .org and has no courage whatsoever to face them and talk with them about THE EVIDENCE in this case. Why? Beacuse he knows, there is no evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Period.

He continues to post here, in a sarcastic way, dettached from reality and objectivity. His opinions suggest that he has no knowledge about the case and he should really learn more about it.

Well, this is one more reason for the case to wrap up. I understand that valid points can be made on both sides; I just think that any standard of reasonable doubt or "doubt in favor of the accused" as the Italians put it, ought to lean strongly toward questioning the verity of the convictions. Of course Maresca and Stefononi will score some points, and have some validity to their cause. I just think that Hellman and his jury should be pulled by doubt, serious doubt. and Pilot seems to not see that one truth a victory does not make....

@pilot padron: Here is what I concede to you:
Dr. Stefononi, and Francesco Maresca, have some valid arguments and are able to make some inroads. The overturning of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito are NOT a done deal. But there is enough doubt, if one follows the Kantian universal standard, to make overturning of them extremely compelling. Not all who are "pro-innocence" are viewing all through rose colored glasses, or silly infatuation or fatalism or the like....

 

[JREF2010]

Nick Pisa in full reverse-ferret mode:

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16063292

When you see a Pisa piece headlined "DNA Evidence Slammed At Amanda Knox Appeal", you know the game has changed.

yea game changing...Nick mentioned Stefanoni defending her work.
It's almost a sad thought/visual at this point.

"we did everything right" are her words.

And as she speaks to the room, Hellman is aware that she threatened to sue his appointed experts.

 

[Rolfe]

Have I got this straight?

First the prosecution said these negative controls had been submitted to the court as part of the original evidence file, but a detailed search failed to find them.

Then they said, oops sorry here they are, but when the proffered documents were examined it became apparent that the serial numbers were wrong and blurry. The judge refused to admit these items in evidence.

Then they waited the entire summer recess, until the hearings resumed, and came back again with a second "oops sorry here they are". We found them in the garage.

Then they said, but the appointed experts could have had them at any time, if only they'd asked for them?

Are we supposed to infer, therefore, that their original assertion that the controls were already admitted in evidence was false? And that the first new set offered, which was not accepted, were indeed the wrong documents? And that even though this new set of controls was mislaid in a garage and apparently only found after much searching and at least one false discovery, they could have been produced "at any time"?

Am I the only one thinking, liar, liar, pants on fire....?

Rolfe.

 

[Dougm]

Well, this is one more reason for the case to wrap up. I understand that valid points can be made on both sides; I just think that any standard of reasonable doubt or "doubt in favor of the accused" as the Italians put it, ought to lean strongly toward questioning the verity of the convictions. Of course Maresca and Stefononi will score some points, and have some validity to their cause. I just think that Hellman and his jury should be pulled by doubt, serious doubt. and Pilot seems to not see that one truth a victory does not make....

@pilot padron: Here is what I concede to you:
Dr. Stefononi, and Francesco Maresca, have some valid arguments and are able to make some inroads. The overturning of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito are NOT a done deal. But there is enough doubt, if one follows the Kantian universal standard, to make overturning of them extremely compelling. Not all who are "pro-innocence" are viewing all through rose colored glasses, or silly infatuation or fatalism or the like....

I, for one, would be totally open to hearing intelligent arguments using actual evidence to prove guilt. Except that it is clear that no one on the pro-guilt side will do that. Few cases are as one sided factually as this one, and when I learned about the case I expected to find at least some valid evidence against Knox and/or Sollecito. I'm still waiting, however.

 

[Dougm]

Have I got this straight?

First the prosecution said these negative controls had been submitted to the court as part of the original evidence file, but a detailed search failed to find them.

Then they said, oops sorry here they are, but when the proffered documents were examined it became apparent that the serial numbers were wrong and blurry. The judge refused to admit these items in evidence.

