Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Misplaced and unsupported by comparable credentials

I don't believe this is correct. .

Your are entitled to believe what you want.
Your disbelief, however should be correctly directed to the person you choose to contest.

RE: The person to send disbelief to:
Professor Novelli is a highly regarded professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome and director of the Centre of Excellence for Genomic Risk Assessment in Multifactorial and Complex Diseases. Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy.

If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.

If you get time for more than one line, please do place your credentials supporting your 'disbelief' next to the Professor's for all of our edification.

 

[bri1]

Mary

Not sure how many different ways I can state my opinion. However, if one accepts the principal that Raffaele and Amanda’s families have right to speak to media about their perspective of Meredith Kercher’s murder then the same should apply to the Kercher family.

The observation that only the Kercher family are trying to influence the appeal or the original trial, is frankly absurd all the families directly involved have to a varying degree spoken to the media. We may or may not agree with what they say but they have in my opinion equal rights to free speech; I am not aware of any neutral evidence that supports the view any of the families public statements influenced the jury in the first trial.

What is the difference between Amanda’s family appearing on the Oprah Winfrey talk show in the US and John Kercher writing in UK’s Sunday Times; what is the difference between Amanda’s family taking their Italian legal team’s advice and Meredith’s family doing the same? Now you may disagree with Maresca or John and Stephanie Kercher but this in my opinion is a separate issue.

It seems like you are saying it is okay for one family to speak to media give TV interviews etc., to take legal advice from their counsel but it’s not acceptable that another family does exactly the same.

Coulsdon- there is a principled distinction, explained here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7540796#post7540796
Maybe you have me on ignore, though

 

[AmyStrange]

Your are entitled to believe what you want.
Your disbelief, however should be correctly directed to the person you choose to contest.

RE: The person to send disbelief to:
Professor Novelli is a highly regarded professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome and director of the Centre of Excellence for Genomic Risk Assessment in Multifactorial and Complex Diseases. Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy.

If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.
If you get time for more than one line, please do place your credentials supporting your 'disbelief' next to the Professor's for all of our edification.

-

Wasn't he paid by the prosecution to say these things? While the independent experts (hand picked by Hellmann don't forget) weren't paid for by either side and the video they used to show that the probability of contamination was real was (ironically enough) paid for by the police.

The video brought out gasp from audience, but Dr. N has brought out... what... laughter?

Dave

 

[Matthew Best]

If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.

So your position is that there is no doubt whatsoever about any of the DNA evidence?

Well, you are entitled to believe what you want, too, but I think you are in for a disappointment.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Kaosium

My understanding of the term free speech or freedom of expression is; the ability to communicate ideas or opinions without censorship, of course one cannot incite someone to commit a crime or libel, slander or I guess us obscene language.

Your responses below illustrate my point about freedom of expression, I may not agree with your conclusions but you are as free as me to express an opinion.

They are attempting to deny that free speech to Raffaele's and Amanda's families.

Sorry, but by “they” you mean whom? And in what way do you believe “they” are denying Raffaele and Amanda’s family. LondonJohn post yesterday including link to Nick Pisa report from UK’s Sky News quoted Amanda’s Father’s comments and I recall reading comments from Amanda’s Mother and Mr Mellas throughout the appeal, so in what way do you believe Amanda’s family’s free speech is being denied?

The difference is money and time lost having to defend themselves in court against frankly preposterous charges, not to mention the harassment at what might be the worst time of their lives.

Doesn’t the issue of money apply to all families? The Kercher family as you know are not responsible for the criminal proceedings, although I accept there is a civil case running in tandem to the criminal case. However, the legal trigger would the confirmation of Raffaele and Amanda conviction and sentence. I think it is fair to conclude that this is worst time of the Kercher family’s life and in their case no hope of parole.
If Raffaele and Amanda win this appeal do you seriously believe there won’t be a book deal, or TV deal, exclusive newspaper deals and more?

