Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Matthew Best]

His motivations are plainly illegitimate. He was not allowed to determine “evidence claimed by the prosecution” by using another expert witness, first of all because it is not “evidence claimed by the prosecution”, this was an appeal, the evidence was already discussed and established by a court. In order to introduce new evidence into the discussion of this kind of points, a judge requires specific kind of motivations, you cannot call an expert just for the purpose of sorting out things between defence and prosecution cause you’re ignorant of the topic; especially evidence that has already gone through a court judgement. Hellmann’s motivations, besides illegitimate, are also unspecific and void, in fact inexistent.

And presumably this is why there were so many objections to the appointment of new independent experts at the time Hellman announced it.

Oh wait.

Never mind.

 

[RandyN]

Might be that the answer is "yes". But I am not a moral judge of internal feelings of other humans. Or I could put the question whether someone thinks that behaviours of Vinci and Pascali were that of "impartial" scientists.
It is obvious - to me - that since Stefanoni became a witness against the defendants (which means, since she had discovered evidence and came to conclusions) she was no longer impartial. Impartiality as a concept has a full meaning before the starting of her work, it means that you be honest, but impartiality is not a concept that makes sense for her as participant to the trial, after she came to her conclusions. Stefanoni - just like C&V - is an expert witness, not an "impartial" one taking part to the debate. I expect her to act within the established rules in the trial, but not to be an impartial partecipant. A witness must tell the truth, an expert witness must provide correct information, not be impartial. Stefanoni is an expert called by the prosecution, he is there to find elements to help catch criminals. What do you expect her to do, to write down defence arguments?
But the real folly - what is not understandable to me - is why there seem to be people thinking that an attitude of Stefanoni (which I expect and deem obvious) implies innocence of defendants. I can't understand why people here are so keen to equate this alleged delay of Stefanoni with a nonsense conspiracy and inexisting lies, but think it's hopeless.

Meanwhile, you forgot to point out that the concept of "withholding" is strictly limited to a specific phase of the pre-trial. To say that everything has its time, is not the same of saying that one fabricates false evidence to frame innocent people.

Forget the withholding at pre trial...she lied her a$$ off about not testing the luminol prints for blood when she clearly did such tests and they were negative for blood...TMB is a Stefanoni lie in court.

What the defense should have asked her (I think they were weak and terrible BTW) is who ordered her back to Perugia and for what reason on Dec 18th 2007? Then we would have some bigger lies to hear.

 

[anglolawyer]

Might be that the answer is "yes". But I am not a moral judge of internal feelings of other humans. Or I could put the question whether someone thinks that behaviours of Vinci and Pascali were that of "impartial" scientists.
It is obvious - to me - that since Stefanoni became a witness against the defendants (which means, since she had discovered evidence and came to conclusions) she was no longer impartial. Impartiality as a concept has a full meaning before the starting of her work, it means that you be honest, but impartiality is not a concept that makes sense for her as participant to the trial, after she came to her conclusions. Stefanoni - just like C&V - is an expert witness, not an "impartial" one taking part to the debate. I expect her to act within the established rules in the trial, but not to be an impartial partecipant. A witness must tell the truth, an expert witness must provide correct information, not be impartial. Stefanoni is an expert called by the prosecution, he is there to find elements to help catch criminals. What do you expect her to do, to write down defence arguments?
But the real folly - what is not understandable to me - is why there seem to be people thinking that an attitude of Stefanoni (which I expect and deem obvious) implies innocence of defendants. I can't understand why people here are so keen to equate this alleged delay of Stefanoni with a nonsense conspiracy and inexisting lies, but think it's hopeless.

Meanwhile, you forgot to point out that the concept of "withholding" is strictly limited to a specific phase of the pre-trial. To say that everything has its time, is not the same of saying that one fabricates false evidence to frame innocent people.

Stefanoni, as an expert witness, is there to give evidence of her scientific opinion. Her duty is owed to the court and to the truth, not to the party who calls her to give evidence.

Please say in what respect her evidence would or could legitimately or materially differ according to which party called her.

Bear in mind when defending this apology of a forensic scientist that we have all seen how she collects and preserves DNA samples and how she wraps mop handles.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I had asked earlier about the timing of Meredith's ATM withdrawal as evidenced by the reciept just inside her room. I think someone had questioned whether Meredith actually had the €400 in cash when she was murdered.

Hmm. I don't have Meredith's bank records. It looks like the ATM slip on the floor is for a 50 Euro withdrawal. The images are blurry, and an electrical cord obscures the date.

 

[Rolfe]

You're giving him way too much credit. He starts his explanation by making it sound like he shut the board down for a few minutes, to fix an "issue." But then it becomes clear he's not referring to a technical problem.. he means some kind of dispute between him and Ganong. He concludes by writing:

That's really all there is. All I have omitted is an explanation of the issue I sought to resolve and which caused the whole thing.

