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

[platonov]

Apparently the entire Perugian police force decided to frame her then got the entire Italian Justice System to go along with it because they hate people doing cartwheels in their police stations.

Perhaps, Officer tsig - It appears much bigger than that !!!

 

[Supernaut]

Sorry Mary but I think that's horse pucky. Candace not being paid doesn't mean she has free reign to write anything she wants. She went to work almost immediately to make money on the coverage by a book. .........



She was never pro guilt and it was very shortly that she began her pro Knox crusade. You say realistic view and Vogt has PR driven view or worse. Look at the knife quote from 11-10.
.................

Why did they come in hard against a neutral blogger?



Mike and Anne as well as others. She hooked with Frank early on and always seemed a mouthpiece for the FOA. I couldn't read her stuff after a while because it was so stilted and she started promoting her book.

Watch the SU forum. She has been pro innocence forever.

I'm sorry but I think she is an idiot and on 11-10-2007 how does she know "the knife was found not to be the murder weapon" - now where would that info come from? To me she has been the mercenary of all, even Barbie.

When I search the PI with "Candace Dempsey" many of her posts are missing including some you have links for above.

How do you think she found Preston? Do you think he reached out to a food blogger?

And it really makes me sad every time this comes up because her one non Amanda post is about sweet Nick Gallo who died far too early and with no warning. RIP Nick.

Errrr .... so anyone who didn't START with a "pro-guilt" bias is ...... biased? Is that what you're saying?

When you include the hundreds, if not 1000's of replies Dempsey made to comments on her blogs (which meant she was also reading prolifically), the sheer volume of her writing/commentary was extraordinary, and it was almost always good quality (notwithstanding your quick turn as literary critic).

(BTW, this of itself made her, after even the first of year or so, eminently qualified to produce a book about the case).

As for "Why did they come in hard against a neutral blogger? ", what an inane question - the same reason "they" always did and still do - where "they" can get away with it.

Contrast this with Nadeau, who seems to struggle with perhaps bi-monthly 'columns' of a few hundred words for the Daily Beast, has no blog, and who's own book was pretty much just a sequence of these columns, slightly edited and strung together, with an excerable "narrative" of how it "went down" at the cottage from Barbie's childish and prurient imagination, tacked on as an afterword.

Or Vogt, who, rather than provide any information or analysis, now steers people to a parody of a wiki-page run by some PGP lunatic.

So, you don't like or approve of Candace Dempsey's "PIP" stance, you think she was/is biased? ANYONE with a >100 IQ and no pathological tendencies, who had absorbed as much information about the case, would find it IMPOSSIBLE to take any other position - it isn't "bias", it's just being rational.

The examples of "bias" you provide were not assertions of fact made by her but polemic, and this is the issue - she might have made occasional errors but otherwise wrote factually and accurately.

Others have already put you straight about Ted Bundy and the signs of psychopathy he had exhibited, which were obvious with the benefit of hindsight (actually, I can hardly believe you included a glib reference to him).

How you could begin to compare Dempsey unfavourably with Nadeau or Vogt is just perverse (a word I've used before replying to you).

 

[codyjuneau]

I agree that it is very unlikely that Raffaele's DNA got on the clasp during the murder, so I am not asking questions about this issue because I think that the clasp DNA is good evidence of Raffaele's guilt, but to a person that is unfamiliar with DNA testing and procedures it still seems an unexpected result.

Besides outright fraud (which I doubt because I think the forensic examiner would have just outright faked evidence if that was her intent), three possibilities have been put forth that seem like they might be reasonably likely to me:
1. The person that collected the evidence got Raffale's DNA on his gloves, perhaps when he operated the door handle that RS is known to have touched and transferred it to the clasp.
2. Kercher herself transferred it to the clasp, perhaps after she had touched something that RS had touched or she might have even shaken his hand.3. Contamination during the storage or testing phase.

However, I'm not completely satisfied by any of these possibilities because the amount of RS's DNA is still considerably greater than anybody else's.

Possibility 1: A lot of people had touched stuff all over that apartment. Why isn't there more of everybody else's DNA on the clasp if it got there by transfer from somebody that collected it or touched it? It strikes me as strange that transferring this DNA is so easy and yet almost nobody else's DNA got transferred to the clasp except that of RS, an individual that had rarely been in the apartment. Maybe the person collecting the clasp had on fairly clean gloves and just before the clasp was recovered they had touched something that had RS DNA on it?

