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

[Dan O.]

Good point. Particularly since they learned on 11/13 that Sollecito's shoes had no traces of blood or Kercher DNA on them.

We're they in Sollecito's flat on the 13th? I just saw that in the evidence list but don't have it in my timeline.

 

[Diocletus]

We're they in Sollecito's flat on the 13th? I just saw that in the evidence list but don't have it in my timeline.

The Reps. list suggests that they went to the flat on or about the 13th.

Curiously, there are two reports:

"evidence taken by the Mobile Squad of Perugia report dated 11/6/2007, 11/7/2007 and 11/16/2007"

and

"report of Initial Technical Operation dated 11/13/2007"

I think that the latter may be a product of the Scientific Police. I think I recall that Stefanoni's testimony says something about this.

 

[Grinder]

With all respect Dave, I think you might be talking about the last day or two. Charlie and Bill have been reading Machiavelli's posts for 4, 5, maybe 6 years.

Bill joined the discussion two year ago after the Hellmann appeal. He agrred with Hellmann on the calunnia and let us all know that he was the only one that agreed with all of Hellmann's rulings.

Charlie in particular is probably more involved in this case than as anyone with the exception of maybe Mary who is a Knox family friend. Kaypea or Karen Pruett is also a family friend although I haven't seen her post on this site in a while.

What name does she use here? I don't recall her posting here.

I'd agree with you that Machiavelli is articulate but it is easy to make arguments you make up the facts which he has done since day one. Bill, Charlie, Dan O have been debunking his stories since the beginning. One of the big problems we have with with Machiavelli, is that he almost never provide actual cites. Although he claims that he has transcripts etc. (I believe that)..but he almost never shares the info.

For example, he has claimed over and over again that Amanda's phone number was in the phone of a drug or cocaine dealer. But HE HAS NEVER shared the documentation that proves this little defamation that has nothing to do with the murder.

IIRC, he provided you with the newspaper article on the cocaine dealer. He has never said it was directly involved in the case but rather was proof to him that Amanda's character was consistent with his theory of the case. I think it is as stupid as the "rape prank" or the "riot party" but he did share the documentation. It just happens to be lame.

You make claims all the time that when challenged you backtrack a little and then claim it didn't matter and let's move on.

Bill has made the claim that Mignini claimed it was a satanic rite yet he has no credible cite for that claim but that doesn't bother you.

 

[Diocletus]

The quoting and discussing about Vecchiotti's interrogation transcript is no "strained rationalization", it is actualy the most important and factual topic I've posted about in the recent times. I believe it is far more factual and important than all the recent posts which you see as "well written" or "reasonable", which are irrelevant.
What people call "innuendo" about Knox and Guede is something made of absolutely factual elements; but it's marginal, it only relates to a scenario and almost has no probative merit.
But my pointing out a piece of Vecchiotti's transcrit, that is one of the elements (just one of them) from which you can deduce there is a huge problem with Vecchiotti's honesty (as pointed out by the Supreme Court, btw), is instead an extremely important thing, which should be considered as a most objective and relevant topic.
Kaosium has attempted a rationalization of it in response, which is indeed made of denials, twists and basicaly makes up law principles, in attempt to de-fuse its content.
But Kaosium's response is just entirely wrong, it's a re-writing of procedure, an overturning of principles, and also incorporates factual falsehoods.

I pointed out by the way, some other false factual element reported here and there by some other poster, for example Strozzi's reporting about the police picking up one knife randomly among several others in Sollecito's apartment.

The issue with Vecchiotti's cross-questioning, far from being a strained rationalization, is of a kind that would raise maximum alarm in any objective person who knows the system. I believe Vecchiotti & Conti's credibility is really blown down by inconsistencies and violations in their report and their cross-questionings, I believe these things will have a decidning weight in Nencini's decision, and posters should pay the maximum attention to them.
This kind of arguments is the one where I believe the posters "on the other side" should better act as "introspective truth seeker". This seems to de the area where they don't know how things work or should work.
Also the recent question by Ampulla of Vater about what an appeal court should do when they decide to overturn a previous interpretation of a piece of evidence, is a question which shows some introspective seek of understanding the truth, because it is directed on a topic which is extremely important, it illuminates reasons that seem to be invisible to most pro-Knox supporters.

I suppose there's a point in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

 

[andreajo]

The best rational solution to me is to let trusted professionals deal with it. I don't believe juries of "peers" would be fair or could ever be "screened" from prejudicial information. I think professionals who are trusted with a reputation of being impartial a priori, independently from what they know or like, are the only who can guarantee the most fair (or less unfair) outcome.

The concept of justice may also be different from jury sistem in that there is no concept of "jury of peers". The judges are seen as superior in rank, not as peers of the defentant, and they are investigators; they are expected to perform a kind of sohisticated job, they don't expect to be explained or shown "simple" or "safe" evidence or to be shown "smoking guns".
What matters in fact is the reasoning of the professional judges; the set of lay members is only a counter-check to the professionals' work.

My understanding of what you are saying is that the restrictive rules of evidence familiar to North Americans and many Europeans are unnecessary in the Italian system because the professional judges are "impartial a priori", and can be counted on to apply reason to a wide range of evidence and reach fair and unbiased conclusions.

In this case, trained magistrates have viewed the reliability and probative value of the evidence very differently and have reached very different conclusions about what happened on the evening Meredith was killed based on their interpretation of the evidence. Presumably Hellmann and Massei had similar training and should each be known a priori to be impartial in order to occupy the position of magistrate.

All humans are biased. No human can be entirely impartial regardless of training. That is why scientists have to carefully design studies to reduce or eliminate bias in order for their work to be taken seriously. Why would it be a bad idea to have a set of rules about what constitutes reliable and probative evidence, and to only allow high quality evidence to be considered when deciding whether or not people should spend the next 26 years in jail?

The police and prosecution would have to work a little harder, but that might be good for them.

 

[RWVBWL]

Nice day for a drive...

I assumed that the Perugia police or prosecutor called Stefanoni back to find something. That they initiated it. The Perugia authorities would have been the ones tracking what the Sollecitos were saying, thinking, and doing. Stefanini in her lab in Rome would not be reviewing teltap transcripts and summaries.

So when Perugia authorities called her to come back and find something because the physical evidence against Sollecito is falling apart, that put Stefanoni in the crucial role of protector/ savior of Mignini's case. Not just savior of the case, but protector of the reputations of Mignini, Commodi, Napoleoni, the police chief, et al. With everything riding on her, you can bet your yacht that she was not going to take the clasp back to her lab in Rome and then call Mignini or Napoleoni and say there is nothing on the clasp.
<snip>

It just boggles my mind that a lab technician,
entrusted by the Government to do good, solid DNA work to help convict criminals,
would drive 2 hours and 3 minutes back to Perugia from Rome just to collect a sample so she could then test it.

https://www.google.com/#q=perugia+to+rome+distance

4 hours and 6 minutes drive time roundtrip just to get that piece of evidence?

It had better have Raff's DNA on it!


Why not have others collect that bra clasp sample that the investigators wanted tested?
Isn't it a kinda conflict of interest, so to say, to have the person who tests the evidence also collect it?!?
And lastly, still I wonder why the heck did DOCTOR Stefanoni picked up Meredith's bra clasp and fondled it with her dirty gloved fingers, instead of using new, clean, sterile tweezers?

 

[RWVBWL]

I read where he was living with his girl friend at the time in Milan and had a job at a restaurant.
<snip>
From Raf's page: Rudy moved to Milan where his aunt, Georgette, had immigrated. She was married to a man named Vincent who apparently liked Rudy and developed a good relationship with him throughout the winter and spring of 2007. Rudy took a job in a café and was very proud of his uniform. He started dating an Italian girl. One night at a night club, he had his photograph taken with Giorgio Armani, the men’s clothing designer. He was very proud of this photo, too, and was seen to use it as the desktop photo on his computer.
In the spring of 2007, however, he lost his café job and drifted back to Perugia.

Hiya Grinder,
Remember when I asked you to quit with the CD bullcrap and do some research into Rudy Guede?

Guede had a girlfriend?


Kudo's Grinder!
Congrats, you found an overlooked piece of evidence!
Brownie points to ya, old fella!

So Rudy had a girlfriend in Winter and Spring of 2007.
Right on, Guede was probably, hopefully getting laid.

But it looks like his girlfriend must not have really luved Rudy,
she musta bailed the scene when he lost his job, as she apparently did not move to Perugia to still be with him.

Hmmmm, a long hot summer of playin' ball with the boyz, smokin' out, doin' cocaine, dancin' in the clubs at night, with ALL of those cute foreign college students around town, and Guede probably not gettin' any more luvin', esh, I'd speculate that the dude was frustrated and horny.

Well except for after he left his DNA and a probable semen stain you know where,
before headin' back into the nightclubs to dance the night away...
Scumbag.

 

[Strozzi]

It just boggles my mind that a lab technician,
entrusted by the Government to do good, solid DNA work to help convict criminals,
would drive 2 hours and 3 minutes back to Perugia from Rome just to collect a sample so she could then test it.

https://www.google.com/#q=perugia+to+rome+distance

4 hours and 6 minutes drive time roundtrip just to get that piece of evidence?

It had better have Raff's DNA on it!


Why not have others collect that bra clasp sample that the investigators wanted tested?
Isn't it a kinda conflict of interest, so to say, to have the person who tests the evidence also collect it?!?
And lastly, still I wonder why the heck did DOCTOR Stefanoni picked uQp Meredith's bra clasp and fondled it with her dirty gloved fingers, instead of using new, clean, sterile tweezers?

The 2 hours from Rome to Perugia and 2 hours back doesn't even begin to explain the level of effort that went into this. Stefanoni had a team with her in the house! I don't know who or how many they were but the video shows at least one assistant to help pass the bra clasp around (they are heavy!). A camera operator. Possibly a lighting crew. Probably several Perugia cops at the door.

I don't think she brought a wardrobe assistant to carry all the spare gloves or the sterile disposable evidence collection tweezers she used.

Lucky Giobbi wasn't there or he might have seen Stefanoni swivel her hips after she put the white booties on! If she stopped for pizza he would have handcuffed her on the spot.

 

[acbytesla]

This isn't really accurate, tesla. I've never met Amanda; I met Curt Knox once, Edda three times, and have had a few more interactions than that with Chris Mellas. I had no knowledge of their families before the case and I have not tried to get close to them, although they are all extremely nice people whom I like very much.

I was under the impression that you were close to Edda and Chris. My mistake.

 

[Supernaut]

The particular item, being a bra clasp, has special value as a sensational piece of evidence when the incriminating shoe / shoe print match was about to be revealed as bogus. Stefanoni could have wiped any item with Raffaelle's DNA - a sock, for example - but that bra clasp has special intimate meaning that makes it sensational physical evidence. Furthermore, going to Perugia and collecting the clasp on camera let's her grandstand on camera as she picks up THE key item to nail the murderer. Doing it in person enables her to demonstrate to herself and her patrons in Perugia - Mignini and Napoleoni's team - that Stefanoni is one of them, with them, important, and a hero.

Wow.

This is very, VERY insightful stuff, Strozzi, as ever.

It's a pity that it will all, ultimately, be buried in this thread/discussion, thanks largely to the sophism and prevarication with which a certain Italian remorselessly spams it.

C'est le guerre.

 

[Strozzi]

I was under the impression that you were close to Edda and Chris. My mistake.

If you use the Perugian definition of "met" and can confirm that she met Chris once, she and Chris must be old friends and co-conspirators.

 

[acbytesla]

If you use the Perugian definition of "met" and can confirm that she met Chris once, she and Chris must be old friends and co-conspirators.

Actually, they would think she had a couple of three-ways with them and together they killed a transient and buried the body in the back yard.

 

[Grinder]

If you use the Perugian definition of "met" and can confirm that she met Chris once, she and Chris must be old friends and co-conspirators.

You're right. Tesla would fit right in with the PLE. He might even be a candidate for the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

 

[Grinder]

Actually, they would think she had a couple of three-ways with them and together they killed a transient and buried the body in the back yard.

That's impossible. Mary would never bury a body in the back yard. That's crazy. She wouldn't keep the body. She would put into a nearby trash can where no one would notice it.

What do you think counselor?

 

[Supernaut]

Headline: Porn Sites Get More Visitors Each Month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter Combined

Summary: Porn consumes 30 percent of Internet bandwidth. 70 percent of men and 30 percent of women watch porn.

This is the world we live in, and it is supposed to be evidence that someone is a murderer???

The police got Raffaele's laptop, and they searched his apartment. What did they find? They found a Japanese comic book about vampires. And they found a guy to testify that Raffaele was in possession of porn at some point in the past. "It was violent! It was extreme!" Was it? We'll never know, because all we have is this vague hearsay. There is no actual porn, extreme or otherwise, in the case evidence.

And if there were, it would still prove NOTHING. Talk about desperation...

The double-edged sword that is the internet.

It allows access to EVERYTHING - arcane/occult knowledge and ......... pornography.

Every kind of pornography.

The internet CREATED the market for child-pornography.

Think about it.

 

[kwill]

Headline: Porn Sites Get More Visitors Each Month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter Combined

Summary: Porn consumes 30 percent of Internet bandwidth. 70 percent of men and 30 percent of women watch porn.

This is the world we live in, and it is supposed to be evidence that someone is a murderer???

No, silly. It's only evidence that Raffaele is a murderer if some top-level investigator can find a guy who knows another guy who is willing to say that he thought Raffaele watched a movie with whatever he (the 2nd guy, it's hard to keep them straight!) considered to be "extreme" sex going on.

That is your likely-to-be-a-murderer evidence, right there. And if you don't buy it, we'll put your DNA on a random bra clasp and then destroy all ability for anyone to double check our work.

I swear to God, watching these people work overtime to destroy the life of an innocent bystander is enough to make a person lose faith in humanity.

 

[Supernaut]

Strozzi;

is there some subtle insult or innuendo hidden to non-Italians when calling Mignini "Magnini"?

 

[Diocletus]

I assumed that the Perugia police or prosecutor called Stefanoni back to find something. That they initiated it. The Perugia authorities would have been the ones tracking what the Sollecitos were saying, thinking, and doing. Stefanini in her lab in Rome would not be reviewing teltap transcripts and summaries.

So when Perugia authorities called her to come back and find something because the physical evidence against Sollecito is falling apart, that put Stefanoni in the crucial role of protector/ savior of Mignini's case. Not just savior of the case, but protector of the reputations of Mignini, Commodi, Napoleoni, the police chief, et al. With everything riding on her, you can bet your yacht that she was not going to take the clasp back to her lab in Rome and then call Mignini or Napoleoni and say there is nothing on the clasp.

Don't forget, that Napoleoni and her crew "processed" Kercher's room for two days after the Scientific Police and their photographers left the premises. They undoubtedly spotted the clasp, and potentially even collected it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The quoting and discussing about Vecchiotti's interrogation transcript is no "strained rationalization", it is actualy the most important and factual topic I've posted about in the recent times. I believe it is far more factual and important than all the recent posts which you see as "well written" or "reasonable", which are irrelevant.
What people call "innuendo" about Knox and Guede is something made of absolutely factual elements; but it's marginal, it only relates to a scenario and almost has no probative merit.
But my pointing out a piece of Vecchiotti's transcrit, that is one of the elements (just one of them) from which you can deduce there is a huge problem with Vecchiotti's honesty (as pointed out by the Supreme Court, btw), is instead an extremely important thing, which should be considered as a most objective and relevant topic.
Kaosium has attempted a rationalization of it in response, which is indeed made of denials, twists and basicaly makes up law principles, in attempt to de-fuse its content.
But Kaosium's response is just entirely wrong, it's a re-writing of procedure, an overturning of principles, and also incorporates factual falsehoods.

I pointed out by the way, some other false factual element reported here and there by some other poster, for example Strozzi's reporting about the police picking up one knife randomly among several others in Sollecito's apartment.

The issue with Vecchiotti's cross-questioning, far from being a strained rationalization, is of a kind that would raise maximum alarm in any objective person who knows the system. I believe Vecchiotti & Conti's credibility is really blown down by inconsistencies and violations in their report and their cross-questionings, I believe these things will have a decidning weight in Nencini's decision, and posters should pay the maximum attention to them.
This kind of arguments is the one where I believe the posters "on the other side" should better act as "introspective truth seeker". This seems to de the area where they don't know how things work or should work.
Also the recent question by Ampulla of Vater about what an appeal court should do when they decide to overturn a previous interpretation of a piece of evidence, is a question which shows some introspective seek of understanding the truth, because it is directed on a topic which is extremely important, it illuminates reasons that seem to be invisible to most pro-Knox supporters.

I suppose there's a point in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

I was chastened by davefoc's entreaty, so I actually took the time to read it.

It is, as usual, a ponderous diversion into irrelevance.

Vecchiotti reviewed a subset of Stefanoni's work and found a number of problems that rendered it scientifically invalid. She detailed her findings in a report that is available to the public.

This report is what matters. Even if one could prove, decisively, that Vecchiotti is a criminal, or that she is a habitual liar, or that she has never been right in a single other case, it would not change the substance of her findings in this case. These findings must be addressed on their own terms, by people who are technically competent to do so.

The PMF cultists, who indeed are joined by the judges on Italy's highest court, don't have that competence. Hence their critique is centered on the consultants rather than the findings. To the extent they address the findings, they make up their own cargo cult framework for scientific analysis - "contamination must be proved" etc. They use that arbitrary framework to conclude that the scientists are wrong. Thus do they protect their cherished belief, cf. Andrew Wakefield and the anti-vaxers.

 

[acbytesla]

That's impossible. Mary would never bury a body in the back yard. That's crazy. She wouldn't keep the body. She would put into a nearby trash can where no one would notice it.

What do you think counselor?

Maybe...but another thought is she might keep the body in the passenger seat of her car so she could drive in the HOV lane.