How ridiculous is that? Then, in a subsequent post, he explains that he was the rightful owner of the account - even though Ganong paid for it.

This guy is incapable of being honest with himself or anyone else, but he is also incapable of shutting up when the facts are against him. All of which means he has found just the right niche.

Yeah, I hadn't read that part back when I posted the above.

Oh well, who cares anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Meanwhile, you forgot to point out that the concept of "withholding" is strictly limited to a specific phase of the pre-trial. To say that everything has its time, is not the same of saying that one fabricates false evidence to frame innocent people.

Do you think that not reporting that the knife DNA results were LCN, and not only LCN but also "discovered" through a controversial and unproven LCN testing method should not have been disclosed prior to the trial? Seriously?

The fact is, it would not have been even disclosed during the trial if she had not been ordered by the court to provide the additional testing information.

Her actions and lack of disclosure were not only unprofessional, they were also unethical. Not only is she a Lying Liar she is also without any doubt, a Cheating Cheater.

 

[Diocletus]

You say that Stefanoni lied, I say this is false.

LOL. Stefanoni lied her face off on any issue having to do with knife track B and PCR tests.

At the original proceeding, she said that there were "a few hundred picograms" of DNA comprising the track B sample per PCR results.

The second time around, when she got caught by C&V, she said that she "forgot" that she never ran a PCR test because the PCR machine was broken. The Flourometer test that she did run said only that the quantity of DNA was "too low" . . . so the "few hundred picogram" testimony was just a totally made up lie.

Moreover, if she didn't run a PCR analysis on track B because the machine was broken, then she also wouldn't have run a negative PCR analysis . . . because the machine was broken. Therefore, she's lying about the existence of such negative runs.

Moreover, if the analysis that she was trying to validate was the Flourometer analysis, then there would have been no reason to run a negative PCR test because it's a different machine and therefore not capable of validating the Flourometer. There wasn't even any reason to run a negative test on the Flourometer because that machine had already given a negative result. So again, she's lying about the existence and relevance of any negative PCR run with respect to track B.

This Stefanoni person is a serious liar.

 

[Diocletus]

Wow, just wow.

I believe I saw predictions elsewhere that she would be lucky to get 50k. 4 million is some serious money. Good for her.

Is the person who predicted 50k ever right about anything?

 

[Spyke]

Amanda Knox sign a 4 Million Dollar Book Deal

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-million-book-deal-harpercollins/story?id=15690686#.Tz5KolFLMYs

Amanda Knox has agreed to a nearly $4 million book deal about her trial and imprisonment in Italy for the murder of her British roommate.

The Seattle woman, who is now 24, signed the deal with HarperCollins and the still-untitled book is due out in early 2013.

"Knox will give a full and unflinching account of the events that led to her arrest in Perugia and her struggles with the complexities of the Italian judicial system," HarperCollins said in a statement.

The book deal will be welcomed by the Knox family, who estimated more than a year ago that they had spent $1 million in legal fees and travel costs to defend and support their daughter.


I didn't see another thread on this.

I knew there had to be a book deal coming at some point, but now that's it's official I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Prosecutor Giovanni Galati said this week that he is "very convinced" that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

I guess that they are appealing. If the book deal goes ahead and it is finalized and sold, and then after they find that she is guilty, does that affect her ability to make profits from the crime?
Would she/her family whomever, be responsible to pay any money back?

No idea how any of this stuff works.

 

[freeski]

Stefanoni is an expert called by the prosecution, he is there to find elements to help catch criminals. What do you expect her to do, to write down defence arguments?

Nice of you to confirm what Stefanoni's role in all this is. That's exactly the problem: she is there to help catch criminals. She was not independent and impartial. And she did everything in her power to "catch the criminals" including lying, hiding results, not doing negative controls, pursuing an LCN reading with equipment not designed for that. She is a stooge of the prosecution and as such is completely biased and has a vested interest in confirming the prosecution's assertions.

Hellman had one group of scientists aligned with the prosecution and another aligned with the defence. So he appointed some independent, impartial people to sort out the mess. And we all know what they found. Does it ever cross your mind, even in a tiny way, that the independent, impartial experts found in the defence's favour because ... actually the defendants were innocent. There actually is no DNA evidence against them. After all these years, I guess not.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Unfortunately this only brings her and the Knox/Mellas clan back up to zero, what with all the horrendous expenses incurred.

It will be from the libel and slander lawsuits to come that the four lost years of unjustified confinement will be made up for.

They now are back to Oct 2007.

I believe Frank Sfarzo is correct, and this is only an advance; Hence, there will be much more monies down the line:

As the New York Times reported, giant publisher HarperCollins won the auction with a 3.8 million euro bid.
The amount appears to be only the advance, since all other conditions must be ‘part of a detailed contract set up by Knox’s agent Bob Barnett. Amanda’s book is indeed considered a certain best seller, and in one or two years she should cash in much more thanks to percentage on sales, movie rights, etc.

http://perugiashock.com/2012/02/16/amanda-knoxs-book-deal/

 

[Bob001]

....They now are back to Oct 2007.....

Regrettably, Amanda and her family (and Raffaele and his) will never be back to Oct. 2007. I hope she makes as much money as she can, but I think it would be a mistake for us to think "Well, now she's got some cash, all's right with the world." For better or worse, she can never have the life she might have had if she had never gone to Perugia -- or had picked a different place to live, or at least had gotten a lawyer on Day 1.

 

[Myriad]

This could be the first "celebrity book deal" book in years that I'd have an interest in reading.

(Not that I'm the arbiter of popular taste or anything, but maybe that's a hint for why this deal was worth four million.)

 

[smkovalinksy]

Regrettably, Amanda and her family (and Raffaele and his) will never be back to Oct. 2007. I hope she makes as much money as she can, but I think it would be a mistake for us to think "Well, now she's got some cash, all's right with the world." For better or worse, she can never have the life she might have had if she had never gone to Perugia -- or had picked a different place to live, or at least had gotten a lawyer on Day 1.

All true. And this is why she must make as much money as possible, to partially compensate for her forever changed circumstances and psychological injuries.

 

[Grinder]

Mach - Stefanoni is an expert called by the prosecution, he is there to find elements to help catch criminals. What do you expect her to do, to write down defence arguments?
But the real folly - what is not understandable to me - is why there seem to be people thinking that an attitude of Stefanoni (which I expect and deem obvious) implies innocence of defendants. I can't understand why people here are so keen to equate this alleged delay of Stefanoni with a nonsense conspiracy and inexisting lies, but think it's hopeless.

Meanwhile, you forgot to point out that the concept of "withholding" is strictly limited to a specific phase of the pre-trial. To say that everything has its time, is not the same of saying that one fabricates false evidence to frame innocent people.

Is it not a concept in Italian law that the prosecution must reveal all the evidence they have including that which is exculpatory? Seriously?

Freeski - Hellman had one group of scientists aligned with the prosecution and another aligned with the defence. So he appointed some independent, impartial people to sort out the mess. And we all know what they found. Does it ever cross your mind, even in a tiny way, that the independent, impartial experts found in the defence's favour because ... actually the defendants were innocent. There actually is no DNA evidence against them. After all these years, I guess not.

I think it is more that they found that the knife and bra DNA findings were bogus. In addition, they found that all the collection procedures were lacking.

They didn't find them innocent. The PGP made the point that the DNA evidence against the kids wasn't all that important because of the mountain of other evidence, yet they spend day and night yelling about C&V.

Diocletus - Is the person who predicted 50k ever right about anything?

I'm sure in 4990 posts he was right at least once.

 

[Grinder]

Charlie,

I was asking about the ongoing reports that you released some records of Amanda's account she was using while in Perugia. It is reported that she withdrew 362(?) and later put in 500(?). It is implied that she must have stolen Meredith's money in order to make the deposit over the weekend after the murder.

Can you clarify what the story is?

 

[Grinder]

I can't believe it but I just looked out my window and there's a brand new Chevy Volt on my driveway - thank you FOA/Marriott. The book deal is already paying dividends.

The twenty sock puppets and 16x7 postings finally have resulted in this wonderful bonus.

Thank you, thank you, thank you

 

[smkovalinksy]

Is the person who predicted 50k ever right about anything?

In a word, "No." At least not in the 7 predictions I followed.

 

[freeski]

Is it not a concept in Italian law that the prosecution must reveal all the evidence they have including that which is exculpatory? Seriously?



I think it is more that they found that the knife and bra DNA findings were bogus. In addition, they found that all the collection procedures were lacking.

They didn't find them innocent. The PGP made the point that the DNA evidence against the kids wasn't all that important because of the mountain of other evidence, yet they spend day and night yelling about C&V.



I'm sure in 4990 posts he was right at least once.

I didn't say the independent experts found them innocent. That's why there's an ellipsis after "because" to indicate more logical steps. I said they found in the defence's favour. i.e. they found no evidence that would stand up. And the reason they found no evidence to backup the prosecution case is because there isn't any to find. And there isn't any to find because they are innocent of the crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The RFU values were low

She wrote down "Too Low" about a dozen times and then says in court that it could be a few hundred picograms. LOL. She is a lying liar.

The peaks on the electropherogram associated with the knife are very small, typically 20-50 RFU. Either the amount had to be very small, or there was an inhibitor within the PCR reaction. It is difficult to believe that someone could blithely assert that it could have been hundreds of picograms.