Then they waited the entire summer recess, until the hearings resumed, and came back again with a second "oops sorry here they are". We found them in the garage.

Then they said, but the appointed experts could have had them at any time, if only they'd asked for them?

Are we supposed to infer, therefore, that their original assertion that the controls were already admitted in evidence was false? And that the first new set offered, which was not accepted, were indeed the wrong documents? And that even though this new set of controls was mislaid in a garage and apparently only found after much searching and at least one false discovery, they could have been produced "at any time"?

Am I the only one thinking, liar, liar, pants on fire....?

Rolfe.

I am also wondering if there is any way to assertain when these documents were created? Or are they like the DNA -- you can tell what they say, but not when they first said it? I wonder if they could examine the software these were created on, and find out what date they were created?

 

[jhunter1163]

The topic of this thread is not, and never has been, other posters. Do let's keep that in mind.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[snook1]

Hey pilot, when you're ready for a discussion about evidence, let us know.

 

[Ammonitida]

I, for one, would be totally open to hearing intelligent arguments using actual evidence to prove guilt. Except that it is clear that no one on the pro-guilt side will do that. Few cases are as one sided factually as this one, and when I learned about the case I expected to find at least some valid evidence against Knox and/or Sollecito. I'm still waiting, however.

That's why guilters often have to resort to making up evidence to maintain their pro-guilt position, such as Pilot Padron and his lie about Meredith's blood being discovered in Amandas' room.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Nick Pisa in full reverse-ferret mode:

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16063292

When you see a Pisa piece headlined "DNA Evidence Slammed At Amanda Knox Appeal", you know the game has changed.

So is Pisa reporting acceptable now?

I am surprised by his comments about the remaining schedule of the appeal; I am looking forward to defence lawyers cross-examination of Dr Stefanoni tomorrow and closing arguments should be interesting to say the least.

 

[christianahannah]

So is Pisa reporting acceptable now?

I am surprised by his comments about the remaining schedule of the appeal; I am looking forward to defence lawyers cross-examination of Dr Stefanoni tomorrow and closing arguments should be interesting to say the least.

Tomorrow Stefanoni will continue being questioned by the prosecution (and maybe the civil attorneys?) then to follow with questioning from the defense attorneys.

I don't know about acceptable reporting/reporters, however, you can find something new and interesting in each article read.

I like following this link with continuous updates. Some are repetitious and the articles are small in content but usually interesting.

http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Tomorrow Stefanoni will continue being questioned by the prosecution (and maybe the civil attorneys?) then to follow with questioning from the defense attorneys.

I don't know about acceptable reporting/reporters, however, you can find something new and interesting in each article read.

I like following this link with continuous updates. Some are repetitious and the articles are small in content but usually interesting.

http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria

Thanks for the link.

 

[RoseMontague]

Have I got this straight?

First the prosecution said these negative controls had been submitted to the court as part of the original evidence file, but a detailed search failed to find them.

Then they said, oops sorry here they are, but when the proffered documents were examined it became apparent that the serial numbers were wrong and blurry. The judge refused to admit these items in evidence.

Then they waited the entire summer recess, until the hearings resumed, and came back again with a second "oops sorry here they are". We found them in the garage.

Then they said, but the appointed experts could have had them at any time, if only they'd asked for them?

Are we supposed to infer, therefore, that their original assertion that the controls were already admitted in evidence was false? And that the first new set offered, which was not accepted, were indeed the wrong documents? And that even though this new set of controls was mislaid in a garage and apparently only found after much searching and at least one false discovery, they could have been produced "at any time"?

Am I the only one thinking, liar, liar, pants on fire....?

Rolfe.

Nice post but you left out a step.

The fist thing Comodi argued was that <Dr Stefanoni didn't write routine things down like washing her hands and negative controls.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

spinning out of control

Have I got this straight?

First the prosecution said these negative controls had been submitted to the court as part of the original evidence file, but a detailed search failed to find them.

