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

[Mary_H]

I would never take a bread knife if I possess a butcher knife, in the event I decide to stab someone.
You know, a normal - unbiased - person wouldn't call the picking of pointed knives instead of a bread knife "biased". It's something obvious, whatever you think about, that a berad knife is not remotely as compatible as a butcher's knife or a pocket knife when if the purpose is to stab. I do think the use of intelligence at an elementary level includes these obvious assessements (how frequently people are stabbed with a bread knife? that is squared - doesn't even have a pointed shape - nor a cutting edge?), normal people don't call elementary logic "bias", unless they have extremely biased agandas.

Nor a cutting edge? What are you guys using for bread knives over there?

If you can't see the biased agenda in choosing one specific knife and it coincidentally becoming the murder weapon, then it's back to Scientific Method 101 for you. I can't explain it better than Kevin Lowe:

This isn't actually how competent police work is done, because stab wounds are potentially compatible with a wide variety of weapons including steak knives. You don't just grab one knife that catches your eye and test only that, unless you're planning on doctoring the evidence and you know that in Italy it just doesn't matter how obvious you make it.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I've been hearing for years is the cop grabbed the knife out of the drawer because it looked "freshly bleached", not because it had a point.

What you "have been hearing"? Interesting expression

 

[Machiavelli]

My suspicion is that you are not here to answer questions, it is your task here to spread disinformation. (Like you're doing with the selection of the knife. Like you did when you said Knox could choose not to sleep, like you did when you said that Knox and her mother could talk "mafia code" to one another.)

You believe this is a war, and you do not wish to arm you adversaries.

Yet, your "side" has won, as far as Italian courts are concerned. So I actually do not know why you would refuse to answer.

You are a bit contradicting yourself, aren't you?

The (obvious) reason why I don't answer, is that Nencini has already answered, more extensively and correctly than Massei.

 

[carbonjam72]

Video of Finzi plucking the knife from Raf's draw?

Your argument then is with Judge Massei, not the innocentati.... as Mary_H supplied upthread which you ignored...

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.

Does anyone know if there is crime scene video of Finzi plucking the knife from Raf's drawer?

 

[Diocletus]

I said 103 items, those tested over the 6-day period.
The amplification performed on those items over this period are the only ones with a potential use for detecting contamination, because if there is any contamination on the 36/B trace, then it must be detected on those amplification over the 6-days period. Nowhere else matters. If there is no contamination from Meredith on the tests performed within the 6-day period, there is no contamination at all.

There were not 103 amplifications during the 6 day period. If that's what Novelli said, then he's lying.

Furthermore, what you say is false because we would need to see the full results from 36b's plate, 365bis, including its negative controls, and also the contaminated plate, 365, that she ran but has kept secret.

In fact, the fact the 36b's plate is called 365bis is pretty much all we need to know to determine that there was a contamination event that caused her to rerun the batch that generated 36b.

 

[Samson]

What you "have been hearing"? Interesting expression

Mach, a while back on TJMK you posted you thought it certain Italy will request Amanda's extradition, yet many here speculate that Italy won't do so for various reasons. Are you still certain?

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know if there is crime scene video of Finzi plucking the knife from Raf's drawer?

There is none. Raffaele recounts the "collection" in his book, including the retort made by one of the cops, "This one will do."

 

[Bill Williams]

You are a bit contradicting yourself, aren't you?

The (obvious) reason why I don't answer, is that Nencini has already answered, more extensively and correctly than Massei.

No I am not contradicting myself. You are making that claim, by your standards you should then supply the proof for your claim.

Massei said that the knife was carried by Knox for protection. For Judge Massei it just happened to be at the cottage when Rudy attacked Meredith, acc. to Massei Rudy's attack was because of his lust. The knife was only by chance there. It was only then that (acc. to Massei) Amanda and Raffaele went into Meredith's room to see what the commotion was about.

Nencini has a contradictory scenario to Massei's. I just cannot wait to your dietrology in trying to reconcile Nencini's escalating argument over rent money with Massei's, "it was because of Rudy's lust".

Both have mutually contradictory reasons for the knife being transported.

But I duly note that you, yourself, have refused to answer - even if only to give Nencini's (yet again) new version of this crime. Mignini had a ritualistic killing to do with Hallowe'en, and a sex-game gone wrong. Nencini says that Mignini lied about that.

 

[RandyN]

You are a bit contradicting yourself, aren't you?

The (obvious) reason why I don't answer, is that Nencini has already answered, more extensively and correctly than Massei.

Now all we need to hear from is Curly Joe...the third stooge...or was that Shemp?

 

[RandyN]

Let's put aside the topic. But I maintain your belief is baseless.



Her name is Stefanoni.
And what you claim, just never happened. The RIS never called Stefanoni's finding unreliable. Neither they ever called "unreliable" any other DNA profile finding. In particular they did not call "unreliable" any DNA profile of the kind found by Stefanoni on the knife. In fact, the RIS themselves did not apply the best international prescription which require a minumum of three separate amplifications. They only run two of them. Despite the minimum suggested is three. Because, they explained, the best decision is a compromise between maximizing certainity of result and maximizing the probability of obtaining a result.
Exactly the identical answer given by Stefanoni.



No. By the way, Conti and Vecchiotti are not supposed to "rule" anything.

Her name is Stephony! Because she is a phony!

Not a doctor but a sloppy lab tech and a even worse crime scene supervisor. The proof is irrefutable...it is on video and recorded. She would be in jail in a normal country. But in Italy she has probably been given two medals and promoted to President by now.

Novelli is the whore of the prosecution. A fake and a liar. He gives false testimony about the science in court. Where are the worlds scientists backing up Stephonys science? Silence...because there are none. And yet you frauds think you will get away with this.

Foolish stronzo.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't claim to be as much of an expert as Professor Bruce Budowle, who held an important position at the FBI before taking an academic position. His letter discusses this point thoroughly, and I provided a quote and a link separately today.

I would like to state that letter is pretty informative.
Notice that those who argue for guilt just seem to ignore the multiple experts who disagree.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Hi Mach. Good to see you again. We may need you to explain some of Nencini's more puzzling findings

Mary has answered your post above already. I was wondering if you could confirm one way or another whether any knives were seized from: Le Chic, Patrick's apartment or the girls' apartment. As far as I know, none were, but it would be useful to be completely sure about it.

 

[RandyN]

Hi Mach. Good to see you again. We may need you to explain some of Nencini's more puzzling findings
Mary has answered your post above already. I was wondering if you could confirm one way or another whether any knives were seized from: Le Chic, Patrick's apartment or the girls' apartment. As far as I know, none were, but it would be useful to be completely sure about it.

Yes Id like to hear the facts surrounding the poop fight. And why the other science police claim that two tests are required in order to make it valid. How was this ignored?

And two knifes are a fact now. Where can we find out about this fact in evidence?

See cuz I happen to think the lying Italians are making it all up. But I will gladly concede to being wrong when you show us the money...errr proof!

Got that dangerous murderer RS in protective detention yet? Put him in with Guede...and then ....don't tell anyone.... but then bug it. I bet you get everything you need then. OH wait...you don't need anything...

Well there is that ECOHR thingy...oh no.

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually I have a question for the pro-guilt faction
Nencini's conclusions seem more supportive of non premeditated murder with no rape.
Contrast though with the punishment still being for premeditated murder with rape.
Why didn't he reduce the sentence?

 

[MichaelB]

Finzi testimony

Q: What did you do?
A: Exactly, the first thing that I did, in that I had my back to the door, there was a kitchen drawer and I opened it, I opened the first kitchen drawer.
Q: You had the gloves on obviously, let’s just repeat that
A: We had on new clean gloves. So the first thing I saw was a large knife. I should state that it was very clean.
[text eliminated about verifying knife being referred to is the same as in photo, and about size of knife]
Q: Were there other knives?
A: There were other knives yes however I took this knife because in the briefing that had been given to us, using investigative intuition, I took it and I showed it immediately to Dr. Chiacchiera, I said: “Doctor I would take this” and Dr Chiacchiera …
A: You mean it was a knife that could have been relevant?
Q: It could have been relevant in that the blade could have been by my reckoning compatible with the injuries that I had never seen however I knew they were serious.

 

[Anode]

There are no other pointed knives in the apartment. You can see that clearly from the pictures. Unless you think a bread knife would be compatible with a stabbing, you can see there are no other possible knives left there as potential weapons. It's more than just "visible" to the naked eye, it's obvious, to any unbiased observer.

Oh, hold on a minute here. I might be mistaken so please, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this particular knife was suspected of making that horrid "slice" wound on Meredith's neck. Not a "stab" of any kind. So just a sharp edge would produce this. Any of those steak knifes would match? (As long as it's not too serrated)

It was my understanding that the other wounds were made by a knife with a hilt that matched the smaller blade imprint from the sheets. In fact that hilted knife could have made the slice too...

Again, I don't follow this as closely as all of you but I'm sure I read this "fact" before many pages ago.

 

[Desert Fox]

Finzi testimony
Q: It could have been relevant in that the blade could have been by my reckoning compatible with the injuries that I had never seen however I knew they were serious.

I have a serious question. . . .How the hell do they train their police.
Small knives can inflict pretty much as severe injuries as a large knife.
I would argue that small knives are more dangerous in general.

 

[js202]

Finzi testimony

Q: What did you do?
A: Exactly, the first thing that I did, in that I had my back to the door, there was a kitchen drawer and I opened it, I opened the first kitchen drawer.
Q: You had the gloves on obviously, let’s just repeat that
A: We had on new clean gloves. So the first thing I saw was a large knife. I should state that it was very clean.
[text eliminated about verifying knife being referred to is the same as in photo, and about size of knife]
Q: Were there other knives?
A: There were other knives yes however I took this knife because in the briefing that had been given to us, using investigative intuition, I took it and I showed it immediately to Dr. Chiacchiera, I said: “Doctor I would take this” and Dr Chiacchiera …
A: You mean it was a knife that could have been relevant?
Q: It could have been relevant in that the blade could have been by my reckoning compatible with the injuries that I had never seen however I knew they were serious.

Disgracefully stupid testimony.

 

[Bill Williams]

Finzi testimony

Q: What did you do?
A: Exactly, the first thing that I did, in that I had my back to the door, there was a kitchen drawer and I opened it, I opened the first kitchen drawer.
Q: You had the gloves on obviously, let’s just repeat that
A: We had on new clean gloves. So the first thing I saw was a large knife. I should state that it was very clean.
[text eliminated about verifying knife being referred to is the same as in photo, and about size of knife]
Q: Were there other knives?
A: There were other knives yes however I took this knife because in the briefing that had been given to us, using investigative intuition, I took it and I showed it immediately to Dr. Chiacchiera, I said: “Doctor I would take this” and Dr Chiacchiera …
A: You mean it was a knife that could have been relevant?
Q: It could have been relevant in that the blade could have been by my reckoning compatible with the injuries that I had never seen however I knew they were serious.

Finzi is obviously mistaken. Machiavelli thinks Finzi is wrong.

 

[anglolawyer]

I should have read the thread before posting my question about other knives. Mach has been shown a photograph (where the hell did that one come from?) of what purports to be Raffaele's kitchen drawer bulging with knives, any of which would certainly generate alarm if someone pointed it at me ... but he sailed right on by without comment.

I assume, Mach, you are consulting your people back at HQ and you will come back to us in honesty and humility to confirm the authenticity of the photograph and say why none of those other knives were seized or tested.

I also noted that you passed over questions about Patrick's knives. As of 1.45 a.m. on 6th November 2007 he was the killer. He was arrested a few hours later. Why (I am assuming now that none were since you would have said so otherwise) were none of his knives seized? Did investigative intuition tell the cops that he would later prove not to have been involved?

Thank you for confirming the apartment knives were collected but not tested and that you don't know why not. That's three interesting facts right there. Any idea when the knives were collected? We know they were still there when Amanda was asked to rummage through the drawer to check them (strange procedure). Was it 18th December? As we now know there were two knives maybe it was a bad idea not to test them and they should be tested now (assuming they have been stored correctly). I guess it's too late to test any of those knives in Raffaele's drawer even though the odds are pretty good that one of them is the other murder weapon.

I am baffled by the failure to retrieve and test Patrick's knives. I can only think of explanations that would land me in trouble in Italy. The sort of things the defence did not argue (I am referencing a point you made upthread) perhaps because lawyers and defendants do not enjoy privilege for statements made in court (in Italy you can lie in court with impunity but if you tell the truth you can be charged - maybe the defence to such a charge is to say you were lying! )