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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
I caught ABC this morning, and they were basically flabbergasted and LOL at the Italian Court's selective-DNA-cleanup thing.

Even Stefanopolis chimed in and said something to the effect of how can she possibly get extradited to these nut jobs.

I would say that if an extradition request does come around, this is going to be a major issue, framed around anti-American bias and federalism, so watch out. BTW, Bond v. US might be issued on Monday--they've been sitting on it for quite awhile, which means that it might be a biggie.
Click to expand...
You are our roving reporter on that one.
 
Diocletus said:
I caught ABC this morning, and they were basically flabbergasted and LOL at the Italian Court's selective-DNA-cleanup thing.
Click to expand...

Nencini makes no claim that there was a selective DNA clean-up. But that's the level of American network "news".

The Knoxians will be working overtime....
 
Vibio said:
Nencini makes no claim that there was a selective DNA clean-up. But that's the level of American network "news".

The Knoxians will be working overtime....
Click to expand...

LOL. Right. According to nincini there was a clean up. And none of Knox's DNA was found even though she stabbed kercher in the neck with a machete. But Rudy, who was apparently just pleasuring himself in the corner, left footprints and DNA in the most inopportune places.

I'd rather have the morning news get a few facts wrong then have the court system engaging in this type of silly, biased, uniformed, perverted and embarrassing fiction writing contest.
 
Vibio said:
Oh God this guy is on the level of Knoxian SuperStar Ron Hendrey. What a crew.

Nencini simply states that a cleanup occurred.
Click to expand...

A judge might simply say that a witch stole a man's penis and put it in a bird's nest. This does not however make it very likely.
 
So they were there between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m. and then out and about again after that. THis means Toto only saw them in the gaps when he was not reading his paper, but never saw them leave or return (covered in blood?) to the Piazza where they remained waiting for the break down truck to leave and then went back between 11.30 and midnight when I guess Amanda screamed so our it was heard across the street through closed windows by more than one person (one of whom then heard running footsteps … whose were those?). That scream must have freaked poor Raffaele. Geez! What a nut job she was! I guess they must have run away because the involuntary scream made them afraid someone had heard. Then they slunk back for the clean up.

LOL does anyone actually believe this crap? Oh yes, they do. That's the problem isn't it?

I wonder where they got rid of their clothes?
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
LOL. Right. According to nincini there was a clean up.
Click to expand...

Of course there was a clean-up.

But that Knox's DNA is was not found on items tested in the murder room means nothing.

I posted here a while back about a murder last year in the US: a fight and 2 throats slit in a small kitchen, but no DNA of the perp.

I know it's a requisite on CSI but not so much in real life..
 
Vibio said:
Of course there was a clean-up.

But that Knox's DNA is was not found on items tested in the murder room means nothing.

I posted here a while back about a murder last year in the US: a fight and 2 throats slit in a small kitchen, but no DNA of the perp.

I know it's a requisite on CSI but not so much in real life..
Click to expand...

So remind us what exactly is the evidence again? Oh yeah, the knife. Sorry, I forgot. And she ate pizza when she should have been on hand at police headquarters waiting for more questioning. And the handstand.
 
Vibio said:
Of course there was a clean-up.

But that Knox's DNA is was not found on items tested in the murder room means nothing.

I posted here a while back about a murder last year in the US: a fight and 2 throats slit in a small kitchen, but no DNA of the perp.

I know it's a requisite on CSI but not so much in real life..
Click to expand...

DNA is nice to have when you have the burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It's essential when the guy who everyone agrees was there left lots of DNA in all of the regular places, together with his footprints, baby batter, and an elaborate story about what he was doing there.

When those items aren't there, but should be as evidenced by Rudy's deposit of them, then you have to compensate by making up all sorts of fantasies, like extra knives, miracle clean-ups, and phony motives based on the out-of-court statements of a liar, etc.
 
