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

[Kaosium]

C&V are completely discredited.

The actual effect (and maybe, purpose) of this DNA test, is to discredit them further. To better show how liars they are.

But they are already discredited, and above all, they contributed no additional information to the previous findings. They brought information which was already known, and they made exactly the same arguments that had been already done by the defence experts.

In other words the independent court experts found that the defense was more correct in its arguments regarding mainstream forensic DNA science. I'm sure the prosecution didn't like that but it was apparent from reading a smattering of the literature in the field, especially that of LT/LCN enthusiasts who championed standards far higher than Stefanoni adhered to.

They made up wild assumptions (like the lack of negative controls, or the lack of environmental tests)

Those aren't wild assumptions they're the necessary process of forensic DNA science. The real data for the negative controls is archived in the EDFs which Stefanoni to this day has refused to turn over. By 'environmental tests' I'm guessing you mean the substrate controls; those are necessary to determine if the surface being tested has genetic material inherently and thus there's no reason to think finding DNA there would suggest it was related to the murder, like on the floors from the people who lived there.

deliberatly chosing to not verify any of their claims, they lied in court about the picograms amount,

I have no idea what you mean here, but I can't wait to find out!

they were unable to offer reasons for their contamination theory except that "everything is possible",

They wrote a whole section on it!

they quoted the Missouri State patrol manual instead of academic papers,

They cited plenty of academic papers, they also quoted the procedures manuals from ILE sources and showed those were pretty standard throughout the world, including the Missouri State Patrol (one from Wisconsin!) and other agencies. They then demonstrated that ILE grossly violated them.

and Bruce Budowle (who was hired as a defence expert by Ted Simons),

That was not the case when they wrote their report, and at any rate citing the man who set up and headed the FBI's DNA lab is going to be pretty common for anyone writing a paper of this nature. The first I heard of Dr. Budowle in relation to this case was years after the report was written, perhaps he found he was cited and read the report and was as horrified as all the rest of the DNA Forensic experts who'd already protested the abuse of their field by the prosecution in this case?

My guess is he heard (or read) that Stefanoni was trying to pass a knife off that had tested negative for blood but claimed there was DNA from the victim on it from the murder. That's silly, and he knows it, being a decent human being he decided to help.

their assessments were belied by Novelli, and they failed to fulfill the task they were ordered.

From what I read Novelli spoke in generalities that were misleading in the context of this particular case and made arguments and statements that were contradicted by his previous papers and arguments in court. In other words he 'tried to make water run uphill' which is apparently the practice in Italian Courts.

Moreover, theit issues with "intellectual honesty" are so obvious that they were pointed out even by the Supreme Court; and also, they were appointed by Pratillo Hellmann and Zanetti (alone this sayis it all; those judges are "nullified" and totally discredited). Last, their reputation was already dreadful.

What did the supreme court say about 'intellectual honesty' regarding the independent experts? It couldn't have been too damning being as they did not object to its being included in this court (i.e. they didn't throw it out) and at any rate were certainly not qualified to make a judgement in the matter anyway.

I see you're a fan!

 

[Machiavelli]

The exact mechanism of contamination has yet to be proven in the Farah Jama, Jaidyn Leskie, or Lukis Anderson cases. There was a case in England (the details escape me) where a route of contamination was at least proposed and plausible (it had to do with a particular kind of equipment being reused that should not have been). But I strongly doubt that a mechanism of contamination is determined in the majority of cases. Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” The argument that contamination must be proved suggests an analogy: that doctors should demand that the patient prove the exact moment at which he or she became infected before the doctor commences treatment.

But I think you can see the oddity, the non-correspondence of this last example. In fact, the doctor / infection example points out exactly the difference between the example, and the proposing of a contamination scenario.
In fact, if the doctor commences an infection treatment, it means he has clinical evidence of infection. That is, it means precisely he has a proof that infection exists.
The detalis about the exact time and event, could be investigated or remain unknown, but the details are secondary insofar as the infection has been already proven, independently from this information.

A quite different thing it would be if the doctor had no evidence at all that any infection is ongoing or ever occurred.
In a case whete you may have have no clinical indicators, except, maybe, only the possible information about how the person got infected... Well, in that case, when you don't have anything but that information... with no information, you have no event.

In the Kercher DNA case (and in Sollecito's DNA on the clasp), the factual element is the finding of the DNA; if you don't have any contamination scenario that is credible, meaning you can explain this by offering a probable explanation based on a factual element (that is: information about a certain event that would itself cause that specific contamination event to be a very probable consequence of it), well if you don't have this you don't have anything to argue contamination. Even a child understands this. There is no need to ask a scientist about something that is elementary logic. "Everything is possible" cannot be an answer. There should be no need to argue this.

In his 2010 report on the Farah Jama case, Former Australian Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent wrote (p. 24), “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.”

1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant.
If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words the independent court experts found that the defense was more correct in its arguments regarding mainstream forensic DNA science. I'm sure the prosecution didn't like that but it was apparent from reading a smattering of the literature in the field, especially that of LT/LCN enthusiasts who championed standards far higher than Stefanoni adhered to.
(...)

The Hellmann&Zanetti-appointed experts; not the 'independent' experts.

And, Hellmann & Zanetti are, by definition, no longer regarded as impartial.

 

[acbytesla]

The Hellmann&Zanetti-appointed experts; not the 'independent' experts.

And, Hellmann & Zanetti are, by definition, no longer regarded as impartial.

That's an interesting take on two career judges. It's also interesting to think that the HZ DNA experts Conti Vechiotti are not independent.

Really weird language you have there Mach. or is this just your own personal definition?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The "accusation" remains key. That has never been refuted and was why Hellmann's ruling was so flawed. Even you couldn't be convinced by almost everyone here and at IIP that it was a bad ruling. The Italians still believe officially that she did it voluntarily. That piece of evidence has never changed to answer your question above.

Their alibi has never been as sound as it could have been. Even their books don't do a great job. (I've read enough to have an opinion)

The blood in the bathroom remains. To them the staged break-in remains. And of course "I was there" remains.

Incredibly, there are places in the world in which the police and the prosecutors are more mature than the suspects. Many suspects will confess to crimes they did not commit. If the police or the prosecutors have misgivings about whether the evidence shows the suspect committed the crime, they won't accept the confession. That's their responsibility.

From all the evidence that actually exists (not the non-existent evidence), it is obvious to outside observers that Amanda was coerced into making the accusation. What a suspect says does not matter until the police or the prosecutors act on it. In this case, they did not make a responsible choice.

 

[Samson]

Amanda Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first, she answered questions for a while, offering her "version" (similar to the previous stories: mop, shower etc.). But when the questions came close to the topic of why she accused Patrick, the interrogation was interrupted by her lawyers and she invoked her right to remain silent.
(The last answer she managed to give before her lawyers interrupted her was "I accused him because it could be true").

Raffaele Sollecito requested to be questioned, he was scheduled for December, but when he was summoned, he involed his right to remain silent and refused the questioning.

If she was not there it could most certainly be true in her known world, no problem at all.

 

[Kaosium]

The Hellmann&Zanetti-appointed experts; not the 'independent' experts.

And, Hellmann & Zanetti are, by definition, no longer regarded as impartial.

They were partial to the truth which is why the prosecution objected to them.

 

[RandyN]

Amanda Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first, she answered questions for a while, offering her "version" (similar to the previous stories: mop, shower etc.). But when the questions came close to the topic of why she accused Patrick, the interrogation was interrupted by her lawyers and she invoked her right to remain silent.
(The last answer she managed to give before her lawyers interrupted her was "I accused him because it could be true"). Raffaele Sollecito requested to be questioned, he was scheduled for December, but when he was summoned, he involed his right to remain silent and refused the questioning.

Sounds good Yummi...got any citations for that? Let me guess...no. Besides even today Lumumba has not been cleared of the murder. He could be guilty and several items remain to prove that. His cell ping. His strange changing of sim cards...who does that? His missing receipts records...was his alibi mistaken about the time? 9:20 perhaps he is assisting his pal Guede? In such a small city in a country that certainly uses ethnic cleansing thru its laws...a place where blacks are as scarce as hens teeth...that one black would be closer to one other black...and since they both hung out at the same places...the student steps to sell drugs perhaps or promote a bar perhaps...one can still today speculate that Guede and Lumumba worked as a team. Its possible...even probable. Can you prove it is false?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>In the Kercher DNA case (and in Sollecito's DNA on the clasp), the factual element is the finding of the DNA; if you don't have any contamination scenario that is credible, meaning you can explain this by offering a probable explanation based on a factual element (that is: information about a certain event that would itself cause that specific contamination event to be a very probable consequence of it), well if you don't have this you don't have anything to argue contamination. Even a child understands this. There is no need to ask a scientist about something that is elementary logic. "Everything is possible" cannot be an answer. There should be no need to argue this.

1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant.
If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

I actually agree with you that from a legal point of view it is not acceptable to claim that contamination happened unless one can show it. What LJ said in this post is equally valuable, though:

One of the internationally-agreed mandatory safeguards when working with low-template DNA is that all tests MUST be repeated (and thus must be repeatABLE) in order to compare at least two different tests for allele stutter/dropout and relative peak heights. This is critical because at these ultra-low quantities there is so much background noise relative to the sensitivity of measuring instruments, and because the amplification process can cause erratic amplification of noise.

Stefanoni (surprise, surprise) chose to base her conclusions on the interpretation of only ONE test of 36I - a test to which she hasn't even yet supplied the raw data or negative controls. This in itself renders the conclusion invalid according to international protocols. And of course this is before one even stops to consider all of the other areas of grotesque malpractice and ineptitude employed by Stefanoni and her inglorious cohorts.

Low-template DNA work is so hyper-sensitive that it is ONLY ever admissible in criminal cases when every mandatory protocol and process has been adhered to. That's why the protocols and processes have been developed. Without strict adherence to each and every one of them, low-template work is unreliable and inadmissible. It's almost laughable (if it wasn't so serious) to observe just how many of these protocols Stefanoni omitted to follow.

The defense should emphasize that the lab was substandard and protocols were not followed. That should be enough to get the test results thrown out. If not, the judges should be persuaded of the improbable nature of the DNA findings in light of the fact that there is no other evidence against the defendants.

In an American court, the defense attorneys would not hesitate to point out all the examples of incompetence and lies on the parts of the police, the previous prosecutors and the forensic investigators, but I don't suppose that happens in an Italian court.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sounds like Massei.

Why were they not questioned in the courtroom?

I'll refresh your memory.
Knox asked to be questioned, and was questioned in the courtroom (and btw the defence lawyers attempted to make the prosecution questioning impossible, as Knox begun to get entangled in her lies they stopped her pelting the questions with pretextuous interruptions).
Sollecito never asked to be questioned, after his invoking the right to remain silent. He never turned back to the answering option.

I am astonished by your question actually. I thought you noticed that Sollecito - by this time - is saying that he wanted to be questioned and that he says is now eager to answer... but what did he say just last week? That he is eager to come to Florence... to give a spontaneous statement!

He is NOT requesting to be questioned!
Isn't that curious?

(Do you think he really wanted to be questioned? )

And why were the prosecutors not required to describe anything about the crime beyond what they thought happened at the scene?

I don't quite understand the question. "required to describe"... "beyond what they thought happened at the scene?"
To describe the crime beyond what they think happened?

What else can you say to describe something you didn't see, except your speculations about what you think could have happened?

ETA: The bottom line is, why was there such a lack of curiosity about getting the big picture of what happened?

Actually, I don't think the 'big picture' was missed.
But for people who cling to facts, the rational thing to do is to consider unknown what is actually unknown. Curiosity does not produce knowledge automatically. On those possible psychological and factual details where there are areas of information lack, we should acknowledge such lack of information. Possible speculations to fill these lacks could be done, but they should remain at speculation level (we should not attempt to seek 'proof' or confirmation about them).

 

[Grinder]

I don't think Hellmann's ruling was flawed except in regards to the Callunial. I did think Hellman made some mistakes in the way the trial was conducted. But I wonder if this is just Monday Morning quarterbacking since the ISC essentially slapped it down. Their reasoning for their decision is bizarre.

I was referring to the Calunnia as well as how he did the motivations.

And you never fail to share it. but then again, we all have an opinion. Their alibi is the exact same alibi as Filomena and her boyfriend.

I have never seen the details of Filomena's alibi. Do you know how late they were with friends? Did neighbors hear them in their apartment? Were they seen entering the apartment? What time did the party start and end?

 

[Mary_H]

I'll refresh your memory.
Knox asked to be questioned, and was questioned in the courtroom (and btw the defence lawyers attempted to make the prosecution questioning impossible, as Knox begun to get entangled in her lies they stopped her pelting the questions with pretextuous interruptions).

For example?

Sollecito never asked to be questioned, after his invoking the right to remain silent. He never turned back to the answering option.

I am astonished by your question actually. I thought you noticed that Sollecito - by this time - is saying that he wanted to be questioned and that he says is now eager to answer... but what did he say just last week? That he is eager to come to Florence... to give a spontaneous statement!

He is NOT requesting to be questioned!
Isn't that curious?

(Do you think he really wanted to be questioned? )

I know Raffaele wanted to be questioned. I know he has said that he was willing to tell his story to anyone -- even the prison guards -- but no one ever asked.

I don't quite understand the question. "required to describe"... "beyond what they thought happened at the scene?"
To describe the crime beyond what they think happened?

What else can you say to describe something you didn't see, except your speculations about what you think could have happened?

What DO they think happened -- after the murder, that is? Can you describe it, or do you, like they, not really care?

Actually, I don't think the 'big picture' was missed.
But for people who cling to facts, the rational thing to do is to consider unknown what is actually unknown. Curiosity does not produce knowledge automatically. On those possible psychological and factual details where there are areas of information lack, we should acknowledge such lack of information. Possible speculations to fill these lacks could be done, but they should remain at speculation level (we should not attempt to seek 'proof' or confirmation about them).

I could not agree more. Too bad Mignini, Matteini and Comodi felt differently.

 

[RandyN]

But I think you can see the oddity, the non-correspondence of this last example. In fact, the doctor / infection example points out exactly the difference between the example, and the proposing of a contamination scenario.
In fact, if the doctor commences an infection treatment, it means he has clinical evidence of infection. That is, it means precisely he has a proof that infection exists.
The detalis about the exact time and event, could be investigated or remain unknown, but the details are secondary insofar as the infection has been already proven, independently from this information.

A quite different thing it would be if the doctor had no evidence at all that any infection is ongoing or ever occurred.
In a case whete you may have have no clinical indicators, except, maybe, only the possible information about how the person got infected... Well, in that case, when you don't have anything but that information... with no information, you have no event.

In the Kercher DNA case (and in Sollecito's DNA on the clasp), the factual element is the finding of the DNA; if you don't have any contamination scenario that is credible, meaning you can explain this by offering a probable explanation based on a factual element (that is: information about a certain event that would itself cause that specific contamination event to be a very probable consequence of it), well if you don't have this you don't have anything to argue contamination. Even a child understands this. There is no need to ask a scientist about something that is elementary logic. "Everything is possible" cannot be an answer. There should be no need to argue this.



1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant.
If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

Perfect ...lets start by reviewing the crime scene collection video to see if any errors could have led to contamination during that process. Anything?

Next lets study the process used vs the certified standards although maybe not exact but that which broadly follows generally accepted rules...hint...they laughed in court during this video for a reason. Sorry you can put lipstick on a pig but in the end it is still a pig.

Now comes time for a careful review of all files and records including the EDF'S and other hand written notes that may indicate an entry point for contamination. And btw if you refuse to turn over this data then that automatically confirms contamination. At least in a judicially sane world it does.

You have the negative control records...the positive control records? Be so kind as to reference these so that other experts can review them. This should be something a prosecutor and more so a scientist should gladly do. I contend you are fibbing and as shown in the last appeal trial the prosecution failed twice to produce these files and I bet they still have not laid hands on these supposed case files. They have not because they could not. They could not because they do not exist. Please prove me wrong.

You cant say prove contamination but yet remain in control of the only copy of the file that would enable me to do so. OTOH if you contend this was already accomplished then do the world a favor and provide a public copy or at least provide another copy to the defense. What could it hurt? Nothing right. Stop whining and simply do it. This is the logical and correct thing to do. The whole world understands this.

The substrate controls appear to be missing. Please provide a copy of these also...just to pacify the scientists who claim fraud...you understand.

Novelli being called honest and reliable is about as likely as a meteorite striking the Capital of the US and knocking some sense into the occupants.

The only thing factual about the traces you mention...that is the one and only LTN sample implicating Knox and one and only LTN sample implicating Sollecito is that no one who tested these samples was trained or equipped in 2007 to do these tests reliably. And in fact in both cases the sample was destroyed by careless and inappropriate handling by the police expert...just as so many other pieces of defense evidence was destroyed by police mishandling. Does all that escape you? Escape the thinkers of Italy? Who takes all these cookies when your children claim innocence and yet the jar is always empty?

Who honors liars by pretending not to notice what is so glaringly obvious to everyone else? Where are 10 scientists certifying Stefanonis work? And no Biondo and Novelli no longer count. And Biondo never did because of his conflict of interest. Novelli does not because he contradicts his own published documents. He has either forgotten his own work or has gone senile. But he is welcome to address this apparent contradiction. Is he a real doctor or just an "Italian" doctor? This is important in the real world.

 

[RWVBWL]

Simple question

But I think you can see the oddity, the non-correspondence of this last example. In fact, the doctor / infection example points out exactly the difference between the example, and the proposing of a contamination scenario.
In fact, if the doctor commences an infection treatment, it means he has clinical evidence of infection. That is, it means precisely he has a proof that infection exists.
The detalis about the exact time and event, could be investigated or remain unknown, but the details are secondary insofar as the infection has been already proven, independently from this information.

A quite different thing it would be if the doctor had no evidence at all that any infection is ongoing or ever occurred.
In a case whete you may have have no clinical indicators, except, maybe, only the possible information about how the person got infected... Well, in that case, when you don't have anything but that information... with no information, you have no event.

In the Kercher DNA case (and in Sollecito's DNA on the clasp), the factual element is the finding of the DNA; if you don't have any contamination scenario that is credible, meaning you can explain this by offering a probable explanation based on a factual element (that is: information about a certain event that would itself cause that specific contamination event to be a very probable consequence of it), well if you don't have this you don't have anything to argue contamination. Even a child understands this. There is no need to ask a scientist about something that is elementary logic. "Everything is possible" cannot be an answer. There should be no need to argue this.



1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant.
If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

Hi Machiavelli,
Did any of the collected samples that tested positive for Rudy Guede's DNA also have the DNA of others too
as that tiny Bra Clasp that supposedly has Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on it did?

Simple question,
really...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a question

1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant.
If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

Machiavelli,

In the case of the clasp, there is DNA on it which is unrelated to the crime. Therefore, it is contaminated by definition. In the case of the knife, there have been three sensitive tests for blood, and all came back negative. Each time additional organic matter is found, the prosecution's claim that this was the murder weapon becomes more risible. I am still hoping someone can tell me the formula of the magic cleaning fluid used for the knife.

Let me ask you a question. Did Dr. Novelli examine the EDFs?

 

[RandyN]

I'll refresh your memory.
Knox asked to be questioned, and was questioned in the courtroom (and btw the defence lawyers attempted to make the prosecution questioning impossible, as Knox begun to get entangled in her lies they stopped her pelting the questions with pretextuous interruptions).
Sollecito never asked to be questioned, after his invoking the right to remain silent. He never turned back to the answering option.

I am astonished by your question actually. I thought you noticed that Sollecito - by this time - is saying that he wanted to be questioned and that he says is now eager to answer... but what did he say just last week? That he is eager to come to Florence... to give a spontaneous statement!

He is NOT requesting to be questioned!
Isn't that curious?

(Do you think he really wanted to be questioned? )



I don't quite understand the question. "required to describe"... "beyond what they thought happened at the scene?"
To describe the crime beyond what they think happened?

What else can you say to describe something you didn't see, except your speculations about what you think could have happened?

Actually, I don't think the 'big picture' was missed.
But for people who cling to facts, the rational thing to do is to consider unknown what is actually unknown. Curiosity does not produce knowledge automatically. On those possible psychological and factual details where there are areas of information lack, we should acknowledge such lack of information. Possible speculations to fill these lacks could be done, but they should remain at speculation level (we should not attempt to seek 'proof' or confirmation about them).

How about attempting to back up your wild speculations with evidence...you know facts found by competent investigation. A time line that fits facts and proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A sane motive not ten ever changing motives. A logical TOD not something obviously created to fit a crumbling "super witness". An explanation (just one) for failing to record THE interrogation...oh and RS and PL interrogation also. Provide a logical excuse for denying the defendants rights to lawyers and for going beyond that and withholding this right until trial. How about an excuse for failing to notify the US consulate? All things that should have happened but did not. Id still love to hear about why Lumumbas flat was not investigated. Why Knoxs "confession" was not investigated. I recall the chief recommending no arrest. Why was that? Ahemmmm... the only smart man who understood the complete lack of evidence or probable cause....choo......Thank you.

 

[RandyN]

A point worth noting among all discussion around opening the knife handle is this:

Given that the prosecution believe the knife to have been used in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that it forms one of the key planks of their argument linking Knox and Sollecito to the murder, why didn't the police/prosecutors make sure that every conceivable test could be performed on the knife?

In other words, why didn't either a) any of the policemen who saw the knife, or b) the PM who saw the knife, or c) not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni who examined and tested the knife, not take a close look at the knife and immediately see that an obvious place to test for evidence would be the crack where the blade meets the handle? I mean, wouldn't that have been just a glaringly obvious thing to do? You're looking for evidence linking this knife to the murder (and to the suspects), and yet you CHOOSE not to test a clearly-promising area for blood/genetic evidence?

That's what stuns me most about this knife handle issue. It's not what is and isn't happening now. It's what didn't happen in late 2007 and early 2008. Why wouldn't the police and PM have wanted to do everything conceivable at that time to try to garner probative evidence from the knife? Heck, the fact that Stefanoni didn't even bother to swab the area close to the blade/handle joint, let alone consider opening the handle, is a damning indictment of her ineptitude in itself.

Great question.

Now how can the defense point not just this out but also the fact that when the IE were assigned this case they asked the court if they could open the handle and two people lodged objections? The prosecutor and a Mr Maresca... I think they should both be required to explain their logic at that time or else the reason for their apparent change of heart on this matter now.

Do you suppose the prosecutor was worried that the defendants were being placed in needless jeopardy?

 

[RandyN]

Interesting you mention this - some years back a friend of mine needed to remove bitumen that had been used to surface the metal walkways/mezzanine over the tanks in his electroplating workshop. Seemed impossible, it was like trying to scrape off very hard chewing gum.

I suggested getting a shed-load of 'dry-ice' (CO2) to freeze it. We did, and it worked like a charm - we were able to shatter it and remove great chunks at a time, leaviing an almost prisyine metal surface.

Speaking of chewing gum - you can freeze that (and other things, like chocolate) to get it off fabric, with, say, a can of butane (or CO2 if you can get it).

Everyone who has their own beer tap system in their basement...ahemmm hey I grew up in a German Catholic town...has a tank full of the stuff. I currently have two tanks...one small and one large...never thought of freezing something with it though...bet it would work great on hornet nests. Propane would also freeze things...or else make them really warm I suppose.

 

[RandyN]

What "technique" did you see him using that anyone else wouldn't have been likely to?

Otherwise, yes, it would have been better if they'd used someone like Guede - a fit, athletic 20-year old, like Guede was.

I suspect that the idea was lend gravitas by using an "expert" rather than "a young man who agreed to attepmt the climb for us".

The guy was able to stand on the grate below the window, his shoulders level with sill, and casually open and close the shutters. Whether they had been closed or not is of no importance.

Probably not important but the young man used in the test was an amateur climber from Perugia. Not sure how he came to be described as an expert?

 

[charlatan]

C&V are completely discredited.
...

If we accept your claim that Hellmann, Zanetti, Conti, Vecchiotti, et. al. are such frauds (and known frauds at that), what does this say about Italy's judicial and academic systems, and, furthermore, why should we take Mignini & Co. (who have their own storied histories) at their word? The only way to fix a system as corrupt as you make it out to be here is to establish strict investigative protocols and a policy of full disclosure such that the public can verify that these protocols are being followed. Instead you advocate for tribalism, blind allegiance to authority, and systemic chaos buried beneath layers of legalese and ineffective bureaucracy. Italy suffocates under the weight of an overbearing judiciary and all anyone seems to care about is whether his faction has secured temporary advantage.