Then they said, oops sorry here they are, but when the proffered documents were examined it became apparent that the serial numbers were wrong and blurry. The judge refused to admit these items in evidence.

Then they waited the entire summer recess, until the hearings resumed, and came back again with a second "oops sorry here they are". We found them in the garage.

Then they said, but the appointed experts could have had them at any time, if only they'd asked for them?

Are we supposed to infer, therefore, that their original assertion that the controls were already admitted in evidence was false? And that the first new set offered, which was not accepted, were indeed the wrong documents? And that even though this new set of controls was mislaid in a garage and apparently only found after much searching and at least one false discovery, they could have been produced "at any time"?

Am I the only one thinking, liar, liar, pants on fire....?

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

Actually, what I was thinking was that I would like the host of the Statement Analysis blog (Peter) to examine these statements. It is almost dizzying how many different versions have been put forth.

 

[RandyN]

Just like Rebecca Aylward's Mother (did you read the link?). I believe Stephanie Kercher’s letter is understandable just like her Father’s articles, her sister and his daughter was brutally murdered they clearly accept the prosecution’s case. Raffaele and Amanda’s family, legal team believe that they are innocent, so everything from those directly involved isn’t particularly unexpected.

With the timing of this letter the Kerchers lower themselves to the level of their money grubbing lawyer Maresca.

Remember that the Kerchers wrote no letters or articles during the trials of Rudy Guede nor did their attorney appeal against any mitigations during his trials. Could it be that Rudy Guede ...the one certain criminal guilty of the Kerchers daughters rape and murder just happens to be penniless?

Why would Maresca not seek maximum justice against Rudy Guede? It couldn’t be because doing that would weaken the case against the deep pockets of the case could it?

And if there are ten thousand pages of evidence against these two defendants then why does there seem to be no factual story linking these two to the murder? Why is there only the lamest of circumstantial events that require a warp from logic into the "Outer limits" like steping into another dimension? Where luminol footprints test negative for blood but are somehow still relevant? Where a known burglar admits to being at the scene, yet, the burglary is deemed staged?

Why write such a letter to appeal to the court and seek sympathy in order to sway the court to possibly continue jailing innocent persons...? Why not let the court do its job without undo influence? Why not retain dignity?

If they feel the defendants are guilty they sure pick the most inappropriate times to publicly express that opinion. It makes them seem petty and greedy and small. After all, they remained completely silent in the trial against Rudy Guede.

I have lost my respect and my sympathy for this family...they have turned into mean, greedy puppets of their own lawyer Maresca. They pray for our sympathy and clarity at perfectly timed moments that show they deserve nothing more at this point.

The Kerchers daughter was raped and murdered by Rudy Guede. The inactions of their own lawyer helped Rudy Guede get the least possible sentence for the crime he is certainly guilty of.

This appeal is about the case where two innocent college students are falsely accused of complicity in this murder. And now every bit of real evidence against these accused has been overturned. The is no witness, the is no murder weapon, there is no DNA, there are no prints, there is no motive, there is nothing. One would expect much much more given the oft quoted 10 thousand pages. These pages should contain all this and more positive proof that these college students are complicit...but these 10 thousand pages appear silent on the guilt of these two. That is unless you are willing to suspend logic and truth and reality.

A knife. No blood. Not cleaned. Does not match wounds. Starch…..see how this works? It takes far more than thinking someone is guilty in order to remove their liberty for 26 years.

I do feel sorry that the Kerchers have allowed themselves to be tricked by their lawyer and by this prosecution. But at some point they must take responsibility for seeing the truth and logic in this case. Falsely imprisoning two innocent persons will not take away their pain nor will it bring justice to their daughters death. The time for justice ended with the light sentence passed on the real criminal in this case…Rudy Guede.

 

[Diocletus]

Nice post but you left out a step.

The fist thing Comodi argued was that <Dr Stefanoni didn't write routine things down like washing her hands and negative controls.

There's also the part about refusing to turn them over to the defense for 3 years, and then coming up with the documents only when the prosecution decided it needed them to save their bacon. And then the prosecution requests a delay in the proceedings to examine the garage documents.

In the end, whether or not Hellmann admits these documents, won't matter much. He already thinks the contamination could have occurred at some point indepedent of the negative controls.

What is significant about the garage documents is that it gives the defense an opportunity to knock the ball out of the park on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. Since the decision on admitting the documents is reserved, it appears that the defense may be able to make a comprehensive argument for why the documents should not come in. In this context, the defense can lay out the story of what this prosecution has done. It's an impressive story, and one that Hellmann will fully appreciate given the stunts that Commodi/Stef have already pulled. Given the opportunity to revisit these issues with Hellmann/ the jury, who cares about whether the garage documents come in. The prosecution will be undone by their own misconduct.

This whole issue also makes it so easy for Hellmann to lay the blame at the feet of an unethical and coniving rogue prosecution. Tempting, given the reputational damage that this case could otherwise do to Italy/Italian justice.

 

[RoseMontague]

Tomorrow Stefanoni will continue being questioned by the prosecution (and maybe the civil attorneys?) then to follow with questioning from the defense attorneys.

I don't know about acceptable reporting/reporters, however, you can find something new and interesting in each article read.

I like following this link with continuous updates. Some are repetitious and the articles are small in content but usually interesting.

http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria

Let's hope the defense does a decent job with their questioning. Stefanoni had it easy today.

 

[christianahannah]

Nice post but you left out a step.

The fist thing Comodi argued was that <Dr Stefanoni didn't write routine things down like washing her hands and negative controls.

This was from the July 30, 2011 hearing? Do you have the quote from Comodi (or even better yet, the July 30 hearing transcript ). Would Stefanoni write down a negative control or is that a function done by the machine?

Two things I have found interesting while reading (and that is if they are recorded correctly by media):

Stefanoni stating that the experts could have used a newer, better kit to analyze the traces on the knife: http://www.grr.rai.it/dl/grr/notizi...5-ad7c-47ca-a37e-319bcdfae264.html?refresh_ce and the fact there are documentation of negative controls concerning the knife and bra clasp: http://www.localport.it/eventi/notizie/notizie_espansaN.asp?N=78583

Does anyone know what a document of a negative control would look like?

 

[RoseMontague]

This was from the July 30, 2011 hearing? Do you have the quote from Comodi (or even better yet, the July 30 hearing transcript ). Would Stefanoni write down a negative control or is that a function done by the machine?

Two things I have found interesting while reading (and that is if they are recorded correctly by media):

Stefanoni stating that the experts could have used a newer, better kit to analyze the traces on the knife: http://www.grr.rai.it/dl/grr/notizi...5-ad7c-47ca-a37e-319bcdfae264.html?refresh_ce and the fact there are documentation of negative controls concerning the knife and bra clasp: http://www.localport.it/eventi/notizie/notizie_espansaN.asp?N=78583

Does anyone know what a document of a negative control would look like?

Frank has it this way (there was a news report we linked a few days later that had a similar quote):

As for the precautions in the lab, especially the one of the negative/positive controls (which, as we remember, was not documented they were done) Comodi/Stefanoni, as we predicted, brought the argument of the ‘of course’: If Stefanoni didn’t take note of the controls, it’s because you don’t take note of things you always do. Just like the surgeon who doesn’t write in the report of an operation ‘I washed my hands’, ‘I wore the gloves’, ‘I sterilized the lancets’…
But Hellman came in to help and explained that a surgery room doesn’t have anything to do with DNA… And he stopped the attack.

Having failed the card of the ‘of course’, Comodi/Stefanoni pulled the ace out of their sleeve: the documentation of the negative/positive controls exist! It was delivered to the pre-trial hearing of October 8 2008! (According to them…)