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

[Anode]

Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic View Post
Yes, the evidence is stinking. Much of it emanating from the prime culprit.

..... and that evidence is......??????

Did he mean Rudy's poo?

 

[Bill Williams]

Some would consider the perp's DNA on the handle of the murder weapon, and the victim'd DNA on the pointy end, to be evidence.

Unless there was a conspiracy...

Can you, then, summarize Patrizia Stefanoni's testing methods, including her reliance on Low-Copy Number results, which no other forensic lab in the world would rely on?

Also, why is "DNA" per se incriminating, when non-blood DNA suggests contamination?

Just to clarify, the victim's DNA was not found at "the pointy end", Stefanoni claimed to have found it in a grove in the blade, a grove that no one else can see.

 

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic View Post
Yes, the evidence is stinking. Much of it emanating from the prime culprit.


Did he mean Rudy's poo?

In the revolving door of prosecutor's/judge's theories, pooh is now gone. My quesiton is: did Amanda or Raffaele ever have the kind of full disclosure that allowed them to defend against allegations that they'd killed over money?

Or did Nencini invent that out of whole cloth AFTER the trial?

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus: "The saving grace", lol. So what are you going to do when the ECHR dismisses the appeal, as they surely will (in fact I guarantee they won't even allow it). What is your next forlorn hope? Any more ridiculous options? It's pathetic to watch you guys squirming, to be honest.

Really? I've been reading all of the new ECHR Article 6 violation cases for months. They won't have any problem finding numerous violations in this case--they are getting activist on these issues: access to counsel, disclosure of evidence/equality of arms, not getting convicted in some other guy's trial (you know, that kind of stuff).

The ECHR takes 20% of appeals from Italy. No doubt many of the rejected ones are clearly without merit to begin with. This one isn't. The odds aren't great, but they're good. The merits help the odds.

I think they take it, and if they do, it's going to be big trouble.

Before we get there, though, we'll have to deal with the violations of the Italian constitution . . .

 

[Diocletus]

Just to clarify, the victim's DNA was not found at "the pointy end", Stefanoni claimed to have found it in a grove in the blade, a grove that no one else can see.

The DNA was found in Stefanoni's machine. I'm not sure about the chain of evidence back to the knife.

 

[Diocletus]

Curatalo

I just did a google-foo of Nencini's discussion of Curatalo. It's kind of weird. He talks about how Curatalo saw Knox in Grimana square the night before the scientific police were there. But then he goes on to wonder out loud why the guy showed up to be a witness a year later with no apparent advantage to be gained, particularly given all of his own legal troubles. He concludes that Curatalo is useful only to prove that Knox wasn't at Sollecito's like she said she was.

My impression is that he thinks that Curatalo is not a good witness, but since the ISC told him to use Curatalo, he throws him in there.

 

[carbonjam72]

Guede took Meredith's life, because she meant nothing to him. He inflicted a mortal wound, and then when she could no longer resist, used her for sexual gratification, because her life meant nothing to him She was nothing to him.

Mignini framed Amanda because her life meant nothing to him. Mignini framed Raf, because he would not help him frame Amanda, and his life also meant nothing to him.

The Italian civil attorneys, prosecutors, and judges who continue to endorse this criminal farce, masquerading as a court case, are using Amanda and Rafaele just as Guede used Meredith Kercher. As did the tabloid press in creating a story out of nothing to sell newspapers at the expense of two innocent people.

The 'guilter' posters are only the unsuccessful psychopath brethren, unable to find gainful employment, who use the case as an excuse to spew their poisonous venom at the innocent, because they too are incapable of human emotion.

All the villains in this story are cut from the same cloth. People mean nothing to them. They are not like other people, they are different.

 

[anglolawyer]

We're way past the evidence stage, or hadn't you noticed? The rest of the world is waiting for the Supreme Court to sign off on the verdict and you still want some evidence, for crying out loud. Can you read?

Super - we will always be wanting some evidence whatever the Italian courts do. If I know the other pro-innocence posters here, they would drop any objection to conviction and heavy sentences if any real evidence were to emerge. That is certainly true for me.

 

[anglolawyer]

I just did a google-foo of Nencini's discussion of Curatalo. It's kind of weird. He talks about how Curatalo saw Knox in Grimana square the night before the scientific police were there. But then he goes on to wonder out loud why the guy showed up to be a witness a year later with no apparent advantage to be gained, particularly given all of his own legal troubles. He concludes that Curatalo is useful only to prove that Knox wasn't at Sollecito's like she said she was.
My impression is that he thinks that Curatalo is not a good witness, but since the ISC told him to use Curatalo, he throws him in there.

On the first highlight, this is what struck the ISC too. They could think of no other explanation for his belated co-operation (how about wondering why he took so long to emerge?). On the second, Mach already told us this is how he would be used and Mach was right. And wrong of course.

 

[JREF2010]

If AK took the money why was Rudy's DNA in MK's purse?

This ought to be interesting...

and to add....

"If AK took the money why was Rudy's DNA in MK's purse, and NOT Amandas?"

Must be the super-intelligent Italian Judicial System Logic at work again.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just to clarify, the victim's DNA was not found at "the pointy end", Stefanoni claimed to have found it in a grove in the blade, a grove that no one else can see.

The DNA was found in Stefanoni's machine. I'm not sure about the chain of evidence back to the knife.

What gets me about the guilter posters here, is that they have absolutely no curiosity as to "how" these two were found guilty.

There is no bigger laugher than the issue of the groove on the knife. I should say, the "alleged" groove on the knife. One guilter here calls it the "pointy end", and that shows an absolutely astonishing ignorance of the issues at hand.

And for that, they condemn the pair to prison.

The laugher that Judge Massei had to skirt around was that no one else could find this groove in which Stefanoni claimed, was a piece of Meredith's DNA sheltered from the effects of obvious cleaning.

Remember, this is the knife, the ONLY knife ever tested, chosen on a hunch because it looked excessively clean.

The question is - blood should be able to survive a cleaning better than simple DNA, but no blood was found on that knife. How did that DNA survive?

In a groove that no one else can see. What did Judge Massei believe? He believed that Stefanoni COULD see the groove, simply by rocking the blade back and forth under her lab light. Not with a microscope, but visually under a lab-light.

Now guilters are coming here saying that Meredith's DNA was found "at the pointy end". They should get that information to Cassazione before they rule on the inevitable appeal, because Stefanoni missed any DNA "at the pointy end".

As it was, this phantom groove on the knife blade is representative of all the evidence in this travesty - for those who wish to look at it.

I join AngloLawye - if someone can show any evidence of guilt, I'd be signing up at TJMK and PMF (I'd have to choose one of the PMF's though, because they are currently fighting over who represents Meredith's memory best.)

The issue is the evidence. And yes, the evidence at the pointy end of the knife IS important.... because there is no evidence at the pointy end.

Show me evidence. Then I'll be a guilter. Perhaps one of the meanest.

 

[MDDVS]

We're way past the evidence stage, or hadn't you noticed? The rest of the world is waiting for the Supreme Court to sign off on the verdict and you still want some evidence, for crying out loud. Can you read?

What do you mean by "rest of the world"? I haven't seen any evidence yet. And like me there are many others.

 

[Bill Williams]

For those interested, this is the discussion Massei offers as to how he can say that 36b should be evidence against Sollecito and Knox. This is a laugher... and I hope Nencini goes for laughs, too:

(36b) was taken from the side of the
knife blade where there were scratches, such that, in the tiny little grooves that these
scratches must have formed, biological material might have remained, resistant –
unlike that which would have been present on the rest of the blade – to cleaning
which, although it appeared to have left the knife extremely clean (as has been affirmed), might not have been able to remove the biological material that ended up
in these very tiny grooves, where it remained.

With respect to the existence of these scratches the defence and their consultants had
voiced doubts and perplexity; moreover, Professor Cingolani, the expert witness
appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio
[pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this
hearing, it having been made [313] available at the express request of the defence,
declared that he had not seen such scratches.

In this regard, however, Dr. Stefanoni’s statements should be recalled on the manner
of observing the knife (under good lighting and moving the blade so that it was
thoroughly illuminated) and it should be noted that it does not appear that the
others have examined the blade of the knife in the same way and with the same or
similar lighting. It must therefore be stated that Dr. Stefanoni, in reporting that she
had seen these scratches and had taken sample B from these very scratches, has not
stated a falsehood.
​

Massei's method of legal reasoning is to believe Stefanoni. Why? Just because.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy Guede, on the other hand, did need rent money

Fight over money?
I thought that I read somewhere that Amanda about $4000 in her checking account at the time of the murders
Does anyone know if that is true?
If Amanda had $4000 why would amanda fight over money?
Analemma

Analemma,

CNN wrote, "Ruling Judge Alessandro Nencini, who presided over the second appeal in the case, said Kercher and Knox disagreed over the payment of the rent in the house they shared in Perugia..." Candace Dempsey wrote, "Amanda, on the other hand, had a well-stocked bank account and a part-time job in Perugia. Not only did Amanda have more than $4,000 in her checking account, but her family was holding another $9,000 in reserve. Nobody in Perugia or anywhere else ever accused her of stealing anything."
Link

 

[analemma]

Candace Dempsey wrote, "Amanda, on the other hand, had a well-stocked bank account and a part-time job in Perugia. Not only did Amanda have more than $4,000 in her checking account, but her family was holding another $9,000 in reserve. Nobody in Perugia or anywhere else ever accused her of stealing anything."

Thanks Chris.
I will be able to use this in the comments sections.

By the way, Bongiorno does not sound pleased with the Motivations;
Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, tore apart the reasoning, saying "from the motive, to weapon, to the DNA, it is a string of errors."
"I can't wait until they fix a day to hear us for the appeal, because honestly the verdict is so full of errors, illogical elements and contradictions, that I strongly believe it will be overturned," Bongiorno said.

And this assessment is in every news account I have read;
The courts have cast wildly different versions of events.
Which is probably because news sources just quote each other.
Analemma

 

[Planigale]

Any chance you can point to that 'whistle blowing letter'?

I'm convinced the lab results are 'too good to be true', on the two pieces of evidence they need to ensnare, one for Raf and one for Amanda.

The 'luck of the finds' seems too improbable. The knife has no likelihood of connection to the crime when selected, and the bra clasp is found 6 weeks later.

They must know they're gaming the lab results, the only question is how they're doing it.

Maybe its hard for publicly known scientific experts to comment on this possibility, by virtue of Italy's calumnia laws, and the prosecution's demonstrated penchant for using them to silence critics.

Here is a link.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2746
This letter is not 'evidence', but I believe it. For someone who has worked in laboratories what the writer says rings true. We do know that the lab at the time did not belong to ENFI, and if the routine QC was in place it would have been disclosed.

 

[Desert Fox]

Some would consider the perp's DNA on the handle of the murder weapon, and the victim'd DNA on the pointy end, to be evidence.

Unless there was a conspiracy...

When the DNA is retrieved by a means the system is not designed to work for, it is unreliable. It is simply too likely to be some form of contamination.
In fact, I will state that it is contamination.

 

[Desert Fox]

Super - we will always be wanting some evidence whatever the Italian courts do. If I know the other pro-innocence posters here, they would drop any objection to conviction and heavy sentences if any real evidence were to emerge. That is certainly true for me.

Actually, if there are guilty of rape and murder as the prosecution argues, I think they got a lenient sentence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did Nencini really say that Guede only behaved "Impolitely"????

Massei had Guede's lust being the cause of this crime.

How can the Kercher's stomach this grotesque statement by Nencini?

 

[carbonjam72]

Lab games

Here is a link.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2746
This letter is not 'evidence', but I believe it. For someone who has worked in laboratories what the writer says rings true. We do know that the lab at the time did not belong to ENFI, and if the routine QC was in place it would have been disclosed.

Thanks for the link. Hard to make out what it does say, except that its an inside look at the lab, and its not pretty.

The one part I saw was point #11, where it says (by google translate); "11.When the biological result is not what you hoped for , the amplification of the track ( ?) Is pushed beyond a reasonable indication scientific and proceed until you find something ( ?) . It will be also why the result is always the presence of mixed unknown ?"

I remain convinced they have to make the match to Meredith's DNA on the blade, and Raf's DNA on the bra clasp, when they push for lab data.

Suppose those tests came back negative, what would they do, give up? Not likely. They needed those lab results, they depended on getting them, and they got them almost magically. Stefanoni must have known she could get these matches.

Do they "salt" the machines before they run their tests? Do they schedule their tests in such a way so as to be able to pick up residue in successive tests? They must be doing something.

I'm not arguing the results shouldn't be excluded. I want to know how Stefanoni rigged the game.