Possibility 2: Maybe, but Kercher probably touched a lot of people during her day and she touched a lot of stuff that had been touched by a lot of people during her day and yet almost none of their DNA showed up but the RS DNA did and we don't know that Kercher even touched RS in any way that day. Maybe Kercher touched something RS had touched? OK, except once again there undoubtedly was DNA all over that apartment from lots of people and she just happened to touch something that had been touched by RS and almost none of the DNA from any of the other places she touched showed up on the clasp.
Possibility 3. Maybe this is the most likely possibility. The clasp got thrown into an evidence bag that already had items from RS in it? Maybe improper procedures were used during the test phase that led to an error?

I am not disputing that the clasp evidence against RS is weak or that there seems to be numerous innocent possibilities as to how it got there. But I would feel more comfortable with discounting the clasp evidence completely if the various possibilities that have been put forth seemed more likely to me.

.
Keep in mind that we do not know how many days Meredith had been wearing that particular bra. Also, there were two bathrooms, one shared by Filomena and Laura, the other shared by Amanda and Meredith, and consequently used by Raffaele, where he would touch common items such as towels, toilet flushers, water faucet taps, light switch, door knobs, toilet seat (up/down/up/down). And of course people often remove and put on clothes in a bathroom.

Despite that, I think one would be hard pressed to find two more suspiciously collected, handled, and interpreted pieces of evidence than the knife and bra clasp.
.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled that contamination must be proven, not just shown to be possible. So IF Raffaele's new analysis of the computer data gives Raf and Amanda an indisputable alibi, does that mean that the police are guilty of planting evidence on the knife and bra clasp unless they can prove contamination?

Just curious.
.

 

[Supernaut]

..........
Pss-
TSIG,
I apologize for confusing, I believe,
you with member Lionking, for I then asked you to give a personal opinion here.
I was mistaken.
RW

Well, it was an easy mistake to make - Tsig and LionKing are both 'Strines with, shall we say, an "economical posting style".

 

[Machiavelli]

Then Italy is miles behind the rest of 'the real world'.

In the rest of the real world, 5-years of study wouldn't even qualify you to apply to become a pathlogist. You may be thinking of biomedical scientist.

I mean 5 years after the degree in medicine, of course.

All pathologist are medical specialists and need to have studied biology extensively. To say they are not biologists is pedantically correct, but to use it to argue that they have no training in biology is both factually incorrect and laughable.

A biologist (specialized in molecular biology) such as Stefanoni is a biologist; a pathologist is a pathologist.
So to say Stefanoni is not a biologist is - 'pedantically' if you like - wrong; if you say Stefanoni is not a biologist you are stating a falsehood, and you only need to recant what you say.

And it's a lie you've just repeated. If a pathologist is not a biologist, then a forensic technician is not one too. That's the rules YOU laid out.

Stefanoni is a biologist. Has a degree in molecular biology. She is a biologist all over the EU. If you try to assert she is not, you are spreading defematory false assertions.

Stefanoni isn't, the lab she works at is.

Stefanoni takes part personlly at meetings every years as ENFSI representative.

Vecchiotti has 3 forensic qualifications.

Vecchiotti never did a forensic evidence collection activity in her life.

And as people pointed out, in the Olgiata case, Vecchiotti was unlucky enough to have been ordered to only test some samples.

Vecchiotti was 'unlucky'?
She was given a Rolex watch to just keep it?

There was no concern with her collection or processing of the sample. The 'mess-up' was entirely the fault of the prosecutor who ordered the limitations on sampling.

Oh really? A prosecutor ordered a "limitation"? How many other things are you going to make up this evening?

Would you like to talk about when Vecchiotti attributed a 100-year old skeleton to the missing girl Emanuela Orlandi? Or maybe about her friend who was working with her as a co-expert in the Olgiata case (they are a trio: Albarello - Pascali - Vecchiotti) prof Pascali, who is now on trial for having submitted a bogus report on the Elisa Claps case. Otr maybe you like to talke about the fact that Vecchiotti's only publication that was issued in a book, that was in a book supervised and edited by prof. Tagliabracci.

 

[Matthew Best]

What – no reply on who is behind the fix. Some of the finest minds on the net have uncovered the greatest conspiracy since the trial of Jesus Christ or the holohoax or whatever and keep quiet about it.

