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

[yimyammer]

Yes, the phones were found the following morning. They had to be dropped in the garden before the police arrived, while the police were there or after the police left but before they were found about 09:00 the next morning.

I consider the early drop the most rational. In the lone wolf scenario, Rudy leaves the cottage with the phones, As he is walking home around the outside of the city, past the gate that is locked at night, he is trying to turn off the phones and makes the recorded interactions at 21:58 and 22:00. Either the approaching police or the notification of the incoming MMS on the phone causes Rudy to panic and he ditches the phones and runs home.

I consider approaching an active police investigation while covered in blood from a murder to be an impossible event. (Grinder man disagree)

Dumping the phones the next morning is a possibility but it requires holding the phones, one of which hasn't been turned off and is therefore trackable, overnight.

Well shoot, I knew that was too good to be true.

thx

 

[Grinder]

Why??? That is Monday morning quarterbacking. There is no evidence that Amanda was the least bit mad at Meredith for this. Maybe Amanda was excited at the possibility that her friend would be working with her at Le Chic and never considered Meredith at all as a threat to her job.

You really have difficulty staying tuned in. What you are responding to is whether Meredith might have been insensitive by agreeing to the Le Chic Mojito night offer.

But because you have tunnel vision you can't imagine anything that could possibly be negative for Amanda.

Black white zero one - really there are shades of gray. It is very possible that Amanda was miffed by Meredith taking the offer but still didn't kill her.

 

[billyryan]

The bomb hoax call was not to AK/Meredith's house,it was to the house in whose garden the phones were dumped

For any of the other suspects in this case to know the phone number of this house would be extraordinary,but it was close enough to where Rudy lived,he had lived in Perugia most of his life,he might know the names of the occupants of this house and he might possibly know or be able to obtain the phone number.

I think the police claimed the phone call was a childish prank

 

[Skind]

But no it's quite the contrary. Vecchiotti says she did not specifically request them. She states instead that she asked repeatedly... the files related to the testings.
NOT the negative controls.
Vecchiotti says "no". She has a contorted way of saying no, instead of saying that explicitly, she just talks about what she requested. Which, she admits, was not specifically the negative controls.

She never made a specific mention about the negative controls in her e-mails.
It is also clear from her subsequent answer "I don't see why they should not be included".

It's clear from her subsequent answer that she thinks the negative controls are files related to the testing - which they are.

The negative controls are not done independantly, they are related to the testing, as part of the testing.

C+V made this abundantly clear.

 

[Grinder]

I consider the early drop the most rational. In the lone wolf scenario, Rudy leaves the cottage with the phones, As he is walking home around the outside of the city, past the gate that is locked at night, he is trying to turn off the phones and makes the recorded interactions at 21:58 and 22:00. Either the approaching police or the notification of the incoming MMS on the phone causes Rudy to panic and he ditches the phones and runs home.

What do you mean by approaching police? Are you suggesting they approached with sirens blaring for a prank phone call? You think the police were worried that there was bomb in the toilet?

I consider approaching an active police investigation while covered in blood from a murder to be an impossible event. (Grinder man disagree)

Are you suggesting he saw the police going to Lana's and threw the phones into her yard as a response? I wouldn't think that he would run as that would call attention to him. He had washed off most of the blood and put a sweatshirt over his pants. but, no, I doubt he approached the cops as he threw phones into the yard they were approaching.

Dumping the phones the next morning is a possibility but it requires holding the phones, one of which hasn't been turned off and is therefore trackable, overnight.

Highly doubtful he would go in that direction to dump them.

If he threw them that night I always wondered why they could find prints or DNA on them even after the cops handled them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Seems much in Italy is contorted. Why wouldn't Stefanoni just supply all the records proving she did a great job? Does she think it is a game?

Frankly Grinder, the argument is a bit double-edged; a bit weak.
For example you could turn the same question to Vechiotti: if the files were important to her work, why did't she request them? Why didn't she point out their absence to Stefanoni? (does she think it's a game?).

In fact, that is a paradoxical question since I don't think Vecchiotti "forgot" to ask, and I don't think she was actually so superficial as to "assume" facts (like that the negative controls were not done) without verification, and I don't think she forgetful or sloppy to the point of omitting the mention about the negative controls that was made in the Oct. 2008 hearings (the transcripts of which she asserts to have read).
I don't think she did that by chance.

As for, the question if it's a game, well a legal disupte in a way is a game, in the sense that it is a dispute based on rules and strategies.
And within this perspective, it was correct - and appropriate, in my opinion - on the part of Stefanoni to not "help" Vecchiotti beyond any explicit request.
The fact that Vecchiotti happens to be "exposed" this way is a proof that Stefanoni's behavior was intelligent. It was a good idea to let Vecchiotti take her "misstep" alone. Had Stefanoni been more "helpful", she would have deleted records/tracks of Vecchiotti's dishonesty.

 

[davefoc]

...

I consider approaching an active police investigation while covered in blood from a murder to be an impossible event. (Grinder ma[y] disagree)

...

I think you have found common ground with Grinder on this.

 

[Mary_H]

I think Grinder is right with regard to his limited point and it is reasonable to just acknowledge this. If I understand him correctly, he is just saying that a stand alone argument that it is extremely unlikely that a murderer would take a knife from their apartment, kill somebody with it, and return it to their apartment is not valid. That is something that a murderer might do.

I, too, think it is reasonable to acknowledge Grinder's point. On the other hand, I think it reasonable not to assume this is something a murderer might do, without having some support for that claim.

Yes, there have been murders and attacks in which the perpetrator grabbed an instrument in a rage, but have there been any in which the enraged perp took the time to put the weapon into a cloth bag first, to use about a half-hour later? That suggests planning that is not in keeping with an enraged state.

Have there been any murders and attacks in which two people acting together grabbed an instrument and then ran about a mile to use it, keeping the goal of murder in mind the whole time and arriving with that goal still feeling realistic to them? I would like to see some evidence that any murder like that has ever occurred.

And really, when it comes down to it, how many murderers do bring their murder weapons home and use them in the kitchen? Your Jeffrey Dahmers are very rare.

In this sense, I don't necessarily agree it is confirmation bias to say the defendants would not, or even could not have taken the knife in a rage and used it in the murder. Based on the lack of support for the argument so far, it seems reasonable to say that the statistical chances of them doing it appear to be about the same as the chances of them taking any object from Raffaele's house and using that to kill Meredith. The only reason it doesn't look obviously ridiculous to Grinder is because we are talking about a knife and not a fork. But forks can kill, too.

 

[acbytesla]

You really have difficulty staying tuned in. What you are responding to is whether Meredith might have been insensitive by agreeing to the Le Chic Mojito night offer.

But because you have tunnel vision you can't imagine anything that could possibly be negative for Amanda.

Black white zero one - really there are shades of gray. It is very possible that Amanda was miffed by Meredith taking the offer but still didn't kill her.

Amanda is not perfect, and I don't think she is. I could care less about positive or negative.

And YOU ARE RIGHT that Amanda COULD have been miffed at Meredith and still not have murdered Meredith. And Meredith COULD have been insensitive My point isn't that either of these people were saints. Just that there isn't a shred of evidence of any kind of rift between the two roomies.

Anything is possible, but why suggest something that there isn't any evidence??

 

[Machiavelli]

It's clear from her subsequent answer that she thinks the negative controls are files related to the testing - which they are.

The negative controls are not done independantly, they are related to the testing, as part of the testing.

C+V made this abundantly clear.

Yes, but Vecchiotti is the court expert, she also has the trial file. She is supposed to access it, at least. Including the file at the preliminery judge's office. Since she is paid to reaserch it and she quotes it.
But Vecciotti apparently doesn't know what is already in the case file.
She doesn't even know what is said in the transcript (which she quotes).

Vecchiotti also says Stefanoni was cooperative, implying she send her all what she has requested.
Now, figure out this situation: Vecchiotti has read the Oct. 2008 transcripts, from the transcripts she knows that Stefanoni (as by the transcripts) declares that she always did negative controls on all tests; and also declares that she will deposit the negative controls at the clerk's office. Vecchiotti has this documeentation, has these declarations, and she receives from Stefanoni documentation without negative controls. How is it possible that she does not write back to Stefanoni, asking her: could you please send me the negative controls as well, since you declared you have them?
How is it possible that she receives documentation which omits negative controls, which Stefanoni declared to have done, she asks for them and doesn't receive them, and she calls Stefanoni "cooperative"?
And how is it possible that she does not mention in her report "here Stefanoni declares she made the negative controls" while "here she refused/failed to provide them" so "here there is a contradiction by Stefanoni"?

 

[Dan O.]

Exactly.

The PGP make a big deal about the forgotten call to her mom "in the middle of the night". That call means nothing and the fact that she didn't remember it means even less, but the PGP go on about all the lies and the time in Seattle etc. Almost the entire prosecution case is based on the same type of thinking exhibited by those here saying the knife wouldn't have been taken because they are/were good kids (shorthand description).

Grinder, are you going to start in now about retrocausality?

There was no phone call to Amanda's mother at Noon. None. It never happened. At Noon, Amanda is calling Meredith's Sony Ericsson phone with the English sim. Shortly after that Amanda is calling Filomena and then she calls Meredith's other phone that was borrowed from Filomena and which is turned off. Then she immediately calls Meredith's English phone again. This is what happened between Noon and 12:15. Amanda is back at Raffaele's place at this time.

It isn't until 12:47, after Amanda and Raffaele have returned to the cottage and discovered the broken window that Amanda makes the call to her mother. And saying that nothing had happened is an absolute lie because enough has happened that Amanda's mother tells Amanda that she should call the police.


So why is Amanda's mother interrogating her own daughter in the prison cell about a call at noon that never happened? Can anybody answer that?

 

[Grinder]

Frankly Grinder, the argument is a bit double-edged; a bit weak.
For example you could turn the same question to Vechiotti: if the files were important to her work, why did't she request them? Why didn't she point out their absence to Stefanoni? (does she think it's a game?).

Hellmann appointed C&V to do a review of the knife and bra clasp DNA work. Clearly her work was being challenged by the appeal court or at least tested. Even if Hellmann didn't order Steffy to turn over everything why wouldn't she. What reason would she have to hold anything back?

If Vechiotti didn't request the files needed to show the brilliance and completeness of Steffy's work why not supply it to be sure there would be no issues?`

In fact, that is a paradoxical question since I don't think Vecchiotti "forgot" to ask, and I don't think she was actually so superficial as to "assume" facts (like that the negative controls were not done) without verification, and I don't think she forgetful or sloppy to the point of omitting the mention about the negative controls that was made in the Oct. 2008 hearings (the transcripts of which she asserts to have read).
I don't think she did that by chance.

Off to jail with you and no passing Go.

As for, the question if it's a game, well a legal disupte in a way is a game, in the sense that it is a dispute based on rules and strategies.
And within this perspective, it was correct - and appropriate, in my opinion - on the part of Stefanoni to not "help" Vecchiotti beyond any explicit request.
The fact that Vecchiotti happens to be "exposed" this way is a proof that Stefanoni's behavior was intelligent. It was a good idea to let Vecchiotti take her "misstep" alone. Had Stefanoni been more "helpful", she would have deleted records/tracks of Vecchiotti's dishonesty.

Well you are describing a pure adversarial procedure. Even here in the US the prosecutor must inform the defense of things that might help their case.

This is more than a legal dispute. This is basically a life decision.

 

[Bill Williams]

Frankly Grinder, the argument is a bit double-edged; a bit weak.
For example you could turn the same question to Vechiotti: if the files were important to her work, why did't she request them? Why didn't she point out their absence to Stefanoni? (does she think it's a game?).

In fact, that is a paradoxical question since I don't think Vecchiotti "forgot" to ask, and I don't think she was actually so superficial as to "assume" facts (like that the negative controls were not done) without verification, and I don't think she forgetful or sloppy to the point of omitting the mention about the negative controls that was made in the Oct. 2008 hearings (the transcripts of which she asserts to have read).
I don't think she did that by chance.

As for, the question if it's a game, well a legal disupte in a way is a game, in the sense that it is a dispute based on rules and strategies.
And within this perspective, it was correct - and appropriate, in my opinion - on the part of Stefanoni to not "help" Vecchiotti beyond any explicit request.
The fact that Vecchiotti happens to be "exposed" this way is a proof that Stefanoni's behavior was intelligent. It was a good idea to let Vecchiotti take her "misstep" alone. Had Stefanoni been more "helpful", she would have deleted records/tracks of Vecchiotti's dishonesty.

This post is the definition of trying to create a reality through baseless assertion.

Strangely this may be the way the Italian courts work. The PM gets to make assertions, evidence optional.

It then becomes the defence's responsibility to prove the assertion wrong - but in this case evidence IS required.

Ladies and gents, I give you Machiavelli.

 

[billyryan]

You really have difficulty staying tuned in. What you are responding to is whether Meredith might have been insensitive by agreeing to the Le Chic Mojito night offer.

But because you have tunnel vision you can't imagine anything that could possibly be negative for Amanda.

Black white zero one - really there are shades of gray. It is very possible that Amanda was miffed by Meredith taking the offer but still didn't kill her.

Grinder;have you seen any of Amanda's interviews lately,does she not display an extraordinary lack of bitterness to what has happened to her to her family at the hands of these criminals,I just looked at one this evening where she talked about her future as a writer what she hoped to achieve in the future,Mignini Comodi Stefanoni and Napoleoni should have to do four years in solitary confinement for what they did to this innocent girl
Despite a six year campaign by the Kerchers through Maresca to put her in solitary confinement in a foreign prison to destroy her family financially,she ignores all of this and offers the Kercher's the hand of friendship,because she remembers what a great friendship she had with Meredith.

Can you point to anything Amanda said or done that leads you to think she would feel any resentment to Meredith over a two bit part time job with a creep like Lumumba,because that is what I think Lumumba is,and he did not just become that since his arrest he probably always was a slimy little opportunist

 

[acbytesla]

I, too, think it is reasonable to acknowledge Grinder's point. On the other hand, I think it reasonable not to assume this is something a murderer might do, without having some support for that claim.

Yes, there have been murders and attacks in which the perpetrator grabbed an instrument in a rage, but have there been any in which the enraged perp took the time to put the weapon into a cloth bag first, to use about a half-hour later? That suggests planning that is not in keeping with an enraged state.

Have there been any murders and attacks in which two people acting together grabbed an instrument and then ran about a mile to use it, keeping the goal of murder in mind the whole time and arriving with that goal still feeling realistic to them? I would like to see some evidence that any murder like that has ever occurred.

And really, when it comes down to it, how many murderers do bring their murder weapons home and use them in the kitchen? Your Jeffrey Dahmers are very rare.

In this sense, I don't necessarily agree it is confirmation bias to say the defendants would not, or even could not have taken the knife in a rage and used it in the murder. Based on the lack of support for the argument so far, it seems reasonable to say that the statistical chances of them doing it appear to be about the same as the chances of them taking any object from Raffaele's house and using that to kill Meredith. The only reason it doesn't look obviously ridiculous to Grinder is because we are talking about a knife and not a fork. But forks can kill, too.

I think you are making good points. The problem with the knife is multiple. Hey, a single crazy person might grab a cooking knife out of a drawer and put in their purse and then go kill someone. But it certainly demonstrates premeditation. Then bringing it home and putting it in back the drawer is really strange but still possible.. But then not washing it considering that you cleaned everything else doesn't make sense. The problem is that you have Amanda not taking a knife from her own drawer, but Raffaele's when there are plenty of knives back at the cottage. Does Amanda take the knife with the full knowledge of Raffaele?

Raffaele: Honey, umm, sweetie, where you going with that big knife?
Amanda: Back to the cottage.
Raffaele: Why?
Amanda: To kill Meredith.
Raffaele: Can't we just watch the end of Amelie first?

Seriously???

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Grinder is right with regard to his limited point and it is reasonable to just acknowledge this. If I understand him correctly, he is just saying that a stand alone argument that it is extremely unlikely that a murderer would take a knife from their apartment, kill somebody with it, and return it to their apartment is not valid. That is something that a murderer might do.

If one argues that Knox is not the kind of person that would do that, or that in this case there is no evidence that anything like that happened the argument about the knife movement is not an independent argument. It is not as probative as it seems as to whether Knox murdered Kercher. The probability that a conclusion based on bits of circumstantial evidence is true can be calculated my multiplying together the probabilities that the independent pieces of evidence are true. But this kind of calculation doesn't work when the bits of evidence are dependent on each other.

Part of the knife movement argument depends on evidence that is already being used as part of other elements of the circumstantial case that Knox didn't murder Kercher. As such the knife movement argument is of limited value if one is trying to prove that Knox didn't murder Kercher.

However the argument that it is unlikely that Knox or Sollecito would select that knife as a murder weapon because it is difficult to conceal or that there were other knives that Knox and Sollecito might have selected for the murder that were more practical weapons is (in my view) an independent argument and it therefore has some probative value to the circumstantial case that Knox and Sollecito didn't murder Kercher. But even this argument is much less strong than other arguments that the knife was not the murder weapon so I still think that in any form, the knife movement argument is of limited probative value as to the issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito murdered Kercher.

This is exactly it in a nutshell!

Perhaps I can try to burnish your excellent post with a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point (everyone should perhaps take note in advance that the example given below is a purely fictional example of the reductio ad absurdum technique, in order to illustrate my point!):

The following scenario is LOGICALLY FEASIBLE: Mignini had by chance met Meredith in the street in Perugia in late September 2007, perhaps when he accidentally bumped into her in a quiet, unobserved backstreet and caused her to drop her books. He had offered to buy her a drink to apologise, and they had ended up having physical intimacy. Mignini was besotted with Meredith, and used to arrange secret assignations with her in his home while his wife was out.

But only a week or so into their relationship, Meredith got together with Silenzi from the flat below. She kept seeing Mignini sporadically in secret, but decided by the end of October that she had to stop seeing Mignini altogether.

This enraged Mignini. He started hassling Meredith, and approached her on the afternoon of the 1st November as she walked to her friends' house. She told him that she was going to report him to his superiors (she knew his public office position) the next working day - the following Monday - for his behaviour.

Mignini knew that this would have the potential to seriously damage his career and personal life. As the afternoon turned to evening, he decided in his rage and fear that the only solution was to kill Meredith (or have her killed). He called an ex-criminal thug with whom he'd maintained secret contact to do dirty work for him. He told the thug to break into the girls' cottage while Meredith was out, then to attack and kill her when she came back home that evening.

The thug broke in at 8.30pm, and lay in wait. But then the plan went strangely amiss. Meredith had bumped into Guede just outside the cottage, and had invited him in. Meredith and Guede fooled around physically in Meredith's bedroom, then Guede broke things off to go to the toilet. The thug took his chance. He slipped into Meredith's room as she awaited the return of Guede, and attacked and stabbed her, before escaping via the front door and running away. Guede returned to find Meredith lying dying.

Mignini met up with the thug secretly the following day, paid him 5000 Euro, and told him to lie low. The thug left no forensic evidence at the scene.


Now.... OBVIOUSLY this didn't happen, and nor did anything remotely approaching it happen. But it's FEASIBLE and PLAUSIBLE, in that it doesn't take any logical leaps or impossible circumstances for it to have happened. And it's compatible with all the main evidence in the case.

The thing is: there's not a shred of evidence to support this theory. So while it's JUST POSSIBLE IN THEORY that it might have happened, there's no evidence to support the belief that this is indeed what happened.

In exactly the same way, it's logically feasible that an as-yet-unidentified citizen of Gubbio had driven to Perugia that night, had parked his car on a quiet side street and walked down to the vicinity of the cottage, had seen Meredith walking home,had jumped her as she opened the door, had killed her then had escaped, and that subsequently Guede had broken in (not realising that the door was already open), had come across the dead Meredith, had sexually assaulted her and stolen some of her belongings, and had gone to the toilet.

And again, there's zero evidence to actively support this logically-feasible theory.

So, returning to the Knox/Sollecito knife issue: it is indeed logically feasible that they took the knife from Sollecito's apartment, used it in the murder, then cleaned it (not very well...) and returned it to the drawer in Sollecito's apartment. But there's no credible evidence to support this theory. Therefore, it can be thrown out in the same way as the reductio ad absurdums I invented above.

 

[smkovalinksy]

This is exactly it in a nutshell!

Perhaps I can try to burnish your excellent post with a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point (everyone should perhaps take note in advance that the example given below is a purely fictional example of the reductio ad absurdum technique, in order to illustrate my point!):

The following scenario is LOGICALLY FEASIBLE: Mignini had by chance met Meredith in the street in Perugia in late September 2007, perhaps when he accidentally bumped into her in a quiet, unobserved backstreet and caused her to drop her books. He had offered to buy her a drink to apologise, and they had ended up having physical intimacy. Mignini was besotted with Meredith, and used to arrange secret assignations with her in his home while his wife was out.

But only a week or so into their relationship, Meredith got together with Silenzi from the flat below. She kept seeing Mignini sporadically in secret, but decided by the end of October that she had to stop seeing Mignini altogether.

This enraged Mignini. He started hassling Meredith, and approached her on the afternoon of the 1st November as she walked to her friends' house. She told him that she was going to report him to his superiors (she knew his public office position) the next working day - the following Monday - for his behaviour.

Mignini knew that this would have the potential to seriously damage his career and personal life. As the afternoon turned to evening, he decided in his rage and fear that the only solution was to kill Meredith (or have her killed). He called an ex-criminal thug with whom he'd maintained secret contact to do dirty work for him. He told the thug to break into the girls' cottage while Meredith was out, then to attack and kill her when she came back home that evening.

The thug broke in at 8.30pm, and lay in wait. But then the plan went strangely amiss. Meredith had bumped into Guede just outside the cottage, and had invited him in. Meredith and Guede fooled around physically in Meredith's bedroom, then Guede broke things off to go to the toilet. The thug took his chance. He slipped into Meredith's room as she awaited the return of Guede, and attacked and stabbed her, before escaping via the front door and running away. Guede returned to find Meredith lying dying.

Mignini met up with the thug secretly the following day, paid him 5000 Euro, and told him to lie low. The thug left no forensic evidence at the scene.


Now.... OBVIOUSLY this didn't happen, and nor did anything remotely approaching it happen. But it's FEASIBLE and PLAUSIBLE, in that it doesn't take any logical leaps or impossible circumstances for it to have happened. And it's compatible with all the main evidence in the case.

The thing is: there's not a shred of evidence to support this theory. So while it's JUST POSSIBLE IN THEORY that it might have happened, there's no evidence to support the belief that this is indeed what happened.

In exactly the same way, it's logically feasible that an as-yet-unidentified citizen of Gubbio had driven to Perugia that night, had parked his car on a quiet side street and walked down to the vicinity of the cottage, had seen Meredith walking home,had jumped her as she opened the door, had killed her then had escaped, and that subsequently Guede had broken in (not realising that the door was already open), had come across the dead Meredith, had sexually assaulted her and stolen some of her belongings, and had gone to the toilet.

And again, there's zero evidence to actively support this logically-feasible theory.

So, returning to the Knox/Sollecito knife issue: it is indeed logically feasible that they took the knife from Sollecito's apartment, used it in the murder, then cleaned it (not very well...) and returned it to the drawer in Sollecito's apartment. But there's no credible evidence to support this theory. Therefore, it can be thrown out in the same way as the reductio ad absurdums I invented above.

Mayhap your scenario is not so absurdum at all....... In any case, it would make a great movie......

 

[LondonJohn]

You really have difficulty staying tuned in. What you are responding to is whether Meredith might have been insensitive by agreeing to the Le Chic Mojito night offer.

But because you have tunnel vision you can't imagine anything that could possibly be negative for Amanda.

Black white zero one - really there are shades of gray. It is very possible that Amanda was miffed by Meredith taking the offer but still didn't kill her.

Exactly.

I think we may be getting too confused here by the difference between:

a) what we think was most likely to have happened, and/or what the evidence suggests was most likely to have happened; and

b) what - within the bounds of logical reasoning - COULD feasibly have happened.

It's absolutely obvious that it's at least FEASIBLE that Knox was insanely jealous at Meredith's offer of work at Le Chic. It's unlikely, given what we think we know about Knox, but it's LOGICALLY FEASIBLE. And it's similarly logically feasible that in Knox's head this jealous rage became so intense that Knox simply had to punish Meredith. Again, given what we think we know about Knox, this is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. But it's FEASIBLE!!!!

When that girl (forget her name) who shot various school friends from her window in the US back in the 70s was arrested and questioned,she said she'd done it because "I don't like Mondays". People sometimes do horrific things for trivial reasons. We cannot logically say it's IMPOSSIBLE that Knox got enraged at Meredith over the Le Chic gig, and that the rage led to the murder. What we CAN say, however, is that there's absolutely no evidence to support this theory, and that it appears not to fit with what we know of Knox's personality.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hellmann appointed C&V to do a review of the knife and bra clasp DNA work. Clearly her work was being challenged by the appeal court or at least tested. Even if Hellmann didn't order Steffy to turn over everything why wouldn't she. What reason would she have to hold anything back?

First, actually Hellmann's court formally appointed C&V to investigate whether it was possible to find further DNA on the knife. Their first task (formally) was testing the knife and the ba clasp again for DNA.
The second task (the one that would be important in case the first one was impossible) would be to assess the previous result, in particular because of contamination; this second task seems more close to challenging Stefanoni's findings.

Ok, Hellmann's court appointed two experts to challenge Stefanoni's work. So your question is: what reason whìould she have to hold anything back?
There is a bias in this question, since you are in fact suggesting something: that she withold something. But in fact she did not hold anything back. Certainly not as for Vecchiotti's declarations, since she stated that she was cooperative, that she sent her mthe material (on May 21. she even said 'fully cooperative' and said she obtained 'everything she had requested').
Vecchiotti never obtained a denial from Stefaoni, or she completely failed to report it and she falsely stated that she was 'cooperative'.
So, please focus on this subtlety: we don't have any real ground to assert that Stefanoni hold something back.

What we only know is that she didn't volunteer offering on her own initiative further material which was unrequested or already in the case file.
And this is not the same thing.

If Vechiotti didn't request the files needed to show the brilliance and completeness of Steffy's work why not supply it to be sure there would be no issues?`
(...)

This is a question, which also assumes a deggree of bias: you assume that Vecchiotti was honest, and that Stefanoni should deal with her as if with a honest, transparent, trusted person.
Maybe you do not start from the assumption that Stefanoni may not trust Vecchiotti at all.
Maybe, not even for a second Stefanoni decided to trust that Vecchiotti would show the brillance and completeness of her work. Maybe she perfectly understood that Vecchiotti was likely not going to be honest (and recall we are speaking about a trial in which the prosecutors wanted to impeach the judge from the first hearing, but they were stpped by Galati) she would just use any piece of information as an instrument in a plan to attack Stefanoni. She would do that anyway, no matter how helpful or kind Stefanoni is.
If you assume this point of view, or even that Stefanoni may just have had some suspecion, you see there is no reason why Stefanoni should provide non-requested material which is already part of the trial documentation. It would be a nonsense to do so. Stefanoni's interest is not that Vecchiotti does a good work, but rather that Vecchiotti gets trapped in missteps and stumbles over some thread in her own plot.

@ Davefoc

I'm sorry I don't have time now, I know there are three interesting posts of yours which I hope I have time to answer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Off to jail with you and no passing Go.

Stop stealing my material