That's not the issue here, and nowhere on God's green earth is attacking someone with lies the same as defending someone.

I respectfully disagree, that is exactly the issue. Based on the Kercher family’s public statements they believe in the prosecution case, they believe Raffaele and Amanda are culpable, that is expressing an opinion, it is not libellous or slander as there is an ongoing legal proceeding involving them.

 

[bri1]

[/hilite]

LOL @ your bolding.

I forget if Bri has revealed her position on this forum so I will demur from telling you why it's so funny.

QUOTE]

It's funny, Kaosium because those of us working toward their PhDs, who will earn the right to be titled Dr, find it so annoying!

Pilot, I reiterate, we are engaged in discussion in an international forum. Therefore, you referring to Ms Stefanoni as doctor is misleading. The more you use it, the more it appears as though you are deliberately trying to mislead.

 

[pilot padron]

Not Quite

So your position is that there is no doubt whatsoever about any of the DNA evidence?

Well, you are entitled to believe what you want, too, but I think you are in for a disappointment.

Uhhhhh

1) Read what you chose to quote again, slowly.
That clearly is his position.
You incorrectly confuse me with him in your short 'argument/question' to suit your purposes.

You know, the guy with all the credentials that you chose not to again list in your quote

2) Time will tell about "disappointments".
I never said:" they would be free ...at any hour"
May I offer that biased blather from so many here as a prime candidate for *already realized* "disappointment" that you wish to examine.

 

[Kaosium]

Your are entitled to believe what you want.
Your disbelief, however should be correctly directed to the person you choose to contest.

RE: The person to send disbelief to:
Professor Novelli is a highly regarded professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome and director of the Centre of Excellence for Genomic Risk Assessment in Multifactorial and Complex Diseases. Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy.

If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.

If you get time for more than one line, please do place your credentials supporting your 'disbelief' next to the Professor's for all of our edification.

He's just trying to 'make water run uphill' and 'finger a refreshing fee.'

--Kaosium: who has been a 'cook in the great North Woods,' headed out to the east coast, drifted down to New Orleans, been out West--on docks even--been on boats, helped girls out of jams, abandoned cars, read books from the 15th century, seen 'revolution in the air,' knows mathematicians, carpenter's wives, even been in a topless place!

So, how come I'm going to be right, and the 'complex multifactorial genomic disease risk'--or whatever you called him--is going to be wrong?

Maybe it's because no one should be bragging about being the 'father of police forensics' in Italy, either. The Sun called Garafano the Italian CSI guy and he's completely clueless!

 

[Matthew Best]

Uhhhhh

1) Read what you chose to quote again, slowly.

The irony is that you are doing what you already did before in this thread, if I remember correctly - confusing a statement with a question. I am asking you if that is your position, not telling you. For clarity, is that your position?

 

[Diocletus]

POSSIBLE NEW TEST TRACKS KNIFE (Google translate version)

Referring to the charges on the knife, Novelli spoke of "analyzable traces." "Today - he added - we have methods and analysis protocols that allow us to even lower amounts, as is the case for the diagnosis of human diseases."

Novelli explained that in the days when they were examined the findings in the scientific laboratories were examined hundreds of genetic profiles for other cases. The teacher said he had examined them "one by one" but "no" had characteristics compatible with those of Kercher or Sollecito.

A few observations here:

1. Novelli is saying that the knife should be analyzed with new technology that is capable of reading LCN. The tacit admission here is that the technology/procedure that Stefanoni used was NOT capable of reading LCN. That's a pretty remarkable bit of testimony by Novelli.

2. Novelli evidently had access to the complete lab records for this and other cases. So, once again, we see that the prosecution witnesses have access to far greater data/records than what is afforded to the defense. This disparity in access to information is a huge problem in this case. Criminal discovery procedures appear to be a serious problem in Italy.