Vibio said:
I know it's a requisite on CSI but not so much in real life..
Click to expand...

Real life doesn't apply here. In real life, the prosecution turns over the lab data, instead of suppressing hundreds of amplification records and controls.

We're in fantasy land now.
 
bri1 said:
Can I interject a minute here on the subject of conspiracies. Contrary to the opinion of a new poster on the board, most of us think that there was no conspiracy to frame AK & RS. Many posters here have a pretty in-depth grasp of wrongful convictions more generally, and understand that the commonalities of these miscarriages of justice are also evident in this case (tunnel vision in the investigation, rush to judgement, false confession, sloppy forensic work, prosecution withholding evidence, dodgy eyewitnesses etc). None of this neccesitates a conscious conspiracy to frame - although it is possible that dubious methods were used to prop up the later investigation and prosecution. Once more with feeling: it is the prosecution and convicting judges' thinking that shares all the common elements with conspiracy thinking, NOT those who argue for innocence (with a few exceptions only).
Click to expand...

Well put. Yes they may have fudged a few things to make sure the guilty were convicted but not likely that framing started early if at all.

The PGP live on conspiracy after conspiracy. It started with the three conspiring to get together for some reason at the cottage without leaving any tracks of organizing the meetup. It was clearly the intent to murder Meredith from the get as Amanda carried a large kitchen knife. For 6 years the three have kept silent about the truth. Amanda's parents have known she killed Meredith from the very beginning and became part of the conspiracy. Marriott has led a worldwide media conspiracy to block the truth from the people. He and others were able to silence all people in Seattle from telling the truth about Amanda. Hellmann was paid off by US media or someone because his ruling was clearly wrong and C&V must have paid off as well.

Some believe Amanda was planning the murder before she left for Italy.
 
Bill Williams said:
Grinder got after me many months ago for making this claim of the second breakin, 18 months after Rudy's breakin through Filomena's window. I searched to re-find the cite, so imagine my glee at reading the La Stampa author reference it.

From memory, some town clowns wanted to break in to the cottage to embarrass Mignini by doing a Satanic rite inside. Mignini had rrefused to allow bars to be put on Filomena's window so as to preserve the crime scene, but also perhaps because he truly thought they weren't needed.

The town tomfoolers showed him, as did Channel 4, or one of those annoying BBC outlets, when the kid demo'ed the ease of the climb, even with the now present bars.

As to why the mattress, I will not speculate because Grinder will demand a cite. Damn him.
Click to expand...

Bill wrong again. I do remember the mattress being part of a later break in - it was moved for sure and I too think actually taken.

Now the PGP harped about this because they said that the people that broke in, I think there was more than one, came in through a different way. I believe it was through the balcony doors or at least that what the PGP contend.

Maybe Stil can report.
 
Bill Williams said:
codyjuneau said:
.
So it appears that we have Nencini completely ignoring the work of Conti and Vecchiotti, and also the Carabinieri forensics experts in order to involve the large kitchen knife divined from Raf's place. I can hardly wait to read his theory of how the knife got to the cottage. Legendary infamy awaits Nencini, Massei, Mignini, Commodi, Stefanoni, and many more. It is much too late for them to avoid it now. They deserve it, just like Benito deserves his.
.
Click to expand...

I'd completely forgotten about the RIS Carabinieri! One of the reasons for the ISC overturning Hellmann was that Hellmann allowed Vecchiotti to call the shots on 36i, saying it was useless to test it. The ISC said that Hellmann needed to be overturned because judges direct those sorts of issues, not the experts.

In a sense, perhaps the ISC then got this one right. So the RIS Carabinieri for Nencini's court DID test 36i. And it turned out that it DID reveal an interesting result.

It was Amanda's DNA. On the blade. Wa-hoo. More proof, really, that the knife had not been cleaned as the original police said it had. Still no incontrovertible sign of Meredith on that knife. (If 36i had been Meredith's, I would be a guilter.)

So perhaps the ISC was right on this issue to order a re-do. What is inexplicable is that Nencini convicts.... and I hope to Jesus Mary and Joseph he does not convict partly on the basis of 36i.

The man is already showing himself to be a dullard as a jurist. Why make a stupid claim about 36i and remove all doubt?
Click to expand...
.
As I recall, Nencini himself asked the Carabinieri experts if they would consider Stefanoni's test as reliable and they said no because they require at least two separate tests, one confirming the other.

Talk about a concocted case. They have a known burglar, who admitted he found the cottage empty when he first arrived, whose method of burglary matches that of the cottage break in perfectly, who unquestionably left forensics evidence of himself everywhere in the murder room, who ran away to Germany, who admits to being there before, during, and after the murder but makes up a cochomamie story about having a date with Meredith and just by chance going to the bathroom while someone sneaks in, murders Meredith, and then runs away. They have an imprint in blood of the murder weapon on the bed sheets, but try to theorize a second knife just so the can use the one knife magically divined from Raffaele's place on 'gut instinct' and tested for DNA using unapproved methods, in an unapproved lab for those methods, on a sample so small that the machine they were testing on gave multiple consecutive 'too low' warnings, each also consecutively and deliberately ignored, to find one single crumb of a result that both C&V and the Carabinieri experts said was unreliable. And this does not even address the problems with explaining how this magically divined kitchen knife at Raf's place happened to be at the cottage that night so they could use it in an non-premeditated murder.

I repeat my previous observation. When the police were convinced Amanda and her boss Lumumba had a joint plan to murder Meredith as some kind of sacrificial Halloween Rite, they thought they could sell the knife story because they could say Amanda knew she would not be going to work that night since she and Lumumba had already planned the murder which included taking a knife from Raf's place to the cottage. When it was shown irrefutably that Lumumba could not be involved, they were stuck with the fact that Amanda really did think she was going to work that night and therefore there could be no premeditation. So the police had no suitable explanation for how that divined knife made it to the cottage. But they were stuck with it even without Lumumba in the picture because otherwise they would have to explain why they selected it and why they obtained a false DNA result from it.

Just like the Nixon tapes, one day someone will force Stefanoni to produce all the data files she and the prosecution have obstinately refused to release. The answers will all be there. Infamy awaits.
.
 
Dan O. said:
If I'm not mistaken, some reports say the subsequent breakin was through the kitchen window. It should be possible to open the balcony door from the inside making the exit much easier.

But why steal the mattress?
Click to expand...

Now I am going to get in trouble with both you AND Grinder on this. Regardless of a third break-in through the kitchen window or the porch, the cite I remember specifically says that Filomena's window was the route for pranksters wanting to do a spoof-satanic rite in that cottage.

The accompanying pic to the story I saw had a piece of plywood nailed over Filomena's window, and id'ed it as the route of the pranksters.

Me, I blame the Mafia concept of Omertà for this not getting out. The good denizens of Perugia are under the jackboot of Mignini in an enforced silence! (Don't say I never learned from Machiavelli!)
 
Last edited:
Suffolk Skeptic said:
This is all very depressing. I knew the report was coming but it is still a shock.

I have nothing constructive to add that hasn't already been said by others.

I have an irrational dislike of Stefanoni.
Click to expand...


You don't like her flashy pumps? :p

The report isn't depressing. The reaction from the PGP is sick.

I am curious as Anglo about TOD and how they line up everything. This document is what will used for the appeal and more stupid it is the better.

Chris_Halkides said:
proudfootz,

Proper LCN DNA refers to a particular set of conditions for testing, not the least o which are special decontamination procedures performed in a dedicated facility with positive pressure hoods, among other features. What Stefanoni did was not LCN but her own variation of low template DNA work, using a protocol that has never appeared in the literature. Her lab was not even certified for standard profiling, let alone LCN work. The lack of negative controls and the refusal to release raw data under these circumstances are all the more reprehensible. I suggest reading some of the posts on low template DNA forensics within this thread so that you can catch up.
Click to expand...

Well I'm pleased that you have finally recognized the importance of pointing out the lack of positive pressure hoods. This point should be the focus of all arguments against the use of LCN in this case, because it PROVES that DNA can fly. Even I and Anglo can understand this. LCN labs must have positive pressure hoods to assure DNA floating in the lab can't find its way to the sample being tested.

I still urge a number of the DNA experts here to collaborate to write an article explaining the basics and what the biggest issues were with this case in as simple of language as possible.

Dan O. said:
If I'm not mistaken, some reports say the subsequent breakin was through the kitchen window. It should be possible to open the balcony door from the inside making the exit much easier.

But why steal the mattress?
Click to expand...
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
This is all very depressing. I knew the report was coming but it is still a shock.

I have nothing constructive to add that hasn't already been said by others.

I have an irrational dislike of Stefanoni.
Click to expand...


You don't like her flashy pumps? :p

The report isn't depressing. The reaction from the PGP is sick.

I am curious as Anglo about TOD and how they line up everything. This document is what will used for the appeal and more stupid it is the better.

Chris_Halkides said:
proudfootz,

Proper LCN DNA refers to a particular set of conditions for testing, not the least o which are special decontamination procedures performed in a dedicated facility with positive pressure hoods, among other features. What Stefanoni did was not LCN but her own variation of low template DNA work, using a protocol that has never appeared in the literature. Her lab was not even certified for standard profiling, let alone LCN work. The lack of negative controls and the refusal to release raw data under these circumstances are all the more reprehensible. I suggest reading some of the posts on low template DNA forensics within this thread so that you can catch up.
Click to expand...

Well I'm pleased that you have finally recognized the importance of pointing out the lack of positive pressure hoods. This point should be the focus of all arguments against the use of LCN in this case, because it PROVES that DNA can fly. Even I and Anglo can understand this. LCN labs must have positive pressure hoods to assure DNA floating in the lab can't find its way to the sample being tested.

I still urge a number of the DNA experts here to collaborate to write an article explaining the basics and what the biggest issues were with this case in as simple of language as possible.

Dan O. said:
If I'm not mistaken, some reports say the subsequent breakin was through the kitchen window. It should be possible to open the balcony door from the inside making the exit much easier.
Click to expand...

As I remembered it as well.
 
Vibio said:
Oh God this guy is on the level of Knoxian SuperStar Ron Hendrey. What a crew.

Nencini simply states that a cleanup occurred.
Click to expand...

I thought that judges were supposed to prove things, not just assert them? Oh wait, this is Italy.

Why the ad hominem, though, about Ron Hendrey? Is there a point to make about what he may have done wrong? Wait, no, the guilt side gets to make assertions. Another assertion Nencini made was that Knox transported the knife. He offers no evidence for this, except to say that if she didn't then his finding of guilt has no weight.

Circular reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Grinder

I have designed a questionnaire for you. I just want to check that we are using the same terminology. To make it easy, I have supplied my answers (i.e. the correct answers):

Which of the following do you consider to be framing:

A a bona fide theory is properly evidenced and prosecuted: framing/not framing

B a bona fide theory is supported by evidence deriving from bias and incompetence: framing/not framing

C a bona fide theory is supported by deliberately fabricated evidence: framing/not framing

D a corrupt theory is supported by deliberately fabricated evidence: framing/not framing

This case proceeded as follows:

Stage A 13:00 to 13:30 on 02 Nov 2007 (this may be an exaggeration)
Stage B 13:30 to (say) 05 Nov 2007
Stage C 06 Nov to (roughly) 13 Nov 2007
Stage D 14 Nov 2007 until now

Here is your answer sheet:

A framing/not framing
B framing/not framing
C framing/not framing
D framing/not framing

You have two hours.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom