Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strozzi said:
christianahannah, I may be able to help clarify Dan O's comment that the Kerchers thought of Rudy as almost family. DanO is making a reference to some discussions on this board a year ago.

In Italy 'good' girls do not have sexual contact with their boyfriends :jaw-dropp. If they do, Italians in polite society refer to the young woman and man as "fiancee", whether or not they are engaged.

(....)
Click to expand...

This goes beyond complete ridiculous.

If this is the imaginary world you live in, it might explain something of the rest of your prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
The highlighted part doesn't exist in Stefanoni's letter, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
What may be suggested implicitly in Stefanoni's letter, is that Pascali may think that Stefanoni is a fraud (not that Micheli thinks so).

What Stefanoni then states - textually, and nothing more than this - is that the log files are not indispensable to an expert, but if the judge decides to release them then she is ready to present them; in that event they shall be viewed under controlled conditions (through some adversarial procedure).
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent that the log files aren't important for the profiles for which she provided printed egrams already. But, they are crucial to understanding the many, many amplifications that she has suppressed. That's why she is fighting tooth and nail to hide the raw data.
 
Diocletus said:
I agree to some extent that the log files aren't important for the profiles for which she provided printed egrams already. But, they are crucial to understanding the many, many amplifications that she has suppressed. That's why she is fighting tooth and nail to hide the raw data.
Click to expand...

But you have already fallen into a gross contradiction the last time you tried to construe a theory of why and how she "suppressed" plate "365" (which she run before the one recording the knife profile).

On the other hand, in 2008 she wrote she will allow Pascali to see the log files he requested.

I point out, moreover, that the defence did not present any request motivated by their need to see the data about other profiles.
Novelli did look at those files, in 2011 when Hellmann re-opened the evidence analysis. And he found a negative result for contamination. The defence on the other hand did not attempt to perform such investigation on those files.
 
Last edited:
my best guess about the Kercher family

Diocletus said:
I would like to be able to attribute the motivation of greed to the Kerchers, because I believe that their conduct has been repulsive. But, I don't think that maresca, or by extension the Kerchers, actually believe that they will ever see a cent from Knox or Sollecito.
Click to expand...
Diocletus,

I think that they might be experiencing cognitive dissonance. They cannot imagine that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, because of the implications that innocence would have for their actions.
 
Strozzi said:
christianahannah, I may be able to help clarify Dan O's comment that the Kerchers thought of Rudy as almost family. Dan O is making a reference to some discussions on this board a year ago.

In Italy 'good' girls do not have sexual contact with their boyfriends. If they do, Italians in polite society refer to the young woman and man as "fiancee", whether or not they are engaged.

During a discussion of Kercher family lawyer Maresca's efforts to oppose Knox's and Sollecito's attempts to get the court to compel Guede to testify and be cross-examined, someone asked why the Kerchers (through their lawyer) were protecting Guede. Someone quipped that perhaps the Kerchers thought of Rudy as "almost family".

It was dark humor.
Click to expand...


More makey-uppy stuff which like Numbers interpreted DanO's statement about Guede being "almost family" for the Kerchers as satirical
are completely at odds with the reality as the links are in my post 1295 makes clear.

Chutzpah doesn't quite describe it. Denial perhaps.

Although the defence of Dan O's comment has changed in nature it seems.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
This goes beyond complete ridiculous.

If this is the imaginary world you live in, it might explain something of the rest of your prejudice.
Click to expand...

Before you go too far down this rabbit hole of Strozzi's very recent invention the links are in my post.
 
Last edited:
transparency in forensics

Keith Inman and Norah Rudin gave ten ways to improve forensic science. Number five was “Provide transparency. Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results, procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled and appropriate scrutiny.”

Fiona Ness interviewed Greg Hampikian in 2010: "‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.”
 
Machiavelli said:
But you have already fallen into a gross contradiction the last time you tried to construe a theory of why and how she "suppressed" plate "365" (which she run before the one recording the knife profile).

On the other hand, in 2008 she wrote she will allow Pascali to see the log files he requested.

I point out, moreover, that the defence did not present any request motivated by their need to see the data about other profiles.
Novelli did look at those files, in 2011 when Hellmann re-opened the evidence analysis. And he found a negative result for contamination. The defence on the other hand did not attempt to perform such investigation on those files.
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction. She has suppressed plate no 365.

Moreover, 2008 was much different than 2015. In 2008, the suppressed profiles could have been discovered and not much would have happened to her. In 2015, if the suppressed profiles are discovered, she should go to jail.

Novelli only looked at profiles from other cases or what stefanoni gave him. He wasn't interested in seeing the suppressed profiles or the truth. His work is worthless.
 
Diocletus said:
There is no contradiction. She has suppressed plate no 365.

Moreover, 2008 was much different than 2015. In 2008, the suppressed profiles could have been discovered and not much would have happened to her. In 2015, if the suppressed profiles are discovered, she should go to jail.

Novelli only looked at profiles from other cases or what stefanoni gave him. He wasn't interested in seeing the suppressed profiles or the truth. His work is worthless.
Click to expand...

Have you read Novelli's report? If so, where do you find he is in error?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Keith Inman and Norah Rudin gave ten ways to improve forensic science. Number five was “Provide transparency. Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results, procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled and appropriate scrutiny.”

Fiona Ness interviewed Greg Hampikian in 2010: "‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.”
Click to expand...

Could the reason he wasn't given access to the documentation is because he wasn't recognized as an expert (for the defense) by the court? I don't know if that is the reason but it's possible.
 
christianahannah said:
Have you read Novelli's report? If so, where do you find he is in error?
Click to expand...

What do you make of the variance between the link(s) I provided and Strozzi’s and others explanations.
Or can you make anything of it. Perhaps like Raffy’s recent TV appearance it’s difficult to offer an opinion ?
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Keith Inman and Norah Rudin gave ten ways to improve forensic science. Number five was “Provide transparency. Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results, procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled and appropriate scrutiny.”

Fiona Ness interviewed Greg Hampikian in 2010: "‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.”
Click to expand...

One has to wonder about the argument of special Italian science. . . .There is only one way to do science though.
 
Diocletus said:
There is no contradiction. She has suppressed plate no 365.

Moreover, 2008 was much different than 2015. In 2008, the suppressed profiles could have been discovered and not much would have happened to her. In 2015, if the suppressed profiles are discovered, she should go to jail.

Novelli only looked at profiles from other cases or what stefanoni gave him. He wasn't interested in seeing the suppressed profiles or the truth. His work is worthless.
Click to expand...

The inconsistency is gross (maybe even bigger than your belief that superficial bruises will likely occur in a person who is dying of hypovolemic shock).

This was the first post in which I pointed out the inconsistency in your "365bis" theory this was the second.

I point out that the fundamental implication of your theory is: what you are saying is that plate 365 showed contamination in negative controls.

By using the word "suppressed", in fact what you do by your implications is to assume that negative controls showed contamination from Meredith's profile in plate 365.

But if you assume that, then you need to explain how is it possible that the run recorded on plate 365bis, and witnessed by Potenza, had no contamination in negative controls, despite this - along your theory - would have been contaminated by an agent already that was detected in 365.

In other words, what you are sayin is that a contaminating agent that doesn't show up in 365bis, did show up in another plate instead.

But also, you should explain why Potenza didn't see the run recorded on 365; because you need to take in account that - as for your theory - Stefanoni decided to hide it prior to the test witnessed by Potenza (she already did it; otherwise there would be no need to name it with a subsequent number). Can't you see a contradiction on this one neither? How could Stefanoni know in advance that the contaminating agent wouldn't show up during the negative controls of the test which was being witnessed by Potenza (given that it had already shown up in the negative controls of 365)?

Finally I also noted that the logical deduction that a record has been suppressed from its plate number is also, itself something particularly idiotic. Imagine you really wanted to suppress and destroy the paper n. 365, and you intended to forge a result. What would you do? Any intelligent person would destroy the record "356" and produce a new " 365 " to replace it, rather than a new document with a successive number.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
What do you make of the variance between the link(s) I provided and Strozzi’s and others explanations.
Or can you make anything of it. Perhaps like Raffy’s recent TV appearance it’s difficult to offer an opinion ?
Click to expand...

I don't think any of the comments are are necessarily believed by the commenters but rather posted for shock value and/or to get a reaction from others.

It is possible that the comments are deliberately derogatory and intended to hurt and insult. If so, one can only hope that those kinds of sentiments will eventually disappear from the public realm (sooner rather than later).

I did smile and smh at Strozzi's explanation about good girls in Italy.
 
christianahannah said:
Could the reason he wasn't given access to the documentation is because he wasn't recognized as an expert (for the defense) by the court? I don't know if that is the reason but it's possible.
Click to expand...

It's also possible that the reason is the same for every other request that stefanoni and commodi refused to respond to: they didn't want the defense to have information that could be used to undermine the prosecution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom