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

[Anode]

Funny, I bought a switchblade in Venice when I was eleven. It was after the war

ETA - pretty sure it was from a shop on the Rialto Bridge.

I bought a beautiful folding knife as a souvenir in Sardinia in 2007. I carried it around all day. ...and before you all get any ideas, it was in April of 2007 and I was back in the states in November.

 

[acbytesla]

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

Mackies back in town ...love Bobby Darin...btw Mach, Bobby is an Italian American.

 

[Mary_H]

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

If Finzi saw the knife before he chose it, then it was not chosen at random.

From Massei: The knife was taken by Inspector Finzi, who testified that he had clean, new gloves and that, having opened the drawer where the tableware was kept, the first thing he saw was a large knife that was extremely clean. There were other knives in the drawer, but he took [only] this one, which became Exhibit 36. This knife was the first object he touched and it was located on top of all the tableware.

Again, though, you're missing the point about statistics. The question is not whether that knife was the murder weapon, the question is whether it was enough for Finzi to take one knife out of the drawer for testing without taking the entire contents of the drawer to compare to each other. If Meredith's DNA had been on the blade of the knife, then there was a chance her DNA was on other objects in the drawer. If Meredith's DNA had been found on anything else in the drawer, it would have weakened the claim that the knife was the murder weapon. This would have worked in favor of the defense, and they should have asked for it.

Of course, the prosecution could always argue that the other objects were contaminated by the DNA of Meredith that was on the knife. They also could argue that the likelihood was very small that Meredith's DNA was in the drawer for some reason other than the knife being the murder weapon.

Probably no smaller, though, than looking for a knife and claiming the first one you find is the murder weapon, especially when you have two other apartments where you might also find "knives that could be apt as weapons."

 

[Poppy1016]

I have 3 questions for those convinced of guilt in this case. 1. Do you agree with allowing the same technician that tests evidence to collect the evidence? 2. What is your honest opinion of the evidence collecting videos? Mop wrapping and clasp handling for example. 3. Why do you refuse to accept the reports of C&V and the Carabinieri scientists ? Who among you have the integrity to answer these questions honestly?

 

[Machiavelli]

The motivations are out and Mach's back.

Were there no pointy knives at Patrick's home or bar?

Are you sure there were no other pointy knives at Raf's?

These questions are irrelevant to the point. The point is that the Innocentisti work based on false stories. Someone claims the picking up of a knife was biased, the claim is logically based on a false assertion. And on zero proof of anything (the burden of proof is on those who make claims).
You should "undo" your narrative by correcting all these false assertions.

Why didn't they test all the knives at the cottage?

The knives were seized. I don't know why not tested for DNA, but I have a few guesses. First, in the first place they didn't suspect of Knox being the murderer, they suspected a man. Second, these knives were unde a cover on a drawer bottom and visibly dirty. Third, and most important, because the victim's DNA had already been found on a murder weapon: the investigators "had" a murder weapon. But also, fourth, Meredith's DNA would have been irrelevant as evidence if found on kitchen knives inside her own home.
PS: a knife was found in the ravine, picked and analyzed too.

 

[Samson]

I am way behind the thread, so this may have been mentioned. Frank Sfarzo says Nencini allows 9 20 rather than 9 26 for computer interaction. Thus he is helping himself to a useful 6 minutes. I suspect this is convenient rounding down, but would the time be from the computer clock, so potentially fallible, or from ISP data?

 

[proudfootz]

The knives were seized. I don't know why not tested for DNA, but I have a few guesses.

First, in the first place they didn't suspect of Knox being the murderer, they suspected a man.

Second, these knives were unde a cover on a drawer bottom and visibly dirty.

Third, and most important, because the victim's DNA had already been found on a murder weapon: the investigators "had" a murder weapon.

But also, fourth, Meredith's DNA would have been irrelevant as evidence if found on kitchen knives inside her own home.

PS: a knife was found in the ravine, picked and analyzed too.

Funny, someone was just telling me this area wasn't searched.

They must have made that assertion out of ignorance...

 

[Diocletus]

These questions are irrelevant to the point. The point is that the Innocentisti work based on false stories. Someone claims the picking up of a knife was biased, the claim is logically based on a false assertion. And on zero proof of anything (the burden of proof is on those who make claims).
You should "undo" your narrative by correcting all these false assertions.



The knives were seized. I don't know why not tested for DNA, but I have a few guesses. First, in the first place they didn't suspect of Knox being the murderer, they suspected a man. Second, these knives were unde a cover on a drawer bottom and visibly dirty. Third, and most important, because the victim's DNA had already been found on a murder weapon: the investigators "had" a murder weapon. But also, fourth, Meredith's DNA would have been irrelevant as evidence if found on kitchen knives inside her own home.
PS: a knife was found in the ravine, picked and analyzed too.

So many questions.

1. Why didn't they take any knives from Patricks home?

2. When did they bug Patrick?

3. Why didn't migini disclose to matteini that the dna from Kerchers vaginal swab ruled out Sollecito and lumumba.

4. Why didn't they dna-analyze the cell phones?

5. Why did stefanoni and Novelli lie about no contamination in stefanoni's lab, when her own records show that she had contamination?

 

[carbonjam72]

ISC Questioning Hellman's Judicial Approach?

Strangely this was a point I made in my first post on this thread. Although there was a move towards the adversarial system, there appears to have been a conservative component of the judiciary who were reluctant to move from the inquisitorial mode. Hellman I think represented the adversarial faction. He took the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case. The other courts adopted a more inquisitorial mode, they provided their own explanation for events that was not identical to that provided by the prosecution. The supreme court review of Hellman was I think also a rejection of the adversarial approach adopted by Hellman.

That's interesting. But I'm not really sure that's what's going on here. Ironically, I might lean to 'proudfooz' slant in asking, 'just how many people are in on this conspiracy'?

I don't believe its actually a legitimate contest, nor has it ever been. It's been 100% crooked from the outset, and it's just wishful thinking to see it otherwise. Hellman played it straight, and the system wouldn't hold.

The only common feature I can see among all the negative court opinions (everyone but Hellman), is to support the notion that the 'break-in' was staged, that Guede did not act alone and was not the worst actor (so its not all his fault - i.e., "poor Rudy"), and that Amanda "lied" in naming Patrick (so the police are in no way at fault for inflicting illegal psychological torture to extract those "confusedly" statements from the Amanda and Rafaele).

There was no way out for Amanda and Rafaele. The Italian supreme court judges are protecting Mignini, because in back of Mignini, if he is allowed to fall, is the Monster of Florence convictions. Much as they want to ditch Mignini, as they will at the first opportunity, for now, he is their doorstop against a public re-examination of those plainly farcical convictions in the Monster of Florence cases.

The honor of "Italian Justice" is indeed at stake. But its more than just Amanda and Raf, and about not accepting responsibility for not jailing Guede, and allowing him to remain free to kill Meredith. It's the last 40-50 years of being totally incompetent in the pursuit of the Monster of Florence, and the wrongful convictions and crazy investigations attached thereto.

The only option as I see it, is to embarrass the Italians to the point where its just easier to let Amanda and Raf go free, as they deserve, then to continue to cling to a buffoonish conclusion that absolutely no one finds credible.

Perhaps the one and only weapon of choice, is public ridicule. Its seems to be the only thing they respond to.

 

[Skind]

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

Given that this is an extremely small number of sizable knives to have in a typical apartment, much less one of someone supposedly obsessed with knives, the lack of a greater selection of knives would lead any reasonable person to conclude that - even if the knife had come from the apartment - there is a very high probability that the knife had been thrown away, leaving the flat with a limited selection.

This makes the selection of the knife even more suspicious, even before we consider that it was basically chosen *before* a full search had been completed, so there was no way for the officer to know that there wasn;t a further stash of knives waiting to be found.

I love the way you always provide the very information that confounds your conclusions.

 

[Diocletus]

I am way behind the thread, so this may have been mentioned. Frank Sfarzo says Nencini allows 9 20 rather than 9 26 for computer interaction. Thus he is helping himself to a useful 6 minutes. I suspect this is convenient rounding down, but would the time be from the computer clock, so potentially fallible, or from ISP data?

Nencini made tons of mistakes like this. He clearly had zero grasp of any sort of technical information, not having heard from any experts, himself, except for the ones that he ignored. I think he's a simpleton.

 

[Samson]

I have 3 questions for those convinced of guilt in this case. 1. Do you agree with allowing the same technician that tests evidence to collect the evidence? 2. What is your honest opinion of the evidence collecting videos? Mop wrapping and clasp handling for example. 3. Why do you refuse to accept the reports of C&V and the Carabinieri scientists ? Who among you have the integrity to answer these questions honestly?

Chris Halkides, and also Planagale, say that you can not clean blood, and leave behind dna that will result in a recognisable profile. If all evidence remote from the crime scene was taken by independent people to an independent laboratory, then there would be no problem comparing the results with reference dna. Since Machiavelli is posting, and says the knife was the murder weapon, I hope he will explain how this can be.

 

[Bill Williams]

These questions are irrelevant to the point. The point is that the Innocentisti work based on false stories. Someone claims the picking up of a knife was biased, the claim is logically based on a false assertion. And on zero proof of anything (the burden of proof is on those who make claims).
You should "undo" your narrative by correcting all these false assertions.

So many questions.

1. Why didn't they take any knives from Patricks home?

2. When did they bug Patrick?

3. Why didn't migini disclose to matteini that the dna from Kerchers vaginal swab ruled out Sollecito and lumumba.

4. Why didn't they dna-analyze the cell phones?

5. Why did stefanoni and Novelli lie about no contamination in stefanoni's lab, when her own records show that she had contamination?

Why does that burden of proof not belong to Stefanoni who claimed she'd never had a case of contamination in her lab?

The trouble with this case, Machiavelli, is that the proof of claim belongs to the prosecution. The party of the PMs in Italy for this case has managed to convince Cassazione that the opposite applies.

For instance, you made a claim that all of Seattle was subject to Omerta, in the covering up of Knox's April Fools prank. The burden of proof for that is for those making the claim.

Why does this not apply to you with your claims? You once claimed that Amanda Knox could choose not to sleep, and further be immune from the effects of that decision.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA on clothing; some generalizations

Rudin and Inman wrote in 2007, "To re-visit the conventional raison d’être for interpreting low-level DNA profiles to inter contact, the literature so far indicates that:
1. Where there is a known single habitual wearer, that person tends to be detected as the major source of DNA on a garment; minor profiles may also be detected from individuals with whom the habitual wearer has had close contact as well as from unknown sources.2. The examination of evidence for handler DNA can reveal DNA of people who have, or have not, handled the item; the stronger profile may, or may not, be the person who last handled the item; An inference of direct contact between an individual and the item may or may not be supportable, depending on the circumstances of the case." (highlighting mine)

 

[Machiavelli]

I have 3 questions for those convinced of guilt in this case. 1. Do you agree with allowing the same technician that tests evidence to collect the evidence?

I jus point out Stefanoni is not a "technician", she is an expert in molecular biology, has a PhD and she is a high officer in charge of forensic investigations. Yes, I do agree to the fact that the forensic who surveys the crime scene and choses what to collect is the same person who performs the tests. It seems the best to me. The laboratory experts should take care of the crime scene from minute one and manage the collecting of evidence, as long as possible.

This opinion of mine, does not mean I subscribe to the rules of coordination of the different teams working on a crime scene in the Italian system. I think there is often a lack of coordination due to beaurocratic reasons, a crime scene managment level should be implemented.
But it's very difficult to have this on a local territorial scale. Stefanoni for example is from Rome. Her team is called to operate for short-lasting periods of time (few hours) and has no logicstical bases nor means. Her department could never oversee an investigation. But there is no local office who does it on the place; there is no technical crime scene management.

2. What is your honest opinion of the evidence collecting videos? Mop wrapping and clasp handling for example.

I have no black/white opinion. I appreciate their professionalism, but also understand they lack means and must often operate based on improvvisation. My honest opinion on the "vidoes", actually, is that the videos are totally irrelevant per se as for defensive claims. They don't mean anything of the kind the innocentisti wish to see in them.

3. Why do you refuse to accept the reports of C&V and the Carabinieri scientists ?

I fully accept the Carabinieri findings, and I see them as 1. contradicting C&V's claims, exposing their blunders and contributing to undermine their credibility; and 2. not discrediting Stefanoni's work at all. In fact their claims on the scientific matter were just identical to Stefanoni's (including the thoungt about "test repetition" issue, since I guess that's the point you are thinking about).
Why I refuse to "accept" the reports of C&V? Actually, to be precise I do not "refuse the reports", I reject the conclusions that C&V derive from the facts they list in their report. Namely I say that C&V make some assertions at the end of their report (and also some additional assertions within their report) which are either proven false (from the very facts recorded in their report), totally unsupported, or meaningless.
I reject the assertions rather than the facts.
But criticism to C&V report is actually more complex than that, I spoke about it thoroughly, and I have no time to go into all details now.
Just add something. Beyond assertions, there are also some proven lies: C&V are caught to be disingenuous and fraudulent in their report, in my opinion. They lie when they quote the Oct 2. 2008 transcript, for example. They misquote Stefanoni by inserting word she didn't write nor say. Etc. They are also intellectually dishonest in their procedure; they falsely reported about others decisions, they disobeyed the judges task and warped them, they stepped beyond their task by attempting to "judge" (attack) the honesty of Stefanoni instead of the research the topic. They were biased against Stefanoni, they have professional precedents that makes it worth doubt what they say (Olgiata, Cucchi, Cosenza, Ghira, etc..), but also they proved incompetent in their very profession that is coroner (the medico-legal profession). They have a specialization in "medicina legale e delle assicurazioni" (medicine in legal and insurance matters; that is = coroner). Conti proved to be ignorant of the law and procedures, on very basic points in a way a coroner is not supposed to be.
That, to say it just in summary terms.

Who among you have the integrity to answer these questions honestly
?

You may have missed that I talked at length about Vecchiotti in the past. The Innocentisti were always desperate to reject the obvious evidence Vecchiotti was a liar.
Now, the "integrity" should be coupled with the "time" to answer, and the integrity of readers who always refused to acknowledge things that were shown to them

 

[Desert Fox]

In this specific case as well, isn't it know that Meredeth and Amanda shared clothes?
Even if the DNA had been stronger, wouldn't not that have been a perfectly valid argument how stuff that Amanda handled might have Meredeth's DNA?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In this specific case as well, isn't it know that Meredeth and Amanda shared clothes?
Even if the DNA had been stronger, wouldn't not that have been a perfectly valid argument how stuff that Amanda handled might have Meredeth's DNA?

Clothing is known for picking up DNA. Mainly it comes from the wearer's family, but unknown profiles show up also.

 

[Machiavelli]

Given that this is an extremely small number of sizable knives to have in a typical apartment, much less one of someone supposedly obsessed with knives, the lack of a greater selection of knives would lead any reasonable person to conclude that - even if the knife had come from the apartment - there is a very high probability that the knife had been thrown away, leaving the flat with a limited selection.

This makes the selection of the knife even more suspicious, even before we consider that it was basically chosen *before* a full search had been completed, so there was no way for the officer to know that there wasn;t a further stash of knives waiting to be found.

I love the way you always provide the very information that confounds your conclusions.

I'll repeat it for the deaf ones, but only once: there was *no* selection of knives in the apartment. *No* choice.
Do you understand the concept: *no* selection.
All dangerous knives in the apartment, compatible with a stabbing, were picked and seized. Period.
*All* of them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Clothing is known for picking up DNA. Mainly it comes from the wearer's family, but unknown profiles show up also.

Are there any cases where DNA evidence has been used in a similar manner to this case where there is a close association between the defendants and the victim?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no black/white opinion. I appreciate their professionalism, but also understand they lack means and must often operate based on improvvisation. My honest opinion on the "vidoes", actually, is that the videos are totally irrelevant per se as for defensive claims. They don't mean anything of the kind the innocentisti wish to see in them.

So, just to be clear - it does not bother you that under oath, Stefanoni said that she could neither confirm nor deny that she, herself, had touched the bra-hooks with an obviously dirty glove? And it does not bother you that even though Judge Massei discusses the point that replacing the bra-clasp back to the floor after handling it is itself a route of contamination, that Stefanoni in the video does in fact that? And that contrary to her claim that she "always changed gloves" that she then went and handled another item without changing gloves?

I think the most honest thing you've said is that Stefanoni's work was based on "improvisation".