• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
They love to waive around this concept that the defense observed the testing and nothing was objectionable. It's just not true. The defense has raised issues about the reliability, repeatability and documentation of the testing, and in addition have pointed out that the lab is neither certified for LCN nor operated consistent with LCN standards. What else should they have done? Unplug the machine?
Click to expand...

And the fact is, the claim is just not true. Potenza, in his role as observer for the defense outlined numerous problems with the testing on the knife.
 
Grinder said:
Bill it is unnecessary for you to hunt down that article as everyone here knows that the smaller the amount of material available for testing the greater the need for stricter protocols for collecting, transporting, storing and testing. Special labs have been set up for LCN/touch DNA testing with positive pressure hoods to keep out environmental contamination.

If anybody doubts that LCN is easier to transfer they are not worth arguing with.

Do you think the copy below is neutral?

Amanda Knox’s fate may turn on a DNA speck found on a plain old kitchen knife. In the first day of her retrial in Florence, Italy, the news was unrelentingly dreary for the defense, leading me to dub Judge Alessandro Nencini “Dr. No.” He said yes to DNA testing on the knife but wasn’t interested in DNA testing on semen most likely belonging to convicted murderer Rudy Guede on a pillow found under the victim’s body. In fact, Nencini denied 15 of 17 defense requests. Worst of all, he wasn’t interested in summoning Rudy to finally explain why everything in the murder room points only to him.

I fear we’ll see the rejected kitchen knife, wrapped with a bright red ribbon, brought back to court under melodramatic armed guard. Too large to fit victim Meredith Kercher’s wounds, it doesn’t match a bloody imprint on the victim’s bed. In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. Independent experts won’t test the knife this time; the judge handed that task off to the carabinieri ris. (Update: Filippo Barni and Andrea Berti). I have my fingers crossed for fairness.

Is it true that the DNA turned out to be starch? I think C&V said the DNA found wasn't done with proper protocols and therefore couldn't be considered. Perhaps I have forgotten that they said the substance was starch. Is the "new" substance they found also starch?
Click to expand...

The article I read did not so much make mention of, "the smaller the amount of material available," as it did the increased sensitivity of testing.

It went at great length to make the point that the greater the sensitivity, they more important that anti-contamination protocols were followed, and that the protocols needed to be stricter and demonstrably so.

I am not an expert on this. To me it is a little counter-intuitive to say that the anti-contamination protocols need to be more strict, only in the sense that this seem to imply that the older way of doing things is not very reliable!

But that's just me and it may be my misunderstanding of a topic I'd rather not read about. All this DNA technical stuff makes me want to scream....

... and the trouble with that knife, now in Oct 2013, is actually one of chain of possession, and verifiable chain of custody. If it shows up now with a bright bow on it, and a big hunk of ANYBODY'S DNA that Stefanoni didn't find, then the fix really is in.

Stefanoni's work on the first sweep of the cottage is basically meat and potatoes forensic work. Her work on the knife and the bra-clasp is technical stuff that I am gathering is well above her pay-grade.

If now they've miraculously discovered DNA on the knife that really is meat and potatoes obvious forensics.... it's been 6 years that this knife has been in the possession of somebody!

It's a double edged sword.... think about it. My view is that Stefanoni wrote reports about the knife and the bra-clasp that would allow the prosecution to go either way on them... and her "findings" could support either guilt or innocence, thus letting her off the hook.

It's quite the trick when you think about it. No wonder she fought tooth and nail not to release the EDFs, if that's what you call them.
 
Kaosium said:
What about all the reports we linked regarding the ritualistic nature, including the Sunday Times article from John Kercher himself? It didn't have to be part of the court arguments for him to have proposed it. My understanding was he dropped it, but that doesn't mean he never entertained it, which would explain all the people who reported that he did. ;)
Click to expand...

Kaosium you are overtly shifting the goalpost. In order to propose a ritualistic murder scenario, you do need to propose it in court. What is not put forward in court, is not part of the trial.
Your understanding (that he "dropped" it) is based on your decision to assume that possible British tabloid reports are "truthful" (maybe you assume "there must be something true"). There is actually a simple answer: the English speaking reports about it are reporting false information. (maybe they were deceived by Spezi, Carlizzi or whoever? who knows).
No Italian souece reported Mignini putting forward a ritualistic scenario. And above all, the court documentation demonstrates that in fact he put forward a different scenario, definitely a non-ritualistic scenario.

Now, because it is obvious that the informationreported by tabloids has no basis, that there is instead proof of the contrary in trial transcripts, now you shift your hypothesys about what Mignini "entertained" (maybe in your next post you will specified that he dreamt of it). You should maybe start considering all those many non-tabloid and non-anglophone sources (me included, and Mignini himself included) who did NOT report about any ritual-murder scenario, and instead they just reported about something else, something totally different scenario, such as a drug-fueled sex-party that went out of control.
 
The Carabinieri are not retesting the the knife but rather are testing the additional material C&V found but did not test, if I've understood correctly.

The sensitivity of testing means that smaller amounts of material can be analyzed and those smaller amounts can be much more easily transferred than "old" DNA that was actually something tied to the crime that was found like a cigarette, saliva, blood, or semen. The "new" DNA need not be seen at all but found on something such as the knife using these more powerful (sensitive) machines.

These tiny amounts of DNA are sometimes called "touch" DNA because they can easily be transfers by just touch as demonstrated by the Ch. 5 guy with his dust.

Amanda could have rubbed her hands dry on a bathroom towel used by Meredith and picked up her DNA and then walked to Raf's and put away the knife touching the blade and transferring Meredith's DNA to the blade.

The most likely source to me of the DNA would be from the lab where dozens of things with Meredith's DNA had been tested. The machine could have cleaned improperly or DNA could float in the air hence the need for the positive pressure hoods over the work area.

I welcome a correction or corrections as I don't claim expertise but I think that I've captured the heart of some of the issues with LCN/touch DNA.
 
Machiavelli - what puzzles me is why Mignini doesn't try another strategy. Why not just admit that he floated the idea of Satanic Ritual, but that when he was brought new information (maybe by Comodi) that he simply modified his theory?

I believe I know why he, and hence you, draw a line in the sand over this potentially explosive issue. ...

... but if 5 years ago he'd just admitted that he briefly considered it, but changed his mind going into trial, no one would be talking about it in 2013.

Both you and Mignini are making a tactical mistake by drawing a line in the sand over this.

Is it really that explosive?
 
Machiavelli said:
Kaosium you are overtly shifting the goalpost. In order to propose a ritualistic murder scenario, you do need to propose it in court. What is not put forward in court, is not part of the trial.
Click to expand...

And what about the investigation? It is you that tries to narrow the goalposts. The early reports were based on leaks from someone. Where do you think those leaks came from? Never mind, you will just dance and give a Novelli position that leaks need to be proven.


Your understanding (that he "dropped" it) is based on your decision to assume that possible British tabloid reports are "truthful" (maybe you assume "there must be something true"). There is actually a simple answer: the English speaking reports about it are reporting false information. (maybe they were deceived by Spezi, Carlizzi or whoever? who knows).
No Italian souece reported Mignini putting forward a ritualistic scenario. And above all, the court documentation demonstrates that in fact he put forward a different scenario, definitely a non-ritualistic scenario.
Click to expand...

And what were the Italian tabs reporting? Oh right the sex party.

Now, because it is obvious that the informationreported by tabloids has no basis, that there is instead proof of the contrary in trial transcripts, now you shift your hypothesys about what Mignini "entertained" (maybe in your next post you will specified that he dreamt of it). You should maybe start considering all those many non-tabloid and non-anglophone sources (me included, and Mignini himself included) who did NOT report about any ritual-murder scenario, and instead they just reported about something else, something totally different scenario, such as a drug-fueled sex-party that went out of control.
Click to expand...

Could you explain what evidence there was for a sex party?

Frankly I don't see the importance of the exact phrase Mignini used or at what point. Since the case was in the court of public opinion for two years that court is important. Obviously you think so because you've been a big part of it for years.

Since the early stories in English talked about the satanic stuff and the leaked picture of the bloody bathroom was published among other false reports why didn't Mignini step forward immediately to correct them? Why didn't he make a letter to the press stating that he never believed in a satantic rite murder or anything of the sort.

Please provide an early statement from Mignini that corrected these wide spread inaccuracies.

Thanks in advance.
 
Machiavelli said:
Kaosium you are overtly shifting the goalpost. In order to propose a ritualistic murder scenario, you do need to propose it in court. What is not put forward in court, is not part of the trial.
Your understanding (that he "dropped" it) is based on your decision to assume that possible British tabloid reports are "truthful" (maybe you assume "there must be something true"). There is actually a simple answer: the English speaking reports about it are reporting false information. (maybe they were deceived by Spezi, Carlizzi or whoever? who knows).
No Italian souece reported Mignini putting forward a ritualistic scenario. And above all, the court documentation demonstrates that in fact he put forward a different scenario, definitely a non-ritualistic scenario.

Now, because it is obvious that the informationreported by tabloids has no basis, that there is instead proof of the contrary in trial transcripts, now you shift your hypothesys about what Mignini "entertained" (maybe in your next post you will specified that he dreamt of it). You should maybe start considering all those many non-tabloid and non-anglophone sources (me included, and Mignini himself included) who did NOT report about any ritual-murder scenario, and instead they just reported about something else, something totally different scenario, such as a drug-fueled sex-party that went out of control.
Click to expand...

Hmm. So let's see. If you say you looked around for some information in the "trial documents," and you don't find it, then it doesn't exist. OK.

Now we can agree that Stefanoni didn't produce the negative controls (unless you care to identify them). Therefore, she is hiding them.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Hmm. So let's see. If you say you looked around for some information in the "trial documents," and you don't find it, then it doesn't exist. OK.

Now we can agree that Stefanoni didn't produce the negative controls (unless you care to identify them). Therefore, she is hiding them.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!
 
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli - what puzzles me is why Mignini doesn't try another strategy. Why not just admit that he floated the idea of Satanic Ritual, but that when he was brought new information (maybe by Comodi) that he simply modified his theory?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's not true?

Strategy?
We are talking about what is true and what is false. You assert that a Satanic ritual theory was put forward by the prosecution? Well, if this is true, it must be in the trial documents.
Is there a trial transcript or in a trial submission by the prosecution?
You say it was said in an interview? So, is there an interview where the prosecution states that?

Is there even any reliable Italian source reporting that?

Why, now, don't you consider that instead, the trial transcripts do exist, they do document the trial and what they document is the fact that the proescution put forward a theory which is incompatible with a ritualistic scenario.
Didn't the prosecution put forward a theory about a sex-party among drugged students that went out of control? Isn't that what the trial documents are about?

You know what the real question is?
The real question is why YOU still believe Mignini put forward a ritual murder scenario. This is the only real question. It does not say anything about Mignini. It tells about your mind. The irony of this is that you accuse me of incurable bias and total lack of critical thinking (these is only the best compliment).
You instead, you developed a bias by reading unreliable, polluted tabloids reportig anonimous sources? Now look how encrusted your bias is: you are unable to relinquish or re-consider your belief even while are acknowledging that it is unfounded, and while you are facing the evidence of the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli, you are "incurably biased", though. There's no denying it, just the same as there's no denying that Mignini had nothing on Knox and Sollecito when the DNA fell apart, but he still insisted to persecute them.
 
Is there even any reliable Italian source?
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
Doubtful.
Click to expand...

An interesting admission. About your basic argument.
All the rest of what you say, in all posts, is unnecessary. You don't need any other argument actually, since everything you build rests on this basic belief, and you can build everything on it.
 
Machiavelli said:
An interesting admission. About your basic argument.
All the rest of what you say, in all posts, is unnecessary. You don't need any other argument actually, since everything you build rests on this basic belief, and you can build everything on it.
Click to expand...

"Admission" of what? That I don't like Italy? That's not true. Some things about Italy are very nice. For example, Alto Adige.

Now, if you think that I believe that the Italian press has acted like a pact of slobbering hyenas, and the Italian Justice system has engaged in gross misconduct and acts of sheer stupidity and perversion to railroad two innocent people, then you are right. You're also right that I "can build everything" on that foundation--funny how that works.
 
Machiavelli said:
In order to propose a ritualistic murder scenario, you do need to propose it in court.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. If law enforcement proposes such a scenario, and suggests it to the press, and it is printed in the press to the detriment and prejudice of the defendant, then the harm has been done.

What you say is how it should work: if the prosecution wants to suggest something, or make use of some evidence against the defendant, then that should be done in court. But that's not how it worked in this case. In this case, the prosecution took advantage of a cowed, uncritical, and unscrupulous press to try the defendants in the eyes of the public, even before the defendants had their own lawyers.

Pretty damn pathetic.

BTW, you think that Americans view Knox more favorably because they are against Italy. That's not true at all. The fact is, that the American press is way more critical of law enforcement, and the American public is way more critical of the press, than the Italian public is with respect to Italian law enforcement and press, and therefore, a lot of Americans didn't immediately swallow this hogwash story about a couple of college kids deciding to have some kind of murder orgy, whereas, you Italian folks lapped it right up.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
An interesting admission. About your basic argument.
All the rest of what you say, in all posts, is unnecessary. You don't need any other argument actually, since everything you build rests on this basic belief, and you can build everything on it.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli you should do as the prosecution want Amanda and Raffaele to do in relation to the possible contamination of the bra-clasp and the knife,prove where it happened or accept that there was no contamination

You should be able to post all the court documents of Mignini's speeches to judge Matteini judge Micheli and all the other judges who listened to this clown before this case came to trial in late 2008 or early 2009,you should be able to prove to those of us, who believe Mignini used satanic rituals as a motive for Meredith's murder,that we are completely wrong
 
Last edited:
billyryan said:
You (Machiavelli) should be able to post all the court documents of Mignini's speeches to judge Matteini judge Micheli and all the other judges who listened to this clown before this case came to trial in late 2008 or early 2009,you should be able to prove to those of us, who believe Mignini used satanic rituals as a motive for Meredith's murder,are completely wrong
Click to expand...

What is curious is that he claims to have these documents which proves his point, yet he does not post them.

He's obviously not from Missouri.

mo2004.jpg
 
Machiavelli;how about a few court documents that proves that when Mignini was addressing judge Micheli's court at the end of Rudy trial making his case that Meredith's murder was a three way act and there was a mountain of evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt,some of us,wrongly in your opinion,think that Mignini used a satanic rite as a motive for Meredith's murder in this address to the court
I am sure you will agree at this critical point in the appeal proceedings it would be very wrong to leave the allegation hanging in the air that Mignini is a liar,and you will produce the documents to prove exactly what Mignini did say
Thanks in advance
 
billyryan said:
Machiavelli;how about a few court documents that proves that when Mignini was addressing judge Micheli's court at the end of Rudy trial making his case that Meredith's murder was a three way act and there was a mountain of evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt,some of us,wrongly in your opinion,think that Mignini used a satanic rite as a motive for Meredith's murder in this address to the court
I am sure you will agree at this critical point in the appeal proceedings it would be very wrong to leave the allegation hanging in the air that Mignini is a liar,and you will produce the documents to prove exactly what Mignini did say
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

The one thing Machiavelli WON'T do is produce the document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom