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

[Desert Fox]

Well, Mach can't have it both ways is what I'm saying. Either she is a genius whose lab never had a case of contamination, in which case her many lapses must be due to deliberate fraud, or she is an incompetent lab technician whose evidence is worthless.

Never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to incompetence.
While I am not sure if I actually think there is no fraud involved, it is possible that incompetence could explain everything.

 

[Samson]

Well, Mach can't have it both ways is what I'm saying. Either she is a genius whose lab never had a case of contamination, in which case her many lapses must be due to deliberate fraud, or she is an incompetent lab technician whose evidence is worthless.

Education is cheap and worthless, like lives in Italy.

Nothing can surprise any more. Nencini is the president of the court of appeals, yet he has written a report full of errors, some deliberate, some from ignorance.
He is no different from a Nazi following orders. After all the effect is the same, exterminating the lives of the innocent.

I shall reread Pinocchio.

 

[anglolawyer]

Never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to incompetence.
While I am not sure if I actually think there is no fraud involved, it is possible that incompetence could explain everything.

No it isn't.

 

[MichaelB]

There was fraud involved. What was in her technical report was not in her actual records.

In her technical report A-C were marked real time PCR.

Pre-trial the knife had a few hundred picrograms of DNA and was quantified with real time PCR.

At the trial she conveniently couldn't remember how much DNA was on the knife. I've never seen anything like it when their main forensic scientist can turn up and testify forgetting how much DNA was on a knife they're claiming is the murder weapon and the defense can't question her properly because they don't even have her results.

DIFESA – Avv. Ghirga
DOMANDA – Un’ultimissima proprio in relazione a quanto è emerso, l’estrazione del DNA sul coltello lei mi pare che ha detto che non si ricorda quanto DNA ha estratto dalla lama, dalla graffiatura.
RISPOSTA – No.
DOMANDA – Si può controllare sul registro estrazioni?
RISPOSTA – Sì, si può controllare.
DOMANDA – È un dato che si può acquisire?
RISPOSTA – Sì.
DOMANDA – L’estrazione si può ricavare dal registro delle estrazioni come dice lei.
RISPOSTA – Sì.
DOMANDA – Però non se lo ricorda, vero, quanto DNA ha estratto…
RISPOSTA – Dell’estrazione si può ricavare in realtà la data da quel S.A.L., quello sì.
DOMANDA – Però non se lo ricorda adesso?
RISPOSTA – No, qui no.
DOMANDA – Si può acquisire questo dato?
RISPOSTA – Sì, la data di estrazione, sì.
DOMANDA – Mentre conferma quanto poi è stata… quanta è stata l’eluizione ed il ricavato del DNA per fare…
RISPOSTA – Sì, è stato concentrato in prima battuta, poi è stato quantificato e poi dopo è stato riconcentrato a 10 microlitri.
DOMANDA – Dopo essendo di interesse acquisire il dato sulla quantità di DNA estratto dalla graffiatura lo possiamo acquisire, diciamo nelle forme dovute, è così?
RISPOSTA – Sì.
DIFESA – Avv. Ghirga – Grazie.

July 30 data dump showed her results were the opposite of what she'd been saying.

Sept 14, trial resumes and she's exposed as a fraud and an amateur.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

nothing comes of nothing

Never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to incompetence.
While I am not sure if I actually think there is no fraud involved, it is possible that incompetence could explain everything.

It is almost impossible to argue that the storage of the bra clasp was incompetence. There is no reason for storing an item of evidence in the presence of an aqueous solution (DNA extraction buffer). And the CSC said nothing of this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

suspect-centered analyses in DNA forensics

Are my memories right in that Stefanoni used a profile of Meredith to match the peaks and create the profile for sample 56B?

Mrs. Stefanoni denied using a suspect-centered approach in her analyses. However, there are two extra peaks in 36B that are no smaller than the smallest ones attributable to Meredith. Why did she never mention them? These sorts of questions can also be asked about the bra clasp profiles.

 

[Dan O.]

If Nencini has moved the Naruto time back by 6 minutes in order to give them time to get to the Piazza by 9.27 there should be some factual basis. If the factual basis is as acbytesla says then Nencini is a genius who has brilliantly encapsulated the idiocy of the Italian judiciary in one finding. It's got to be a very deep joke.

Before we go too for with this, somebody needs to verify the original PDF to insure it wasn't an OCR error.

 

[anglolawyer]

Before we go too for with this, somebody needs to verify the original PDF to insure it wasn't an OCR error.

Good point. That's why I said 'if'.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Mrs. Stefanoni denied using a suspect-centered approach in her analyses. However, there are two extra peaks in 36B that are no smaller than the smallest ones attributable to Meredith. Why did she never mention them? These sorts of questions can also be asked about the bra clasp profiles.

Thanks. Any idea on whether that indicates that she did use a suspect-centred approach, or is it not possible to tell?

 

[MichaelB]

Before we go too for with this, somebody needs to verify the original PDF to insure it wasn't an OCR error.

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

The last certain evidence of the presence of both of the defendants in the apartment of Via Garibaldi #130 consists in the human interaction on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer around 9:20 p.m.

 

[Dan O.]

If I understand DanO she was a BA in 2008 and a dottoressa in 2011. Probably a fast track education

ETA, I got curious, this is a random post

if one takes the averages it would take 5 1/2 years for undergrad, 3 years masters, and 4 years doctorate= 12 1/2 years.

Look it up, The "doctor" title for Italy comes from the first 3 year BA equivalent degree. Stefie is just a stupid lab tech.

ETA: ... and has been for some time.

==Interviews with Stefanoni==
Interview: [http://www.news.unina.it/doc/furia.pdf]

When did you graduate and what your current role?
I graduated in Biology at the Faculty of Science ' University of Naples Federico II in 1995. Currently functioning nario Technical State Police.​

 

[Samson]

I don't read a lot of Creationist literature, either.



It's not?



There may be a lot of heat, but what I'm looking for is a little light.

I would love someone like Richard Dawkins to weigh in on this case. Would you take an opinion from him seriously? My presumption is that his science accords with yours on creationism.

Why is the silence of so many qualified people so deafening, when this controversy is so uniquely solved by science?

 

[Samson]

Look it up, The "doctor" title for Italy comes from the first 3 year BA equivalent degree. Stefie is just a stupid lab tech.

ETA: ... and has been for some time.

==Interviews with Stefanoni==
Interview: [http://www.news.unina.it/doc/furia.pdf]

When did you graduate and what your current role?
I graduated in Biology at the Faculty of Science ' University of Naples Federico II in 1995. Currently functioning nario Technical State Police.​

Thanks, I should be more careful interpreting other posts. I am now extremely interested in Nencini's academic record, if there is any way of parsing it.

 

[andreajo]

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.

This is a point I have thought about frequently. Hellmann's approach was certainly a departure from the thinking that we have seen from other courts that have ruled and "motivated" in this case. In the closing remarks of his report, he addresses at some length the basis in Italian law for the requirement of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' in order to convict. From my reading of the report, it looks like a law was passed in 2006 that articulated this requirement very specifically, even though the principle was already in existence:

The term “probable” occurs a number of times even in the Public Minister’s closing argument, where this Court is expressly warned not to give too much weight to the expression “beyond all reasonable doubt”, insofar as this is supposedly — as the Public Minister argues — only a pleonastic [re]affirmation of principle, in which the legislator had simply recognized [recepito] concepts already elaborated by jurisprudence, without therefore requiring any quid pluris [Latin: "something more"] with respect to previous law in order to arrive at a conviction [condanna, i.e. guilty verdict].

The Public Minister’s argument can be accepted only in part. It is indeed true that, even before the legal affirmation of the principle in question, conviction could be declared only when the evidence against [the defendant] was such as to overcome the presumption of innocence, which informs all of [the relevant] law (Article 27, 2nd paragraph of the Constitution, but for example also the last part of C.P.P. Article 527, 3rd paragraph), so that, even in the presence of evidence against the defendant [that was, however,] not wholly sufficient, or contradictory, the verdict had to be one of acquittal. But to assert that the reformulation of C.P.P. Article 533 via the insertion of the principle in question, effected by Article 5 of the law of February 20, 2006, no. 46, was an operation of “mere aesthetic surgery”, so to speak, seems to debase the profound significance of this principle, which, instead, the legislator wished to reaffirm.

Hellmann-Zanetti Report - Conclusions
​

It does seem that there are a some Italian jurists who don't embrace this principle, but rather find it more acceptable to weave a complex narrative of guilt full of possibles, probables, compatibles and fanciful imaginings without much concern for how well the narrative matches actual real-world events. I don't know whether or not this is an Inquisitorial hangover.

 

[Dan O.]

Hey Dan O.,
Why do you reckon, in Rudy Guede's 2nd Interrogation with Prosocuter Mignini, that Rudy said NO when asked if he saw Curatolo the night Miss Kercher was brutally knifed to her death?

Rudy is simply not very aware of his surroundings. He also said he didn't know where a phone was. You know, a public phone like one would use to call for police of medical assistance, like the one next to that kiosk by the basketball court where Rudy always played.

2009-06-29 Trial testimony: Alessia Ceccarelli, the "fidanzata" of the owner of the kiosk of Piazza Grimana told the tribunal that in the morning of November 2, at about 7-7:30 a.m., she noticed the presence of a young man who shouted at the phone "ti ammazzo puttana" (I will kill you, bitch/whore). She said that this boy had a white woollen berret, a dark jacket and jeans, and the right hand "dirty with blood".
​

 

[Chris_Halkides]

They are stutter peaks if I say so; I am a doctor.

Thanks. Any idea on whether that indicates that she did use a suspect-centred approach, or is it not possible to tell?

My understanding is that she invoked stutter peaks at the +1 position (rather than the usual -1 position) on one or more occasions to explain away inconvenient peaks in the autosomal profile associated with the clasp. That she had the reference profiles in hand while doing this is a pretty reasonable inference. MOO.

 

[js202]

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

My understanding is that she invoked stutter peaks at the +1 position (rather than the usual -1 position) on one or more occasions to explain away inconvenient peaks in the autosomal profile associated with the clasp. That she had the reference profiles in hand while doing this is a pretty reasonable inference. MOO.

Cast in this light, Ms. Stefanoni's ways call to mind nothing so much as the methodology of a legendarily corrupt American president...

 

[Diocletus]

Look it up, The "doctor" title for Italy comes from the first 3 year BA equivalent degree. Stefie is just a stupid lab tech.

ETA: ... and has been for some time.

==Interviews with Stefanoni==
Interview: [http://www.news.unina.it/doc/furia.pdf]

When did you graduate and what your current role?
I graduated in Biology at the Faculty of Science ' University of Naples Federico II in 1995. Currently functioning nario Technical State Police.​

Oh, he's clearly lying. Whenever the precise time is available but not helpful for his story, he says that the time was "about" and them picks a round number that makes his story feasible.

Very amateurish stuff.

Whoops. I replied to the wrong comment. This is in response to whether Nencini is really pulling this stupid trick.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

And speaking of disinformation......

It might be good if you were then to outline the shortcomings of Judge Massei's motivations report. Take your time.

So far, Judge Massei and Judge Nencini are at opposite ends, both of them needed to re-invent the crime that they were presented with by prosecutors.

Massei heard about ritualistic killings to do with Hallowe'en, and when that didn't seem plausible, he heard about sex-games gone wrong.

Massei changed it all to write a scenario where it was Rudy's lust, and Rudy's lust alone which triggered this crime. Massei wrote that Knox and Sollecito inexplicably as people with no known psychopathology made a "choice for evil".

Nencini heard about two flat-mates quarrelling over the cleanliness of the cottage, particularly the pooh left in Laura/Filomena's toilet at the other end of the flat.

Nencini changed it to an argument over rent money - the sole source of that factoid is Rudy Guede, who now (instead of being the initiator of hostilities as per Massei) now does not even hold a knife according to Nencini (leaving the cut marks on Guede's hands unexplained.

Massei and Nencini differ radically on their use of "procedural facts". Massei at least has the decency to write about all the options relevant to a trial solely with Knox and Sollecito in mind.

Nencini adopts as "procedural facts" issues imported from Guede's fast track trial. It is suggested that Nencini had been order to do this by Cassazione.

Massei sees Rudy Guede as the aggressor and initiator of this crime. Nencini sees him as an innocent bystander, as well as the sole source of many of the factoids.

And your contribution to this is to provide disinformation....

"Nencini has already answered, more extensively and correctly than Massei."​

With all due respect, Nencini has reinvented the crime according to Cassazione's wishes so that the party of the PMs will win this, just as Judge Hellmann warned.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, indeed. He had cuts to his hands which he himself said were caused that night. His version is clearly not accepted by Nencini so instead it seems reasonable to put a knife in his hands especially as his cuts are of the classic variety described by Steve Moore. Nencini must conclude that Rudy cut his hands after he went to Germany because his friends did not report these cuts. I wonder how he got them in that case. He must have made up the story to buttress his claim of struggling with an intruder.

Now, this maybe links up with something RWVBWL posted - Rudy wanted the towels tested (did I read that aright?) and my guess is he wanted to prove that his blood was on them along with hers. Now, why wasn't that useful evidence preserved in a state in which his claim could be verified? Was it:

A incompetence or
B fraud?

Let's think. Stefanoni is a PhD says Mach and a truly top scientist. So it can't be A.

If it was fraud then we have a possible reason why the towels were improperly stored. Rudy was not going to be able to use them to back up his claim that he fought with Raffaele because that did not fit the original crime theory of three perps but with the wrong black guy. After all, that might make the cops look like idiots.

So maybe Rudy was framed too, as in my scenario C from yesterday:

C a bona fide crime theory is supported by fabricated evidence (which includes deliberately destroyed evidence).

Problem is that it is a "procedural fact" that Rudy was not cut before he left for Germany. That is, it is a fact decided in a different judicial proceeding (Guede's trial), which is deemed to collaterally estop Knox and Sollecito in their trial.

The evidence upon which this judicial finding was made appears to consist of out-of-court statements to the police, that two or three of Guede's friends made, to the effect that they didn't notice cuts on Guede's hand before he left, although there is no testimony that they ever look at his hands and the court admits that there are reasons (failure to report) for these friends to deny knowledge of any such cuts.

This is clown-show justice.