Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Yes all true. Did you notice the document fax cover was dated 1/26/08 but the fax date stamp was 1/24/08.

I'm beginning to see how Mussolini made the trains run on time; he just altered the clocks or if need be the date

No, I did not notice that. Wish we had the trial file index to see what came after these pages.

ETA looking again, I think you are mis-reading a 4 as a 6 with that date thing.

 

[Machiavelli]

When an expert like, just as an example, Dr Peter Gill goes about confirming or rejecting a hypothesis, he dispassionately looks at the data and follows that where it leads him. If the data rejects his hypothesis, he recalibrates and starts over. (...)

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

 

[Grinder]

No, I did not notice that. Wish we had the trial file index to see what came after these pages.

ETA looking again, I think you are mis-reading a 4 as a 6 with that date thing.

I can see that. go M's

 

[platonov]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

While this is salient* there is a bigger problem with Gill's 'analysis'.

Leaving aside the fact that the DNA evidence is but part of the prosecution case ...
Gill claimed on UK radio that the knife was transported in a box that that had a 'connection' with MK - which would be an obvious source of possible contamination.

Given that this is the kind of nonsense that is ridiculed/ignored on this thread as typical groupie invention it renders any further opinions of his on this case as ill-informed or dishonest.

*Obviously experts can opine on forensic techniques etc without necessarily taking the stand but public statements like this mean their opinions can be dismissed as mere noise.

 

[Annella]

Chris Halkides rescued me, it was Federico Aldrovandi.

Here's a little from Maresca, pushing the idea the injuries had nothing to do with the death, it was the small amount of cocaine in his system:



Here's one which includes a picture, it's not the one I'm thinking of. I think the picture I was thinking of was the one of the guy who was thrown out the window and they claimed it was suicide, maybe his name started with Stephan?

There is also the case of Stefano Cucchi....

http://strugglesinitaly.wordpress.c...chi-killed-by-police-and-drug-prohibitionism/

 

[Grinder]

Are there any non prosecution related experts that think Stefanoni's work stands up?

If so, are there any from outside Italy?

If Gill's mistake about is true does that make his analysis without merit on all points? Would the same standard be demanded of judges?

Where besides C&V or the defense (assumed even worse) could Gill or any other experts get the data they needed?

 

[js202]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

Why am I not surprised by this special pleading? Gill referred to the evidence in the case as fatally flawed. From his lofty perch, the idiot Ergon assessed Dr Gill's conclusion as "disappointing."

Neither you nor Ergon have the standing, credentials, or intellectual honesty to refute Gill, and you are as dead wrong about this case as you have been from the beginning.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't remember this, nor being involved in any discussion recently regarding bleach receipts outside mentioning them. I did just find out that apparently it was corrected in Italian papers after reporting:



However that correction in the first link includes this little gem:



Even though there's no receipts they still claim bleach was purchased and that it was used on the knife! Outside the idiocy of thinking it would take two bottles of bleach to clean a knife (!) there's the fact they had to know that bleach wasn't used on the knife because they had already claimed to have found DNA on it! They just replaced one lie with another.

It is something completely different fro what you originally claimed, though. That to think about the use of bleach is idiotic, just because DNA was found on it, is your opinion, from which some may respectfully disagree. It was also noticed that one receipt was subsequent to the murder, this may be unimportant but you should also understand that investigations are by nature full of tentatives and false tracks. It is normal that many suppositions and scenarios are drawn, that elements attract attention and are seen as suspicious. We are talking about investigators who are already convinced to have evidence against the suspects, so they focus on any small detail.
You may say they were on a false track by that's not what was contended by you and other pro-Knoxes. What you contended was that 1.the police disingenuously played the media by leaking information they knew was false, with the purpose of influencing the public opinion and 2.the media conveyed uncritically what the police said so to portray a picture of the case investigation different from what it was.
The claims are obviously false because the analysis of press report shows the press coverage was accurate, and also balanced meaning a significant space is given to defence declarations and rebuttals. Just talking about this detail alone. You can see, when you zero on the detail, that the Italian public was informed correctly about the ongoing investigation.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is also the case of Stefano Cucchi....

http://strugglesinitaly.wordpress.c...chi-killed-by-police-and-drug-prohibitionism/

Stefano Cucchi case may be interesting for what "friends" Vecchiotti & Albarello " discovered" about Cucchi's vertebrae fractures.

 

[acbytesla]

It is something completely different fro what you originally claimed, though. That to think about the use of bleach is idiotic, just because DNA was found on it, is your opinion, from which some may respectfully disagree. It was also noticed that one receipt was subsequent to the murder, this may be unimportant but you should also understand that investigations are by nature full of tentatives and false tracks. It is normal that many suppositions and scenarios are drawn, that elements attract attention and are seen as suspicious. We are talking about investigators who are already convinced to have evidence against the suspects, so they focus on any small detail.
You may say they were on a false track by that's not what was contended by you and other pro-Knoxes. What you contended was that 1.the police disingenuously played the media by leaking information they knew was false, with the purpose of influencing the public opinion and 2.the media conveyed uncritically what the police said so to portray a picture of the case investigation different from what it was.
The claims are obviously false because the analysis of press report shows the press coverage was accurate, and also balanced meaning a significant space is given to defence declarations and rebuttals. Just talking about this detail alone. You can see, when you zero on the detail, that the Italian public was informed correctly about the ongoing investigation.

You know it is one thing for investigators to go through tentatives or false tracks. It is another to report them all to the media.

 

[Kaosium]

It is something completely different fro what you originally claimed, though.

What did I originally claim? The only thing I recall mentioning about the bleach receipts recently was in a litany of mis/disinformation produced by ILE. Now I know that in Italian papers they did indeed correct this error, but I didn't know that being as I don't speak Italian and all. Isn't it your job to link the articles you can read and I can't and shove them in my arrogant ugly-American face? Why did you fail in your duties all these years?

p)


However, all it amounts to is me just changing that line in the litany from 'bleach receipts' to pretending they still bought bleach despite the fact they knew the receipts weren't used for bleach and did indeed correct that. If it had caused them to change their mind on bleach being used despite the receipts not being bleach, not being the morning after the murder and the fact they recovered DNA from the knife eliminating the possibility bleach had been used on it, that would be another thing, but they didn't do that, they kept the lie about the bleach alive instead and still claimed it was used on the knife.

That to think about the use of bleach is idiotic, just because DNA was found on it, is your opinion, from which some may respectfully disagree.

If bleach was used, they could not have recovered DNA from the knife. Bleach is the best decontaminant in use in labs, the main reason it's not used everywhere is it's nasty corrosive stuff if you use it every day.

Currently the most effective disinfectant used to sterilize surfaces and instruments in a forensic laboratory is a 10% chlorine bleach solution.

If you read through that paper you'll see they compare bleach to other decontaminants to see how well it destroys DNA. You'll find not only does bleach do an effective job eliminating DNA, it does even more than that: it inhibits the PCR process so you cannot get DNA results from something that has been even cursorily cleaned with bleach. Note the 'cleaning' they did amounted to nothing more than either spraying some decontaminant on and waiting five minutes, or doing that and then wiping just enough to remove visible traces from tile.

If you do read the paper you'll see they got no results at all from anything that had been exposed to bleach, with one exception. They did manage to get a low level result from already amplified DNA. Before you get too excited about that allow me to remind you what already amplified DNA is:

Lab contamination.

It was also noticed that one receipt was subsequent to the murder, this may be unimportant but you should also understand that investigations are by nature full of tentatives and false tracks. It is normal that many suppositions and scenarios are drawn, that elements attract attention and are seen as suspicious. We are talking about investigators who are already convinced to have evidence against the suspects, so they focus on any small detail.


You may say they were on a false track by that's not what was contended by you and other pro-Knoxes. What you contended was that 1.the police disingenuously played the media by leaking information they knew was false, with the purpose of influencing the public opinion and 2.the media conveyed uncritically what the police said so to portray a picture of the case investigation different from what it was.

The claims are obviously false because the analysis of press report shows the press coverage was accurate, and also balanced meaning a significant space is given to defence declarations and rebuttals. Just talking about this detail alone. You can see, when you zero on the detail, that the Italian public was informed correctly about the ongoing investigation.

No, that's not balanced at all. Producing a plethora of false or misleading 'evidence' and then 'correcting' some of it still has the effect of giving a very mistaken impression. Now were the defense and/or press allowed to say things like 'all the mistakes the police made and the things they're still lying/mistaken about prove we're dealing with incompetent dolts who should be investigated themselves for not dropping the case they have obviously made so many mistakes regarding' it might be different. But the ones who tried anything close to that found themselves the targets of 'investigations' themselves. BTW, what happened to those? Bene, Telenorba, the Sollectitos, Amanda's parents etc?

There's also the fact some of this crap was used in courts, such as Amanda's sweatshirt, or 'discovered' just as an important court date arrived like the Harry Potter book.

 

[Kaosium]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

This claim needs a citation.

 

[Kaosium]

There is also the case of Stefano Cucchi....

http://strugglesinitaly.wordpress.c...chi-killed-by-police-and-drug-prohibitionism/

Thank you Annella, that's the one I was thinking of and got mixed up on. The parallels to the other case are spooky, with the police trying to claim he died of drugs and not the brutal beating they administered.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

We all know?

 

[Kaosium]

While this is salient* there is a bigger problem with Gill's 'analysis'.

Leaving aside the fact that the DNA evidence is but part of the prosecution case ...
Gill claimed on UK radio that the knife was transported in a box that that had a 'connection' with MK - which would be an obvious source of possible contamination.

Given that this is the kind of nonsense that is ridiculed/ignored on this thread as typical groupie invention it renders any further opinions of his on this case as ill-informed or dishonest.

*Obviously experts can opine on forensic techniques etc without necessarily taking the stand but public statements like this mean their opinions can be dismissed as mere noise.

That's ridiculous. The storage container and how it was employed is indeed a possible source of contamination in this case. Just because you don't like how he put it when talking off the cuff but ignore that the essence was correct doesn't score you any points in your attempt to dismiss the analysis of one of the very top scientists in his field. That's a pathetic display of bias.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's ridiculous. The storage container and how it was employed is indeed a possible source of contamination in this case. Just because you don't like how he put it when talking off the cuff but ignore that the essence was correct doesn't score you any points in your attempt to dismiss the analysis of one of the very top scientists in his field. That's a pathetic display of bias.

If I understand, Peter Gill is British not American. As such, even if you argue that American forensic scientists are biases, this is not valid with him. Meredeth was also British so if he had a national bias, you woudl expect it to go that way.

We likely will never know how for sure how the knife may have been contaminated however there are multiple routes including the box. Simple fact is that if a chain of custody and care of an item cannot be accounted for, contamination is quite likely.

 

[acbytesla]

I really am starting to hate this discussion. Time and time again, I read the silly arguments that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. But the arguments lack integrity and always seems to be little games of gotcha as opposed to real discussion of the evidence. Nonsense arguments and sophistry vs solid physical evidence and logic.

 

[Samson]

I really am starting to hate this discussion. Time and time again, I read the silly arguments that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. But the arguments lack integrity and always seems to be little games of gotcha as opposed to real discussion of the evidence. Nonsense arguments and sophistry vs solid physical evidence and logic.

I quite like this summary from PMF, because it is sincere and well intentioned.

Much more. Sollecito's footprint, the smaller knife wound, the fact three people are needed to produce the injuries sustained by Meredith, the knife found in his kitchen, the blood traces in his apartment, that he was seen with Knox by two people near the cottage the night of the murder, that Guede stated he and Knox killed Meredith, that Sollecito lied about his whereabouts that night, that he turned his phone off that night, that he had a knife fetish, that he wanted to experience wild things, that he withdrew his alibi for Knox, that he was worried about what Guede might say about him, that he lied in court about pricking Meredith with the knife, that he lied about the112 calls, etc.

With all of that (and more) you could throw out 165B and still be left with an extremely strong case.

The problem is you can throw out everything in his list, so he only has 165B.

 

[kwill]

I quite like this summary from PMF, because it is sincere and well intentioned.

Much more. Sollecito's footprint, the smaller knife wound, the fact three people are needed to produce the injuries sustained by Meredith, the knife found in his kitchen, the blood traces in his apartment, that he was seen with Knox by two people near the cottage the night of the murder, that Guede stated he and Knox killed Meredith, that Sollecito lied about his whereabouts that night, that he turned his phone off that night, that he had a knife fetish, that he wanted to experience wild things, that he withdrew his alibi for Knox, that he was worried about what Guede might say about him, that he lied in court about pricking Meredith with the knife, that he lied about the112 calls, etc.

With all of that (and more) you could throw out 165B and still be left with an extremely strong case.

The problem is you can throw out everything in his list, so he only has 165B.

omg . . . what a list. That is a truly astonishing mashup of flat wrong + meaningless trivia.

165B, all alone, would be convincing if it had been properly collected, tested according to standards, and stored correctly AND had only RS, MK, RG, AK Dna on it.

But it wasn't, and it didn't, so it's not convincing. And everything else on that list is garbage. Who are these people???

 

[Samson]

omg . . . what a list. That is a truly astonishing mashup of flat wrong + meaningless trivia.

165B, all alone, would be convincing if it had been properly collected, tested according to standards, and stored correctly AND had only RS, MK, RG, AK Dna on it.

But it wasn't, and it didn't, so it's not convincing. And everything else on that list is garbage. Who are these people???

The reason I call him sincere is because I don't recall this contributor engaging in the hate thing. The list is useful because every item has a straightforward explanation (this is axiomatic)

There is a key to unlock this case, someone will find it soon.

ETA I do not believe there is an innocent explanation for 165B. I am satisfied it is planted, because this is a straightforward explanation. Noble cause corruption.
A short extract from wiki

Types of misconduct include false confession, false arrest, falsified evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, and off-duty misconduct.[4] Others include:
Noble cause corruption, where the officer believes the good outcomes justify bad behavior[5]