I think you may have missed the replies. It was the Masons apparently - I'm sure Machiavelli will be able to fill you in on the details - I think he has the names of some people in the US media who were also involved.

 

[Supernaut]

I suppose the problem I have with certain posters is this bizarro-world "logic" dictating that an "un-biased" observer should, by default, give 'authority', in this case employees of a CJS, automatic credibility, and presume the guilt of those they are indicting/accusing of a capital crime.

This is "scepticism"?

 

[Skind]

A biologist (specialized in molecular biology) such as Stefanoni is a biologist; a pathologist is a pathologist.
So to say Stefanoni is not a biologist is - 'pedantically' if you like - wrong; if you say Stefanoni is not a biologist you are stating a falsehood, and you only need to recant what you say.

Stefanoni is a biologist. Has a degree in molecular biology. She is a biologist all over the EU. If you try to assert she is not, you are spreading defematory false assertions.

But I'm not trying to say she's not a biologist - YOU are. You have asserted that all of Vecchiottis education in fields of study which included biology count for nothing if she's currently a pathologist. By that same token , YOU - not anyone else - are arguing that Stefanoni is not a biologist as she's currently a foresnic technician.

Do you see how stupid that arguement is? Yet you just made the same against Vecchiotti.

Stefanoni takes part personlly at meetings every years as ENFSI representative.

Is she personally a member of ENFSI - in otherwords, if she were to leave her lab for a non-ENSFI lab - would she still be entitled to call herself a professional member?

My professional membership applies where-ever I go, even if I'm not employed. Judging by the members page at ENSFI, it is the lab that is the member, not individual technicians.

Vecchiotti never did a forensic evidence collection activity in her life.

Totally irrelvent, even if true. Vecchiotti is highly experienced in collecting and processing incredibly specific and sensitive biological samples.

Also not your claim, you claim no training, which is patently false if you spend a minute checking her CV.

She was given a Rolex watch to just keep it?

In what court case was this proven, what was the sentence handed to Vecchiotti? Or are you just making it up?

Oh really? A prosecutor ordered a "limitation"? How many other things are you going to make up this evening?

None, Vecchiotti made it very clear that the 'failure' to find the incriminating sample was due to limitations that had been agreed with the parties involved. It wasn't a case of her making a proceedural opppsie as you well know.

Would you like to talk about when Vecchiotti attributed a 100-year old skeleton to the missing girl Emanuela Orlandi? Or maybe about her friend who was working with her as a co-expert in the Olgiata case (they are a trio: Albarello - Pascali - Vecchiotti) prof Pascali, who is now on trial for having submitted a bogus report on the Elisa Claps case. Otr maybe you like to talke about the fact that Vecchiotti's only publication that was issued in a book, that was in a book supervised and edited by prof. Tagliabracci.

Maybe you'd like to explain why you defend Stefanoni for very clear direct personal errors in proceedure and conduct, but are more than happy to slag Vecchiotti for rumours and perceived errors by associates?

Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy and contradiction in your logical and moral posistion? Are you an associate of Stefanoni by any chance? There's no way you can justify your defence of Stefanoni whilst actively partaking in the libel and slander of significantly superior experts.

You are making stuff up without reference, or are latching onto rumours and half-truths, yet you demand explicit direct precise official evidence before you'll admit anything about Stefanoni, even the stuff that was caguht on tape.

Learn to behave.

 

[Kestrel]

I interpret those words as Candace saying that blaming UW or the rain in Seattle (as some were apparently doing) was silly. I agree. BTW, I don't believe that Candace had anything to do with organizing the event at which she spoke. Didn't we go through this once before? With respect to Bundy, I just read John Douglas's book, and he mentioned a number of early warning signs including criminal activity. A quick perusal of the wikipedia entry on Bundy tends to confirm it. Bundy's juvenile record was expunged when he turned eighteen.

Candace Dempsey and John Douglas are on the pro guilt people's list of evil ones simply because they spoke out against the prosecution's case. At that point, the normal rule of web discussions takes over. Attacking a person is easier than a logical argument regarding the evidence.

Many people believe they can tell Amanda is guilty based on behavioral clues. But at the same time they dismiss the opinion of John Douglas, who is an expert in the field of criminal behavior.

 

[Grinder]

I really don't understand allowing him in this appeal. Has not this part of the sentence already been confirmed? Allowing him in when he no longer has an interest in the decision? I don't get this. Sounds a bit unfair to me.

I agree but if you read the article it would seem that the outstanding award to him allowed him and her "confession" in this appeal. If the article is correct it would seem like another big FU by the defense. I really can't believe they haven't upgraded attorneys.

 

[Bill Williams]

What – no reply on who is behind the fix. Some of the finest minds on the net have uncovered the greatest conspiracy since the trial of Jesus Christ or the holohoax or whatever and keep quiet about it.

Such reticence is puzzling but we should be grateful perhaps, were it not for this ‘admirable restraint’ the cartwheel threads might instead consist of 100k posts of inane gibberish.

Whereas I do not fully agree with RoseM that "The fix is in," to characterize this as FOA's claiming a wide raging conspiracy against Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito is simply false.

It is more like the Italian judiciary is circling the wagons because they (all the way up to the ISC) believe that their integrity is on the line.

This is, in fact, consistent with what many people within the Italian judiciary are themselves saying. To me this represents more a civil war within the judiciary for control. I think that the ISC couldn't care less if Knox and/or Sollecito is guilty or not, they just want to protect the so-called "integrity" of the system, forgetting that respect is earned, not conferred.

Witness what is being claimed as conspiratorial the other way. Machiavelli (and perhaps Andrea Vogt) believes that there is a Masonic conspiracy top buy off judges who were paid to acquit Knox and Sollecito. Machiavelli claims even to know the amount paid.

So be careful in pooh-poohing conspiratorial talk!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Totally irrelvent, even if true. Vecchiotti is highly experienced in collecting and processing incredibly specific and sensitive biological samples.

Also not your claim, you claim no training, which is patently false if you spend a minute checking her CV.

Whatever Vecchiotti's CV or experience may be, she submitted a detailed report on her work in the Meredith Kercher case. Scientists are free to evaluate her methodology and findings. If the work was incompetent, or if it reflects a bias in favor of the defense, that will be transparent, because the report itself is public and transparent.

Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy and contradiction in your logical and moral posistion? Are you an associate of Stefanoni by any chance? There's no way you can justify your defence of Stefanoni whilst actively partaking in the libel and slander of significantly superior experts.

You are making stuff up without reference, or are latching onto rumours and half-truths, yet you demand explicit direct precise official evidence before you'll admit anything about Stefanoni, even the stuff that was caguht on tape.

He seems to be a left-wing political ideologue for whom the Italian court system is a bastion of virtue. He defends it on every point, digging in his heels no matter what the facts are. He describes those who support Amanda and Raffaele as criminals bent on attacking the legitimacy of the court system. Of course, that was never our intent. Most of us don't care about Italian politics. The system has destroyed its own credibility by clinging to a farcical prosecution in defiance of fact and reason. But don't expect him to see that.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are making stuff up without reference, or are latching onto rumours and half-truths, yet you demand explicit direct precise official evidence before you'll admit anything about Stefanoni, even the stuff that was caguht on tape.

Learn to behave.

What is amazing is that when on a full bore defence of the defenceless... like Machiavelli does when he/she defends Stefanoni.... that he/she often resorts to simply making things up with regard to credentials; all the while similarly making things up about the so-called "non-credentials" of someone like Vecchiotti.

At the end of the day we learn little about either Stefanoni or Vecchiotti, but learn a lot about Machiavelli.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I provided a source for my contention: the convicting judge who wrote the report and quoted Dr. Gino without rebuttal from the prosecution on this subject.

'In contrast' and 'in contradiction' mean basically the same thing in this context in English.

Didn't you have an opportunity to contribute to the translation process? As you're well aware I did not.

I did contribute but not to the final edit (I'm not sure that this is court translation, though). But we've put a disclaimer on the document, saying the Italian text is what matters, talking referring to a translation is pointless.

I have no reason to doubt Massei's take on this issue, he was there in court and he read the original technical report in Italian.

And it's here that you reveal your dishonesty.
First, you perfectly know you are not quoting Massei's findings, but instead you are quoting Massei's reporting about a defence argument. Because you don't have anything else, you decide to emply the "Bill Wiliams" logical method, which consists in deducing the existence of something from a non-existence. Because there isn't a Massei's rebuttal, you deduce there must be a statement by Stefanoni.

On selective-view shaky-cam? Did they see every single thing the clowns in bunny suits were doing that night? Or was it more like the footage we have seen of that event where one can't really see much of anything outside what the camera is currently focused on and it isn't pointed exactly where it needed to be at all moments? Do you recall reading through (or participating in) the discussion regarding whether the bra clasp was dropped or placed back on the floor? Some couldn't tell for sure.

Yes, exactly, in real-time camera connection and - pay attention - audio connection. Yes, prof. Potenza would have known perfectly if there was a test being performed. It's obvious. No reasonable person could assume that experts observing and interacting with the forensics were unaware about what they were doing. You can't wince your mind in attempting to believe such a twisted scenario, and be considered rational.

Thus would have been the release dated July 30 for the trial which had started the previous November or so, and with the month-long vacation in August meant the trial only had three more months to run?

Why did it take so long for the police to release those documents, which should have been provided to the defense at the outset of the trial? What possible reason could they have had not to turn over the documentation of the evidence they were using in court?

You are making a claim. Can you back it? You say there is a law providing that these document should have been ‘offered’(?) to the defence from the outset of the trial. What law/jurisprudence is that? Are you sure it exists?
I tell you something: there is nothing that Stefanoni or the prosecution “should have done”. It is true instead, that the defence could have done a lot of things. They could have attended the tests, objected to the tests, submitted requests and access the laboratories during the 8-month investigation, submitted requests during the preliminary hearing and after. They could have done many things which they did not do. I do not want to investigate the possible reason why they chose to not do so. I can tell you that no prosecution office in Italy – ever, at least in 2007 – would deposits the SALs at the clerk’s office. Nor the raw data files nor other laboratory data.

(Ironically, in the case in which Vecchiotti became “famous” as a consultant in the early nineties (the Peruzzi case), Vecchiotti released only limited documentation to the other party’s consultant. This limitation was her main tool by which she lead the other consultant into a DNA interpretation error. But these are old stories.)

I could really care less who actually said it, if it wasn't Stefanoni then tell me who it was and I will blame them. Her not offering that information while she was claiming to the court those footprints were blood is damning enough, that's called a lie by omission in her position at the time.

If you don't know who it was who said that would you prefer I just use the more general phrase 'Lying Pigs?'

You should care about what someone did and if he/she did it, if you assert that he/she did something. Stefanoni was the witness from the forensic team who performed the tests, she is the only one who could have said things about the topic, and she is the only testimony the defence arguments refer to (a the one that they wanted to be disallowed).
Now as you are unable to back your assertion, your claim apparently changes and Stefanoni is no longer guilty of lying by asserting anything, but of just “not offering that information” while she was claiming to the court those footprints “were blood”. Now, you may well dislike the “not offering” of information (or better, the not offering of that information “spontaneously and unrequested”, since she offered it when requested); you are however progressively drifting away from the law towards your personal ‘moral’ expectations, and you are also freely ‘adding’ your personal ‘suspicious’ interpretation to things. This won’t make your personal interpretation - unattached to the law - become the “truth”: the assertion that someone is lying or cheating is simply not backed by anything substantial, except this personal interpretation of yours (which imho is largely based on your personal logical deduction about what a “presumed” test should imply – and such deduction is wrong). Anyway, your statement still is factually incorrect: Stefanoni did not claim that the footprints were blood; she said they were presumed blood. It seems you lost the word ‘presume’ along the way.
This word is a key point, and it is elicited through questions. The defence could have asked which presumption tests they had dome, for example. Stefanoni also took part to a confrontation where she faced questions directly from the defence experts, without going through defence lawyers.
Though, after all this, you still wish to claim that she “lied” or that she “did not disclose” something. In this process, you do not even consider the obvious contradiction in your argument caused by the fact that it was Stefanoni herself who deposited the SAL carrying that information that the defence did not previously ask. Still, you decide to consider this a lying, a cheating. She presumes blood, and your argument against her rests entirely on your personal belief that a negative TMB test should not allow her to presume blood. The whole core of your argument is your belief (erroneous) about significance of a TMB test. In your opinion, if there is a negative TMB test, this should be necessarily held as an information of relevant importance in the argument and should necessarily lead to not presume that something is blood. Of course, this is your opinion.

It's one of the most common presumptive blood tests available and used world-wide. In the field luminol is not 100 times more sensitive or anything close; numerous times that has been discussed and the relevant papers linked.

Yes, I linked them, and they say exactly what I say. TMB itself – used ‘directly’ – is at least 10 times less sensitive than luminol; but TMB is not used directly, it is not used on the latent stain but on a sample taken from a moist swab and then further diluted. Moreover, a previous test with luminol itself causes a dilution which does influence the subsequent tests.

I do realize you can link a paper which shows luminol more selective than a specific assortment of items than TMB; however that's not a sample representative of much more than 'things luminol doesn't get false positives on that TMB does' however it's not worth arguing as it doesn't actually matter which is true.

But TMB is actually positive mostly to the same kinds of substances to which luminol reacts. In fact it works the same way.
But moreover, there is no known substance that is known of having the property of being positive to luminol while not positive to TMB, at the same concentration (at least no common substance). Now, the presumtpion that a trace is blood is not just the application of a generic scientific rule, buti t is the consequence of inferences from the specific context (as Stefanoni and other experts explained). In other words it’s the cnsequence of alternatives. There is no reasonable alternative explanation but that the ‘not positive’ result to TMB is the consequence of dilution, because no reasonable alternative substance exists.

Selectivity is not an issue, regardless of which is more selective with false positives, that doesn't matter on a negative. It's a natural chemical reaction and if blood is present both will react; that either one might also react to other substances doesn't change that a whit.

It changes a lot instead, because you have a luminol reaction. And such luminol reaction carries a lot of information (like the shape and size of the stains, their peculiar distribution). So you do have a reaction. This means you do have some substance. And if you have a substance, you must make a hypothesys about what substance that is. If you find a reasonable substance (you may detect it somewhere else in the house) and such reasonable substance has the property of being negative to TMB, then – and only in that event – you would have a valid, reasonable candidate for an alternative substance (yet, you should still explain the shape and distribution and the event which produced the stains). Buti f you don’t have this alternative substance, plausible, positive to luminol and negative to TMB, you don’t have an argument. You only have presumed blood.

It matters not to me who said it, but that someone from ILE did both in court and in the technical report. Stefanoni not disclosing it while she was contending those hits were blood is damning enough regardless.

The fact that something id ‘damning’ is your opinion. The allegation that someone lied, or produced false results, such is a factual assertion which you can’t back in any way and it is obviously false.

You are lying, if you assert that Stefanoni asserted something, when she never said what you make her say. Or if you suggest the defence was devoid of competent personnel for assisting the tests, while they were not.
(btw you seem to also forget Stefanoni is the one who offered the SALs to Tagliabracci when requested; apparently she did not provide false SALs; what would it be the purpose of allegedly fabricate just a false technical report and not a false SAL?).

No, I'm not lying, your argument is dodging the actual issue here which is that the prosecution contended those luminol hits were blood without disclosing they'd tested negative for blood with TMB, and in fact hid that result and said they'd never performed them. It wasn't until they were caught lying ( ) that they came up with the 'hypothesis' that the hits might have been diluted between the thresholds of TMB and luminol. If they wanted anyone to believe they weren't lying they should have started with that assertion and not hid the negative TMBs.

No, my argument is pertinent, because your claim is supposed to be consistent. Your saying “the prosecution contended those luminol hits were blood without disclosing they'd tested negative” is rhetoric spin and false; truth is:
1. they (Stefanoni) never stated they had never performed them (you proved yourself unable to back this claim; you merely cling to a quote of Massei reporting a defence argument), in other words you just repeat a false assertion;
2. they (Stefanoni) contended they were presumed blood (you omit “presumed” and you omit the actual reasons to presume it blood);
3. they (Stefanoni) did not fail to disclose the information as you say, instead, they (Stefanoni) simply did not disclose the information at “the beginning”, that is on the preliminary hearing, and by offering it “unrequested and spontaneously”, despite the defence didn’t question her on the point; but it was Stefanoni who released the information to the defence; when you say “did not disclose” you make a false statement, since at best you should say “they disclosed it late” (but they did disclose it, they obviously did so voluntarily because they could have forged the SAL if they wanted to actually hid it) (additional point: you apparently also fail to consider that the preliminary hearing is an argument for probable case, with even time limitations, and just a limited portion of the evidence is disclosed there);
4. they (Stefanoni) were never ‘caught lying’, because they disclosed the SAL themselves, and it was only afterwards, thanks to such kind disclosure, that the defence could make an argument about learning information late (but actually, the defence could have put questions before, and they didn’t).

So: "the prosecution contended those luminol hits were blood without disclosing they'd tested negative" and "they were caught lying" is false. It's spin, it's just some false rhetoric slogans.
Obviously also that "the 'hypothesis' that the hits might have been diluted between the thresholds of TMB" does not need any timing to be believable, given that there is no reasonable alternative; while you decision to whom you believe or not is your buisness, but it's based upon your unreasonable expectations, which are just detatched from the real events in the trial.

 

[Welshman]

If C&V were incompetent morons who were totally unqualified to pass judgement on the DNA results on the knife and the bra clasp and had made major errors during previous investigations, why did the prosecution not make an issue of this during the second trial?

 

[Machiavelli]

But I'm not trying to say she's not a biologist - YOU are. You have asserted that all of Vecchiottis education in fields of study which included biology count for nothing if she's currently a pathologist. By that same token , YOU - not anyone else - are arguing that Stefanoni is not a biologist as she's currently a foresnic technician.
(...)

There is no argument in what I say except the points of false and truth.
And such argument is primarily with Supernaut and RandyN, and those who state that Stefanoni is not a biologist.
The statement that Stefanoni is not a biologist but just a lab technician is false. Full stop.
The assertion that Vecchiotti has more qualified credentials on DNA forensics than Stefanoni, also is a false statement.
It's simple.

 

[Antony]

What is amazing is that when on a full bore defence of the defenceless indefensible ... like Machiavelli does when he/she defends Stefanoni.... that he/she often resorts to simply making things up with regard to credentials; all the while similarly making things up about the so-called "non-credentials" of someone like Vecchiotti.

At the end of the day we learn little about either Stefanoni or Vecchiotti, but learn a lot about Machiavelli.

FTFI. Amanda was defenceless during her illegal all-night interrogation.

 

[Machiavelli]

None, Vecchiotti made it very clear that the 'failure' to find the incriminating sample was due to limitations that had been agreed with the parties involved. It wasn't a case of her making a proceedural opppsie as you well know.

It's a pity that the party involved, represented by attorney Giuseppe Marazzita, instead made exactly the opposite claim.
Again, do you really believe Marazzita gave Vecchiotti a rolex watch so she could just keep it?

 

[Bill Williams]

And it's here that you reveal your dishonesty.
First, you perfectly know you are not quoting Massei's findings, but instead you are quoting Massei's reporting about a defence argument. Because you don't have anything else, you decide to emply the "Bill Wiliams" logical method, which consists in deducing the existence of something from a non-existence. Because there isn't a Massei's rebuttal, you deduce there must be a statement by Stefanoni.

Please note - what Machiavelli is making reference to here, partially, is my claim that Massei's court found both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as being psychologically normal people.

The way I put it, and will continue to put it, is that Judge Massei found, by virtue of his motivations report, that there was no psychopathology associated with either of them.

Closely related to this are issues of motive - but to stick to Mach's point, the finding Massei made was, in essence, that there was no psychopathology associated with the two people in question.

Massei talks around the issue, claiming that they were, in fact, above average college kids with a bright future in front of them and a very normal upbringing behind them. According to Massei, in convicting them, he alleges they simply made a brief "choice for evil" uncharacteristic of their histories.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, wants to claim that because Massei did not specifically say, "they have no psychopathology", that he himself, and other guilters like Andrea Vogt, can legitimately point to Massei's court and the subsequent motivations report to claim the exact opposite....

...... that Massei's court found, in fact, that the pair HAD a psychopathology which is relevant to the crime. This is what Machiavelli tries to argue when he says I try to "deduc(e) the existence of something from a non-existence".

If this were not the case, Machiavelli would similarly and equally vigourously correct those who insist that there was some bad psychopathology in Knox and Sollecito. He's never done that!

It is absolutely dishonest rhetoric Machiavelli uses. Massei could not be more plain on this topic. Machiavelli, and others including Andrea Vogt, try to make him say something he never implied, in fact, Massei implies the opposite.

It's the same with Andrea's famous misinterpretation of Knox's "I was there" comment. Both Andrea and Machiavelli purposely ignore the plain text meaning of the comment (ie. that she was at Raffaele's) to try to read between the lines that what she really meant was that she was at the cottage - as Machiavelli implies that she was speaking in some sort of prearranged code with her mother during the exchange.

For newcomers to the forum here - meet MachiavellI!