3. If Novelli actually thinks that proper negative controls were used, then why is he going back and analyzing the records of these 100's of other DNA tests? Is he advocating this method of accidental negative testing as a proper protocol?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Coulsdon- there is a principled distinction, explained here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7540796#post7540796
Maybe you have me on ignore, though

Please accept my apologies. However, I believe I have provided an opinion to Mary that addresses your post; I just seem to be repeating myself. You and others believe the Kercher family should not make any public statements whilst Raffaele and Amanda’s families can, I do not accept that position nor am I aware that any of the families directly involved have or are influencing the legal proceedings. Now if you or anyone else has any neutral evidence that John and Stephanie Kercher have influenced the appeal court then by all means provide links.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hate to break the news, but there is one itty bitty difference: The Knox/Sollecito side is right; the Kerchers are wrong.

Consequently, their moral positions couldn't be more opposed. The Knox/Sollecitos are campaigning to free innocent people. The Kerchers are campaigning to keep innocent people wrongly imprisoned.

You are expressing an opinion, it is not a legal fact; fair enough.

 

[Diocletus]

Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy.

Wow. Who's the mother . . . Stefanoni? Could you imagine how screwed up the "police forensics" spawn of Novelli and Stefanoni would be?

 

[LondonJohn]

Your are entitled to believe what you want.
Your disbelief, however should be correctly directed to the person you choose to contest.

RE: The person to send disbelief to:
Professor Novelli is a highly regarded professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome and director of the Centre of Excellence for Genomic Risk Assessment in Multifactorial and Complex Diseases. Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy. If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.
If you get time for more than one line, please do place your credentials supporting your 'disbelief' next to the Professor's for all of our edification.

How very strange. Here's what biased pro-guilt commentator "The Machine" had to say in a post on TJMK recently:

Professor Novelli has an impressive CV. He is a highly regarded professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome and director of the Centre of Excellence for Genomic Risk Assessment in Multifactorial and Complex Diseases. Professor Novelli is regarded as the “father of police forensics” in Italy. If there had been any doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, he wouldn’t have agreed to testify for the prosecution.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index..._of_the_dna_tests_agreed_to_by_judge_hellman/


You've been doing rather a lot of this recently: passing off biased commentary either as objective reportage or as your own opinion. It's extremely intellectually dishonest behaviour. Care to comment?

 

[JREF2010]

The predictable and self interest of the Prosecution defending their destroyed fasad of being perfect.
The Judges, and layjudges, only have to look at the rusted rotting bra clasp work and the video to see for themself how perfect everything was.

Using paid witnesses to be witty, and paid for biased testimony, might help a little. (At least a break from listening to the obstinate Stef).

But in the end, the knife had no blood + no cleaning = not the murder weapon.

Stef herself confirmed there's no blood on this knife.
The C&V confirmed the question, was it cleaned? Which was a NO.

So even if Steff does have a DNA chart showing 12 RFU peaks on a "adjusted" chart to magnify the RFU peaks of 12...

As an arm chair layjudge, for me the knife is no more.

 

[Diocletus]

You are expressing an opinion, it is not a legal fact; fair enough.

"Legal fact" is an irrelevant concept. Right or wrong is absolute. And, the Kerchers are wrong.

PS: What's the point of the last part of Stephanie's letter where she talks about endowing a scholarship at the Univ. of Perugia? Is this to show that the Kerchers aren't really interested in money because they will be giving it all (or most/some of it) away or is supposed to be an incentive for the judge to convict?

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

My understanding of the term free speech or freedom of expression is; the ability to communicate ideas or opinions without censorship, of course one cannot incite someone to commit a crime or libel, slander or I guess us obscene language.

Your responses below illustrate my point about freedom of expression, I may not agree with your conclusions but you are as free as me to express an opinion.

Sorry, but by “they” you mean whom? And in what way do you believe “they” are denying Raffaele and Amanda’s family. LondonJohn post yesterday including link to Nick Pisa report from UK’s Sky News quoted Amanda’s Father’s comments and I recall reading comments from Amanda’s Mother and Mr Mellas throughout the appeal, so in what way do you believe Amanda’s family’s free speech is being denied?

Maresca made the Kercher's party to both the 'slander' suit filed because of this innocuous article and the ridiculous 'influence' charge on the Sollecitos for exposing the corrupt and incompetent 'evidence' against Raffaele. That's a real good way to say STFU.

Why did they do that? In the latter case, it sure wasn't the second or so fuzzy frame they never even saw. They saw far more of it in court, or could have if they attended those sessions, which I kinda hope they didn't.

Doesn’t the issue of money apply to all families? The Kercher family as you know are not responsible for the criminal proceedings, although I accept there is a civil case running in tandem to the criminal case. However, the legal trigger would the confirmation of Raffaele and Amanda conviction and sentence. I think it is fair to conclude that this is worst time of the Kercher family’s life and in their case no hope of parole.
If Raffaele and Amanda win this appeal do you seriously believe there won’t be a book deal, or TV deal, exclusive newspaper deals and more?

I sure hope so! A movie too, now how much of the Kerchers' actions absolutely and truthfully portrayed would you like to see in that movie?

The difference here is nothing the Knox or Sollecitos do harms the Kerchers in the slightest, whereas the Kerchers actions, in court and out, directly and indirectly harm Raffaele and Amanda and their families. They never should have filed that civil case, it would be interesting to find out in how many cases in Italy an acquitted person had a civil case filed against them concurrently, and what recourse the exonerated parties took against their hasty condemners.

I respectfully disagree, that is exactly the issue. Based on the Kercher family’s public statements they believe in the prosecution case, they believe Raffaele and Amanda are culpable, that is expressing an opinion, it is not libellous or slander as there is an ongoing legal proceeding involving them.

Is listing false evidence of a crime libelous in Britain? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, thus I keep asking it. If it is, they may just regret using the same method as The Machine for evaluating and producing 'evidence.'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Novelli

Barbie answered my question. The expert is Novelli -- a contamination expert.

Now I have to look him up. Have we seen this guy before?

Wildhorses,

Novelli is a medical geneticist. Most of his work seems to be in that field, as opposed to forensics.

 

[Diocletus]

Stef herself confirmed there's no blood on this knife.
The C&V confirmed the question, was it cleaned? Which was a NO.

All of the prosecution testimony is irrelevant unless they can show that the knife was cleaned. Which they can't and haven't. Therefore, who cares what Stef did in her lab or what Novelli says. If the knife wasn't cleaned, then Kercher's DNA was not deposited on it during the commission of the crime, and the knife is not the murder weapon. Buh-bye knife.

 

[christianahannah]

Two observations here:

1. Novelli is saying that the knife should be analyzed with new technology that is capable of reading LCN. The tacit admission here is that the technology/procedure that Stefanoni used was NOT capable of reading LCN. That's a pretty remarkable bit of testimony by Novelli.

2. Novelli evidently had access to the complete lab records for this and other cases. So, once again, we see that the prosecution witnesses have access to far greater data/records than what is afforded to the defense. This disparity in access to information is a huge problem in this case. Criminal discovery procedures appear to be a serious problem in Italy.

3. If Novelli actually thinks that proper negative controls were used, then why is he going back and analyzing the records of these 100's of other DNA tests? Is he advocating this method of accidental negative testing as a proper protocol?

I think Novelli is stating the same as Stefanoni testified to that the independent experts could have used newer technology to test the knife (which they were tasked to do by the court, to retest if possible - not sure if they could use newer technology - and if not possible to retest then examine the procedures used, etc.).

Novelli is speaking of contamination of other samples of other cases with Meredith's profile in which he could find no evidence of contamination. If Novelli had access to these records by being appointed as an expert for the prosecution during the appeal/expert report it is possible the defense experts also had access to these records.

Updates on his deposition and Stefanoni's below:

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