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

[Machiavelli]

How exactly does a crimescope determine DNA? How would taking a swab for DNA destroy the pillowcase? This explanation is bogus.

The crimescope only renders the stain of a light from a specific wavelength which is considered typical of semen (albeit it may also be another substance).

The analysis of a semen stain requires the distruption of the fabric, or anyway the irreversible damaging of the item.

 

[Dan O.]

My understanding is it will be swabbed regardless if it is cut out or not. They would normally cut out a stain that is not easily transportable, like a stain on car upholstery. In this case, the evidence is already in the lab.

We saw how the handled the stain of the knife imprint on the mattress cover. Here is a case where it is 100% certain the the stain is the victim's blood showing the outline of what is 100% certain to be the murder weapon. what is most important? DNA testing of the stain or preserving the shape of the outline for comparison to any suspected murder weapon?

==BZZT== Wrong guess!

What's important is insuring that the outline imprinted in blood is flexible enough to be matched to the widest possible selection of knives so that it cannot be used to exclude any particular knife they choose to present. This is the ILE way. It would have worked if only Raffaele had a proper knife collection like everybody else. But all he had were the two pocket knives, a fake military knife, six small table knives a serrated bread knife and that huge kitchen knife that is too big to match the stain or any of the wounds.

 

[Diocletus]

So Stefanoni is a 100% honest person, who acted ethically, and did exactly what all experts are required to do and what they always do, on all cases not just the Kercher murder (nobody ever used to deposit raw data at the clerk's office).

No she didn't. She produced her egrams, yet hid the egrams that show that she generated contaminated results. The egrams that she is hiding include: 600-604, 617, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 762-63, 939, 944, 948, 952. She said that she had never had contamination. She made the appearance of making a complete production of egrams and she didn't disclose all of the hidden ones.

This is a great big lie, and she's a liar.

 

[Diocletus]

The crimescope only renders the stain of a light from a specific wavelength which is considered typical of semen (albeit it may also be another substance).

The analysis of a semen stain requires the distruption of the fabric, or anyway the irreversible damaging of the item.

I'm sorry, but this is a complete joke. Not even the people on pmf believe this. Everyone knows that you test the semen stain.

 

[davefoc]

Absolutely not. He [Guede] does not waive his right to remain silent at all, no matter what letters he wrote are read in court.

The point here is that Guede's letter was read at the trial without the right to cross examine Guede. In Italy, would it have been allowed for Guede to testify and not be available for cross examination? It seems unlikely, so what possible justification is there for reading a statement by Guede at trial without making him available for cross examination?

I think a lot of what are obvious violations of normal trial protocols designed to protect the right of defendants in any western country would be obvious to you without the deeply embedded confirmation bias that clouds your view of every aspect of this trial. You not only have an unfalsifiable view that Sollecito and Knox are guilty, you have an unfalsifiable view that every thing done by the prosecution to secure a conviction was ethical and legal.

 

[RandyN]

The crimescope only renders the stain of a light from a specific wavelength which is considered typical of semen (albeit it may also be another substance).

The analysis of a semen stain requires the distruption of the fabric, or anyway the irreversible damaging of the item.

Your statement about the crime scope is correct.

Your statement about analysis of the semen stain is nonsense. Its a lie in fact.
But even if you were correct (and you are not) what excuse could it be if a small portion of the already investigated evidence on the pillow case is utilized to examine a semen stain in a so called sex crime?

It is in fact idiotic to not test this stain and it is equally idiotic to argue against it with nonsensical incorrect data. Add the fact that the court is refusing to help the Kerchers find answers and is going against the SC decision that "too many questions remain unanswered" and you come to the conclusion that you and the Italian judiciary are making silly arguments that expose you all for what you really are...someone who wishes to hide the truth ...not examine for it.

Here is a good link from a blogger who has Italy and Italians down pat...enjoy.

http://babelbooth.com/2013/09/30/cooked-pasta-sticks-on-a-grimy-wall/

 

[Dan O.]

The crimescope only renders the stain of a light from a specific wavelength which is considered typical of semen (albeit it may also be another substance).

The analysis of a semen stain requires the distruption of the fabric, or anyway the irreversible damaging of the item.

Testing if the stain is semen requires only blotting a small part of the stain. Once it is determined to be semen then identifying the source through a DNA match is significantly more important than the shoe prints which can be perfectly preserved photographically and which ILE has been proven incompetent to measure or match. Even a perfect shoe print match only tells the make and model of the shoe and not who wore it. A DNA match on a semen stain tells the identity of the rapist. Only in Italy would the shoes be more important.

This must be a really important point for someone to have you prostitute yourself by lying about it. It seems bigger than just saving face for the incompetent inspectors of the ILE. Much bigger. Like someone already knows that the stain is semen and they know who it belongs to. But who would they protect? None of the known suspects would warrant such a coverup. Even Rudy would simply be thrown further under the bus. It has to be someone high in Perugia Law Enforcement that can exert pressure all the way to the top. Or perhaps that someone is at the top. Dare we speculate?

 

[Diocletus]

Testing if the stain is semen requires only blotting a small part of the stain. Once it is determined to be semen then identifying the source through a DNA match is significantly more important than the shoe prints which can be perfectly preserved photographically and which ILE has been proven incompetent to measure or match. Even a perfect shoe print match only tells the make and model of the shoe and not who wore it. A DNA match on a semen stain tells the identity of the rapist. Only in Italy would the shoes be more important.

This must be a really important point for someone to have you prostitute yourself by lying about it. It seems bigger than just saving face for the incompetent inspectors of the ILE. Much bigger. Like someone already knows that the stain is semen and they know who it belongs to. But who would they protect? None of the known suspects would warrant such a coverup. Even Rudy would simply be thrown further under the bus. It has to be someone high in Perugia Law Enforcement that can exert pressure all the way to the top. Or perhaps that someone is at the top. Dare we speculate?

It's Mignini's semen???

 

[Grinder]

But even if you were correct (and you are not) what excuse could it be if a small portion of the already investigated evidence on the pillow case is utilized to examine a semen stain in a so called sex crime?

The truly key piece of evidence against Raf was destroyed by poor science work. Destroyed forever. The pillow case was photographed and analyzed long ago and there is no call by the prosecution for reexamination of the prints. The small print was not identified as Amanda's.

It is in fact idiotic to not test this stain and it is equally idiotic to argue against it with nonsensical incorrect data. Add the fact that the court is refusing to help the Kerchers find answers and is going against the SC decision that "too many questions remain unanswered" and you come to the conclusion that you and the Italian judiciary are making silly arguments that expose you all for what you really are...someone who wishes to hide the truth ...not examine for it.

It is so sad that the Italians aren't even listening to the Kerchers' request for as much investigation as possible. Not even the PGP care about the famiy's desire to find the truth. Of all people only SA is standing up and saying "test it".

Schadenfreude.com seems to be putting only their own negativity first.

 

[Diocletus]

It is so sad that the Italians aren't even listening to the Kerchers' request for as much investigation as possible. Not even the PGP care about the famiy's desire to find the truth. Of all people only SA is standing up and saying "test it".

What request? Didn't their lawyer oppose testing the semen? Not much of a search for truth.

 

[Grinder]

What request? Didn't their lawyer oppose testing the semen? Not much of a search for truth.

They wrote a letter asking the court to help them find the truth of what happened that night. I posted it earlier.

I don't know that Maresca opposed the testing.

ETA -We have talked a lot in our family in order to come to make the difficult decision not to come to Italy for the beginning of the trial. My mother is in dialysis three times a week and this has an enormous impact on her health. My father has had two strokes in the past. This period is particularly stressful for us all and we desperately want to discover the truth and find justice for Meredith, who was taken away from us so brutally and unnecessarily. We have thus decided to support each other in the family here in the UK and to follow the trial from here, keeping close contact with lawyer Francesco Maresca and his colleagues.

We are confident that the evidence will be re-examined and that all the other requests for tests will be allowed, so that all the unanswered questions may be clarified and that the Court may decide on the next actions in this tragic case. These have been the six most difficult years of our lives and we want to be able to find a conclusion and remember Meredith as the really marvellous girl who she was, rather than remembering the horror associated with her.

It is a continuous battle every single day, struggling with our emotions, happy memories and desperately sad ones, and the only way in which our pain and suffering can at least begin to to be alleviated is to come to a clearer understanding of the tragic events of November 1st, 2007. Nothing can bring back our beautiful Meredith, and we keep her in our hearts always and in our memory, but we need to know what happened and she deserves at least the dignity of the truth.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely,


Stephanie Kercher and Family."

 

[Dan O.]

It's Mignini's semen???

Don't be ridiculous. Only mature men produce semen.

 

[MDDVS]

Your statement about the crime scope is correct.

Your statement about analysis of the semen stain is nonsense. Its a lie in fact.
But even if you were correct (and you are not) what excuse could it be if a small portion of the already investigated evidence on the pillow case is utilized to examine a semen stain in a so called sex crime?

It is in fact idiotic to not test this stain and it is equally idiotic to argue against it with nonsensical incorrect data. Add the fact that the court is refusing to help the Kerchers find answers and is going against the SC decision that "too many questions remain unanswered" and you come to the conclusion that you and the Italian judiciary are making silly arguments that expose you all for what you really are...someone who wishes to hide the truth ...not examine for it.

Here is a good link from a blogger who has Italy and Italians down pat...enjoy.

http://babelbooth.com/2013/09/30/cooked-pasta-sticks-on-a-grimy-wall/

Interesting article, thanks for the link.

 

[RandyN]

I appreciate this response, Davefoc.

It does seem worth highlighting that a fair number of peculiar events had to occur for a court to find these two guilty if they are so overwhelmingly innocent.

If anyone feels happy to respond... among the people who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent (and i keep feeling like i should say 'innocent of physically stabbing Kercher'), is it also your general belief that they have been completely truthful?

Well sure...if you just look at this from one position then a fair number of what I think is a mixture of corruption and incompetent acts has occurred. And this contention is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves this almost inconclusively. A whole book could easily be written about these illogical , sloppy, deceptive pieces along with the the openly illegal acts by police and prosecutor and the courts.

For example what happens (in the USA) to statements made in violation of Miranda rights? They are forbidden to be used right? And in essence the Italian SC ruled that this was the case with Knox so called confession and or false accusation (she was not provided or even allowed a lawyer). So how is it do you suppose that we constantly hear about "the confession or the accusation" in light of the ISC ruling on this matter? Corruption or confusion...you decide.

And to add to the illogical mess the ISC then confirms Knox conviction for false accusation when before they disallowed anything of that sort because she was denied a lawyer...and this is all logical and legal for the Italians while what it actually is ...is a method to remove Italy from danger of losing millions to Knox for her illegal detainment and wrongful prosecution and being held for 4 years unjustly.

It seems odd that a series of mistakes and coverups and judicial error are involved but not if you study all the "irregularities" in this case. Easily proven prosecutorial lies, scientific police lies in court and later shown to be untruths, false, incredibly inappropriate, prosecutor witnesses...a drug pusher high on heroin who can not even get the day correct and truth be told if his testimony is used then it provides a perfect alibi for both defendants...but this is ignored. (by the weak defense who I blame for not presenting a robust case because they fear retribution)

I suggest you read my link in the previous post that describes Italian behavior and seems to be well defined and even proven by this case.

Finally...are RS and AK truthful? Not sure...but I will say this...they appear to be 100 times more truthful than the police, prosecutor and some judges have been. So its a relative thing.

If you believe the police actually forgot to push record during their illegal interrogation then you may disagree. OTOH if you think they may just be lying about that to hide the fact that Knox was struck by police as she still to this day claims and in fact two other witnesses also describe plus other witness including the inspector from Rome who heard and testified about Knox screams that night then you may think Knox is not such a liar at all.

Oddly in Italy it is not a crime for a defendant to lie in court but it is for all others. And just as oddly I don't think Knox ever lied at all. She has agreed to freely take a lie detector test. I wonder how many Perugia police and if the prosecutors and Judge Matenni would agree to this test as well? I think not!

 

[Diocletus]

They wrote a letter asking the court to help them find the truth of what happened that night. I posted it earlier.

I don't know that Maresca opposed the testing.

ETA -We have talked a lot in our family in order to come to make the difficult decision not to come to Italy for the beginning of the trial. My mother is in dialysis three times a week and this has an enormous impact on her health. My father has had two strokes in the past. This period is particularly stressful for us all and we desperately want to discover the truth and find justice for Meredith, who was taken away from us so brutally and unnecessarily. We have thus decided to support each other in the family here in the UK and to follow the trial from here, keeping close contact with lawyer Francesco Maresca and his colleagues.

We are confident that the evidence will be re-examined and that all the other requests for tests will be allowed, so that all the unanswered questions may be clarified and that the Court may decide on the next actions in this tragic case. These have been the six most difficult years of our lives and we want to be able to find a conclusion and remember Meredith as the really marvellous girl who she was, rather than remembering the horror associated with her.

It is a continuous battle every single day, struggling with our emotions, happy memories and desperately sad ones, and the only way in which our pain and suffering can at least begin to to be alleviated is to come to a clearer understanding of the tragic events of November 1st, 2007. Nothing can bring back our beautiful Meredith, and we keep her in our hearts always and in our memory, but we need to know what happened and she deserves at least the dignity of the truth.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely,


Stephanie Kercher and Family."

Hm. Well, I guess that either "all the other tests" refers to the tests that Maresca and the prosecution want or don't object to, or, more likely, as I said earlier, this court couldn't care less about the Kerchers because its job is to save Italian face.

 

[Diocletus]

Given the new "fingernail" evidence, you know what's very interesting: the two missing egrams from the bra, nos. 939 and 944, which in my opinion likely show mixed/uninterpretable profiles. Hmm.

And we won't test the semen. Double hmm.

 

[RandyN]

Rudy was not silent during this time in court. He answered questions by the defense and did answer questions somewhat concerning the last sentence of the letter (obviously not to the satisfaction of many).

Rudy's attorney argued in court to not admit the letter (or maybe it was to not have it read in court - possibly because of the last sentence) and to narrow the questioning to the allegations by Aviello (who appeared in court to testify to Rudy's conversations). Hellmann ruled to have the letter read and the questions kept to Aviello's testimony. From Rudy's testimony transcript (and video of his court appearance) the defense were able to get some questions answered by him which were other than answering Aviello's testimony.

This is simply cherry picking. Rudy spoke yes...but when it came to the accusation he remained silent. The defense tried to question him but the prosecution objected. Which Hellmann sustained. Who called Guede into court? I think he came of his own free will or else the prosecutor called him...and it was the prosecution who read this letter no matter who objected to it. The defense has a right to confront the witnesses presented by the prosecution. IIRC Guede was already declared immune to further prosecution. Although if I were RS and AK I would certainly file charges against him for lying about their involvement. But thats me...I would file charges against the liar Lumumba too.

 

[Machiavelli]

Testing if the stain is semen requires only blotting a small part of the stain. Once it is determined to be semen then identifying the source through a DNA match is significantly more important than the shoe prints which can be perfectly preserved photographically and which ILE has been proven incompetent to measure or match. Even a perfect shoe print match only tells the make and model of the shoe and not who wore it. A DNA match on a semen stain tells the identity of the rapist. Only in Italy would the shoes be more important.

This must be a really important point for someone to have you prostitute yourself by lying about it. It seems bigger than just saving face for the incompetent inspectors of the ILE. Much bigger. Like someone already knows that the stain is semen and they know who it belongs to. But who would they protect? None of the known suspects would warrant such a coverup. Even Rudy would simply be thrown further under the bus. It has to be someone high in Perugia Law Enforcement that can exert pressure all the way to the top. Or perhaps that someone is at the top. Dare we speculate?

You are offending a poster; I see this has to do with a rule here (even if I don't understand why defamation of people who are not posters is allowed).

What I said is obviously true, so your claim is disingenuous and unfounded.
Then, your stating that something is "significantly more important than the shoe prints" is actually already off topic, because possible importance of the trace is obviously not the determinant factor: we are, in fact, talking about a delay. The forensic basically said "we can test it, but we need to destroy the item"; the prosecution said "so let's wait, we can always do it later".

Now, the first rapist, Rudy Guede, was sentenced with a short trial in the preliminary hearing. A semen stain would have been unnecessary against him, but also illegitimate because his choice of fast track "freezes" all the evidence, no evidence against him can be added.
We know that on the other side, Sollecito's defence - by his own admission - delayed as much as possible the request to test it.

Now, your comment about protecting alleged "incompetent inspectors of the ILE" is obviously nonsense because those who refused to test the stain were not the prosecution, they were the judges: Massei's court (it was requested at the end of his trial, that means after the testimony and evidence discussion phase), then it was refused by Hellmann-Zanetti, and, the request is opposed by the Kerchers; and now it's rejected also by a Florentine court, whom nobody in Perugia knows (hope you are not believeing a Florentine court protects some obscure Perugian investigators).

 

[Machiavelli]

The point here is that Guede's letter was read at the trial without the right to cross examine Guede. In Italy, would it have been allowed for Guede to testify and not be available for cross examination? It seems unlikely, so what possible justification is there for reading a statement by Guede at trial without making him available for cross examination?

I think a lot of what are obvious violations of normal trial protocols designed to protect the right of defendants in any western country would be obvious to you without the deeply embedded confirmation bias that clouds your view of every aspect of this trial. You not only have an unfalsifiable view that Sollecito and Knox are guilty, you have an unfalsifiable view that every thing done by the prosecution to secure a conviction was ethical and legal.

It's instead the principle of the code that are not obvious to you.
The Supreme Court has explained the point quite clearly anyway.
Btw, even RoseMontague (on IIP) agreed that Guede's accusation against Knox and Solelcito was a defence's fault.

You call my view "unfalsifiable", but actually the terms "ethical" and "any western country" are unfalsifiable concepts.
That what the prosecution did was legal, that it was ethical under the law, it is a theoreticallly fully falsifiable statement under the light of the code.
The code says, instead, that a reading of the letter in court would not imply a right to cross-question the witness about any content of the letter. The letter is a document, notsomething for which the witness has a right to remain silent; a document can be acquired in the file without askind the author and a witness can be questioned on the letter itself (like if he wrote it, when, why etc), but cannot be questioned (nor cross-questioned) about the things told narrated in the content of the letter, if it's topic about which he has a right to remain silent.

 

[Diocletus]

(even if I don't understand why defamation of people who are not posters is allowed).

It's ok. They are lying public figures.