Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

In the "fact department", what you said was clear. Please give this up. Move on.

You give it up and stop making up stuff attributing to others things they didn't say. What I said is written below:

This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the "fact department", what you said was clear. Please give this up. Move on.

In the "fact department" you are building stupid straw men.

Machiavelli - post #49 (this continuation) - "Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone."

Machiavelli - post #796 (this continuation) - "I never stated she walked home alone. This is the third time I repeat that is not what I was saying.

I said that she was alone, and that if it was not for Sollecito who picked her she would have walked home alone."

Machiavelli - for the third time - she was with the Greek guy, Spiros. Is this now some sort of dietrology on the meaning of the word, "alone"? Is a woman in Italy technically-alone, if not accompanied by a another woman, just a man? My view is you just say whatever you want, to fit the confirmation bias you are presenting at any one time.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a complete fantasist post, reminiscent of Mignini's closing in 2009, where he, too, over-psychologized Amanda Knox.....

...... an over-psychologization which Judge Massei ignored completely in his motivations report, adopting instead a new "theory of the crime", one that Mignini, the prosecutor, never made reference to.

That's the problem with the "judicial truths" generated by the Italian system (exception is Hellmann's court) - they can just make up things. If a judge (or the judge-panel) simply listens to the evidence (or lack of same) they acquit.

If they go off on flights of fancy, and start making stuff up (Nencini: Raff's DNA found on the knife (!), Amanda's shoeprint found in the murder room (!)), then they convict.

Machiavelli is just following their form. In Italy judicial truths don't have to actually have to be based on actual truths. Remember, this is the same country that imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth even though they KNEW it doesn't.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just for fun, this is what Candace Dempsey said about the narcissistic ear-ring copying back in 2010:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...de-murder-in-italy-the-major-new-amanda-book/

Ahhhh. So here's someone saying that Meredith herself is the source of the "exact copying." Also that Meredith thought Amanda was strange, and liked to talk about that with her friends. That loud American. So oblivious to what English women think is cool. Good gossip. I'm still giving Meredith the benefit of the doubt on this one. She may have said these things with a laugh, not even dreaming that they were anything but funny stories about her interesting housemates. Repeating them second hand, though? That's catty.
(...)

No, that's just right and honest. It's just what a truthful witness is expected to do.

There are, of course, also other things the English girl witnessed themselves.
But what Mereith and her friends report is not that "Amanda was loud", what they say is "Amanda was strange".
The fact that she started to sing alone inside a restaurant is not something that makes them thing about her loudness. It makes them feel she has an empathy problem with people and context surrounding her.
Amanda's lack of "touch" with surrounding environment is described in multiple different episodes by witnesses from different cultures and different contexts.
Reports like "Amanda always talked about herself" is not the same of "being loud".

 

[Kaosium]

This is a completely moot, almost idiotic argument. Draw your own exegesis from a motivations report - or better, from what is missing (!) from a motivations report - when we have the actual trial transcripts.
You'd better start to learn a bit of the real trial.

Then post the cite. I know the prosecution must have rebutted, I also know Massei didn't see fit to include it. He did that a lot with dubious prosecution statements and arguments, the idiocy that Raffaele called 1-1-2 before the Carabineri got there didn't get anything more than a parenthetical aside.

What are you talking about? Do you really have judge Micheli's motivations reports? I doubt that. I think you are making big confusion even between motivations reports from different judges.

So now you're saying that statement was made before Micheli and not Massei? That rather undermines your argument don't you think?

Moreover, it is absolutely false that she ever denied having done TMB tests on the lumnol prints in court.
This is another bit of making up stuff. Yes this is the real making up stuff.

I didn't make it up, I posted the cite from Massei. Now post the rebuttal and we can discuss this further, or you can just keep denying and counter-accusing and lying and see just who you can keep fooled without posting any evidence.

This is nothing but your opinion. She said they made trials and determined that most times luminol stains that are actually blood would yield false negatives on confirmatory tests.

That would be nothing but opinion, or a lie by a corrupt forensic scientist. Did you wonder why she didn't write up a paper on her 'discovery' that would have rocked the forensic science world if she'd actually discovered this?

And anyway, we all know that TMB tests are logically irrelevant, because TMB is less sensitive and less specific and because they react to the same array of false negatives, there are no substances known to be reactive to luminol but not to TMB, certainly no substance with such property is known as probable or plausible for bare footprints.

You have been corrected so many times on this with links to scientific papers and forensic science textbooks it's amazing you still make this claim which can be shown to be dubious by the simple fact that the forensic police did them, just like they do in many organizations all around the world, including (obviously) the Polizia Scientifica and the FBI.

You are making up stuff again. I explained it once, but that was obvious to those who read the transcript, but above all to those who were there and could see Maori using his laser pen.

Post the cite.

You are the one lying here. You only make up stuff. Stefanoni was absolutely never caught lying.

Yes she was, I posted the proof of that from the C&V report.

The prosecution never tried to hide them, and was never "caught". They said yes" when they were requested. That's what's in the records.
There's nothing but this in the trial papers.



Absolutely false that she ever tried to give an impression that it was a high template sample. She maintained the plain contrary of that.

She claimed the amount quantified was 'hundreds of picograms' and that she'd quantified that through Real Time PCR. That would mean it was not a low template sample and the fact that (again) she was caught and had to admit it was low template doesn't excuse the lying and the hiding of data she did in order to preserve her lie.

And your wild allegation doesn't make sense on a sheer logical level neither, because 1. the Fluorimeter she actually used was actually a less sensitive method thant PCR, which implies a higher detection threshold and thus a higher template. and 2. prof. Potenza was there and he coudld assist the test.

That is so idiotic I don't know where to start. Claiming that because she got no reading from the Qubit Fluorometer implies a higher template is akin to saying that a microscopic particle must be bigger if you can't determine its size with a yardstick as opposed to a (foot long) ruler.

I don't know what Potenza did but I do recall his analysis of Stefanoni's work was scathing. It is also apparent he realized that Stefanoni was lying about her interpretation of the bra clasp.

Hiding what? She openly stated that the bra clasp was a mixture of multiple contributors.

Yeah, but only showed the alleles that contributed to Raffaele and Meredith's profile and tried to pretend the rest was 'stutter.'

And hiding what data? She provided herself the electropherograms in Oct. 2008, the defence could see all the peaks and their heights.

No, she didn't, I've already gone through this and showed you the electropherograms she produced and how they didn't even have peak heights at that juncture.

Those are disgusting and crazy allegation, manifestly unfounded to anyone has eyes to read the trial papers. I don't know why you are caught in this bubble of delusion frankly.

Because I took the time to try to learn something about this subject so I could determine who was telling the truth about it. There were about seven DNA scientists who protested it with a letter to the court at the end of the the first trial, the Italian court-appointed experts determined the work was invalid and as of late the genius who helped pioneer this field devoted a chapter to how poor this DNA work was and has started actively campaigning against Stefanoni's dreadful work on this case.

It is gobsmacking that anyone still takes that DNA work seriously and a testament to the fact that the prosecution must figure that as long as they keep lying someone will believe them thus there's no incentive to ever tell the truth or admit to anything.

But that's your problem, and you're a victim of them too, you just don't realize it yet.

.

Nobody was caught (except Vecchiotti). Stefanoni provided all this information herself in 2008.

I've already posted these cites, quit simply denying and start posting cites or eventually people will realize what you're up to...

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli - post #49 (this continuation) - "Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone."

Machiavelli - post #796 (this continuation) - "I never stated she walked home alone. This is the third time I repeat that is not what I was saying.

I said that she was alone, and that if it was not for Sollecito who picked her she would have walked home alone."

Machiavelli - for the third time - she was with the Greek guy, Spiros. Is this now some sort of dietrology on the meaning of the word, "alone"? Is a woman in Italy technically-alone, if not accompanied by a another woman, just a man? My view is you just say whatever you want, to fit the confirmation bias you are presenting at any one time.

Thanks Bill for posting this. It's more proof that Mach lies and then lies about the fact that he lied earlier.

Sadly, this has been his modus operandi for as long as has been posting in this forum. So many of his arguments are based on total fabrications. It would be one thing if he made an error, admitted it and never relied on the disproven point in his arguments after that. But no, he comes up with excuses but still says his logic which was based on a falsehood is sound.
What is doubly sad is that he will almost assuredly repeat his lies again sometime in the future to make his argument sound sane

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - post #49 (this continuation) - "Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone."

But in post #23 (which is before #49) I had already made clear that she had walked home together with Sollecito:

This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.

So when you read an expression like "she found herself walking home alone" you should interpret it along with the previous explanation, where it's more clear. This "found herself doing" is maybe not that clear in English as it is a calque from an Italian form (she found herself in that condition, before that reality, prospective) but what I meant to say should be clear since I had already explained it in post #23.

You are sweeping post #23 under the carpet.

Machiavelli - for the third time - she was with the Greek guy, Spiros. Is this now some sort of dietrology on the meaning of the word, "alone"? Is a woman in Italy technically-alone, if not accompanied by a another woman, just a man?

No, she was alone, meaning she was lonely, she had no person whom she wanted to be together with. There's nothing "technical" in Italian culture about that, and has nothing to do with that. She just didn't really want to go home with Spyros. It's not what she wanted to do. And she admits she was not enjoying herself with Spyros.
And Sollecito tells us about her sms to Meredith, and her not calling back, so we must conclude it was something important to Amanda. Otherwise he wouldn't even know about that.
Her sms exchange tells us she wants to meet with Meredith. She doesn't want to meet Spyros that much. Yes she asks Spyros the day before if he wants to meet her "in the afternoon", but it's Spyros the one who calls her or texts her first.
Amanda Knox that night is looking for Meredith.

 

[Matthew Best]

When I said she was "alone" I didn't mean she was "alone". Isn't this obvious?

 

[Bill Williams]

But in post #23 (which is before #49) I had already made clear that she had walked home together with Sollecito:



So when you read an expression like "she found herself walking home alone" you should interpret it along with the previous explanation, where it's more clear. This "found herself doing" is maybe not that clear in English as it is a calque from an Italian form (she found herself in that condition, before that reality, prospective) but what I meant to say should be clear since I had already explained it in post #23.

You are sweeping post #23 under the carpet.



No, she was alone, meaning she was lonely, she had no person whom she wanted to be together with. There's nothing "technical" in Italian culture about that, and has nothing to do with that. She just didn't really want to go home with Spyros. It's not what she wanted to do. And she admits she was not enjoying herself with Spyros.
And Sollecito tells us about her sms to Meredith, and her not calling back, so we must conclude it was something important to Amanda. Otherwise he wouldn't even know about that.
Her sms exchange tells us she wants to meet with Meredith. She doesn't want to meet Spyros that much. Yes she asks Spyros the day before if he wants to meet her "in the afternoon", but it's Spyros the one who calls her or texts her first.
Amanda Knox that night is looking for Meredith.

Unlike other posters on this forum, I do not believe you are a liar.

I believe you are confirmation biased. Even with the explanation you provide above, you are showing that your writing style is simply to end up at the conclusion that you started with.

Yes, that's right. You start with the conclusion, then say a bunch of things, and then miraculously arrive back at the conclusion you'd assumed to get there.

It is often not obvious that you do this. However, on this rather unimportant factoid, you have tripped yourself up. You wish to construct an argument that Knox was "strange", was "lonely", not because every one of us, you and me included, can be seen as strange at times and as exhibiting lonely behaviour at times.....

...... this is called being human......

You construct this argument to bolster, in the end, your preconceived notion that Knox was a psychopathological killer. Don't deny it. You usually dance around this with plenty of posts where you claim that any undiagnosed-opinion of her psychopathology is just that - an amateur, arm-chair contention among competing posters on a forum such as this one.

What I'd like to return to is this. In trying to minimize why Judge Massei might not include these speculations in his motivations report (of 2010), you quoted law that he was not allowed to consider this, for some part of the proceeding.

You said:

No expert psychiatrist assessed her as far as I know, I mean nobody who presented a report and a testimony.

And nobody could have ever be tasked with presenting a testimony about her possible "personality issues", because this is not a task that an expert can be given in a trial, nor that a judicial officer could be interested in.​

Sorry, one problem is you appear to be ignorant about the ABC of procedure.

But first, between us just consider that the prosecution are not psychologists or psychiatrists, they would be really amateurish if they pursued evidence of that kind, they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios. They are not able even to see it, and they don't search for that.​

Yet it is you who says that Mignini's closing at the 2009 trial does exactly this - and be advised that WITHOUT this contention by Mignini we would not be talkign about this at all! Why? Because no one else, except you and hard-core guilters try to make a case about Knox's "psychopathology".

This is what you said, in summary, Mignini said on the subject, which you later claimed was amateurish and incompetent.

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.
First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":
Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:
Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.
I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is a minor component, only a context and not itself the main motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.​

In summary, I do not think you are a liar. I think you are confirmation biased, and your own words, above, prove it.

 

[Annella]

Machiavelli dreamt " She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night."

Pertinent to remember that Raffaele was a few days away from needing his thesis completed, he was in desperate need of some study time. He wrote that someplace. I dont have the book to hand but very likely right next to where he wrote he was not going to accompany Amanda.
You may like to check Mach?

 

[Samson]

But in post #23 (which is before #49)
And Sollecito tells us about her sms to Meredith, and her not calling back, so we must conclude it was something important to Amanda. Otherwise he wouldn't even know about that. Her sms exchange tells us she wants to meet with Meredith. She doesn't want to meet Spyros that much. Yes she asks Spyros the day before if he wants to meet her "in the afternoon", but it's Spyros the one who calls her or texts her first.
Amanda Knox that night is looking for Meredith.

So you say the killers wanted to help everyone along with the real motive, jealousy?
No, I rather think this suggests impartial truth telling by Sollecito. Even then he probably misinterprets what Amanda said, either with his limited English or her limited Italian.

 

[acbytesla]

Unlike other posters on this forum, I do not believe you are a liar.

I believe you are confirmation biased. Even with the explanation you provide above, you are showing that your writing style is simply to end up at the conclusion that you started with.

Yes, that's right. You start with the conclusion, then say a bunch of things, and then miraculously arrive back at the conclusion you'd assumed to get there.

It is often not obvious that you do this. However, on this rather unimportant factoid, you have tripped yourself up. You wish to construct an argument that Knox was "strange", was "lonely", not because every one of us, you and me included, can be seen as strange at times and as exhibiting lonely behaviour at times.....

...... this is called being human......

You construct this argument to bolster, in the end, your preconceived notion that Knox was a psychopathological killer. Don't deny it. You usually dance around this with plenty of posts where you claim that any undiagnosed-opinion of her psychopathology is just that - an amateur, arm-chair contention among competing posters on a forum such as this one.

What I'd like to return to is this. In trying to minimize why Judge Massei might not include these speculations in his motivations report (of 2010), you quoted law that he was not allowed to consider this, for some part of the proceeding.

You said:

​

​

Yet it is you who says that Mignini's closing at the 2009 trial does exactly this - and be advised that WITHOUT this contention by Mignini we would not be talkign about this at all! Why? Because no one else, except you and hard-core guilters try to make a case about Knox's "psychopathology".

This is what you said, in summary, Mignini said on the subject, which you later claimed was amateurish and incompetent.

​

In summary, I do not think you are a liar. I think you are confirmation biased, and your own words, above, prove it.

Typical Brit...lol But methinks that you are just being polite. People make errors all the time. They misremember as well. Those are not lies. A lie is a deliberate act in deception and/or obfuscation. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt when confronted with falsehoods. But I have consistently watched Machiavrlli employ deliberate obfuscation in his arguments. For example I remember that Machiavrlli once claimed that Amanda traded sexual favors for drugs. He even said that Rudy was her pimp. This is something he now denies, but I know this to be true. I don't understand how to deal with someone who treats truth and facts as malleable and movable especially when his fictitious imaginings his so hurtful to others. It de,monstrous to me why he employs his moniker. After all the real Machiavrlli also felt that the ends justifies the means.

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli dreamt " She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night."

Pertinent to remember that Raffaele was a few days away from needing his thesis completed, he was in desperate need of some study time. He wrote that someplace. I dont have the book to hand but very likely right next to where he wrote he was not going to accompany Amanda.
You may like to check Mach?

Raffaele also wrote in his book that he is not so interested in Holloween, mentioning that it was a more important event to foreign students than Italians. With time pressures to finish his thesis, and Amanda scheduled to work Holloween evening at Le Chic (with her face painted as a cat), Raffaele worked on his thesis at home during the evening.

 

[codyjuneau]

It's better than being a fantasist! Just curious, what ever happened to that passage you said was in Burleigh's book about Knox sobbing for two hours on Halloween night? The one no one else can find?

Just askin'.

You will be updated if and when I have updates. I don't have the book so I can't verify by now. And by now, what matters to the point is not the book passage, but the merits of facts indicating Knox's personality and feelings.

.
If at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts.



Cody
.

 

[Strozzi]

Typical Brit...lol But methinks that you are just being polite. People make errors all the time. They misremember as well. Those are not lies. A lie is a deliberate act in deception and/or obfuscation. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt when confronted with falsehoods. But I have consistently watched Machiavrlli employ deliberate obfuscation in his arguments. For example I remember that Machiavrlli once claimed that Amanda traded sexual favors for drugs. He even said that Rudy was her pimp. This is something he now denies, but I know this to be true. I don't understand how to deal with someone who treats truth and facts as malleable and movable especially when his fictitious imaginings his so hurtful to others. It de,monstrous to me why he employs his moniker. After all the real Machiavrlli also felt that the ends justifies the means.

Mignini, the police, Stefanoni, and too many other Italians we have learned of through this case also feel that the ends justify the means.

 

[Bill Williams]

Typical Brit...lol But methinks that you are just being polite. People make errors all the time. They misremember as well. Those are not lies. A lie is a deliberate act in deception and/or obfuscation. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt when confronted with falsehoods. But I have consistently watched Machiavrlli employ deliberate obfuscation in his arguments. For example I remember that Machiavrlli once claimed that Amanda traded sexual favors for drugs. He even said that Rudy was her pimp. This is something he now denies, but I know this to be true. I don't understand how to deal with someone who treats truth and facts as malleable and movable especially when his fictitious imaginings his so hurtful to others. It de,monstrous to me why he employs his moniker. After all the real Machiavrlli also felt that the ends justifies the means.

In fairness, I do not believe Machiavelli ever said this. I, too, once claimed he did and thought I had read him posting this on IIP.... but I cannot find it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then post the cite. I know the prosecution must have rebutted

You know what?
You are making up that "the prosecution must have rebutted". This is you inventing the rules.

So now you're saying that statement was made before Micheli and not Massei? That rather undermines your argument don't you think?

Obviously not. Why should a statement before Micheli undermine something?

I didn't make it up, I posted the cite from Massei. Now post the rebuttal and we can discuss this further, or you can just keep denying and counter-accusing and lying and see just who you can keep fooled without posting any evidence.

It's pure ridicule. Nobody has a "duty" of some kind to state a rebuttal of an alleged expression of a defence expert. And that anyway is completely irrelevant since the trial papers are made of transcripts that contain the direct testimony of Stefanoni, they are not made of interpretations and statements by Sarah Gino. Only what Stefanoni stated matters to the point. Sarah Gino matters zero.

That would be nothing but opinion, or a lie by a corrupt forensic scientist. Did you wonder why she didn't write up a paper on her 'discovery' that would have rocked the forensic science world if she'd actually discovered this?

Expert witnesses are also paid to provide opinions and their expertise. If you think that she is “corrupt” or that such opinion is a “lie” it’s up to you to prove it. You may say that, as long as you prove it. The facts are that Stefanoni told about false negatives on confirmatory tests on the luminol prints immediately in her first 2008 questioning; she also said that “normally we don’t do confirmatory tests on latent prints” because they expect them to turn out negative. To be fair, she doesn’t speak about TMB tests explicitly. So you may still claim that she didn’t mention specifically TMB tests. But nothing else.

You have been corrected so many times on this with links to scientific papers and forensic science textbooks it's amazing you still make this claim which can be shown to be dubious by the simple fact that the forensic police did them, just like they do in many organizations all around the world, including (obviously) the Polizia Scientifica and the FBI.

Somehow you managed to miss the number of times that I corrected all of you on this forum. So let’s repeat what stays unchallenged like before: TMB tests are logically irrelevant because TMB is less sensitive and less specific than luminol, and also because they react to the same array of false negatives: there are no substances known to be reactive to luminol but not to TMB, certainly there is no substance with such property is known as probable or plausible good to explain bare footprints.

Post the cite.

Hearing may 23, 2009, pages 148-149

DOMANDA – Io indico con il puntatore laser un punto fra il 3 evidenziato sul pavimento e lo stipite della porta della stanza di Meredith, della vittima, sono state effettuate lì delle campionature?
RISPOSTA – È stato effettuato solo il test del luminol lì.
DOMANDA – Quindi non sono state effettuate delle campionature di fronte alla porta, cioè in altri termini…
RISPOSTA – No, di fronte alla porta c’è il 3, mi scusi, il 3… DOMANDA – Accanto alla porta, il puntatore laser mio mi indica… ecco, questa porta qua.
RISPOSTA – Sì, ma la porta mi scusi finisce qui, io purtroppo ho il puntatore che non mi punta più, ecco, la porta finisce qui e inizia qui, quindi il 3 è praticamente al centro.
DOMANDA – Benissimo, sono state effettuate delle…
RISPOSTA – Sì, ed anche poco poco più all’interno della porta. DOMANDA – Campionature di luminol?
RISPOSTA – No, sia campionature di luminol e sia questa campionatura che è la 3, ma anche qualcosa che è più all’interno, magari lo possiamo anche vedere…
DOMANDA – Dove esattamente è stato effettuato questo tipo di campionatura biologica prima del luminol?

Yes she was, I posted the proof of that from the C&V report.

Stefanoni was never caught lying. You are making u stuff. As for Vecchiotti, I can’t guess what you attempted to quote, but the only evidence of lying you will find in the C&V report in there will be Vecchiotti’s lying.

She claimed the amount quantified was 'hundreds of picograms' and that she'd quantified that through Real Time PCR. That would mean it was not a low template sample and the fact that (again) she was caught and had to admit it was low template doesn't excuse the lying and the hiding of data she did in order to preserve her lie.

The fact that the sample was in the magnitude of hundreds of picograms is absolutely true, that happens to be a correct esteem. But in fact Stefanoni’s response was much more articulate and full of caveats. She also stated from the beginning that it was a low template sample, and I mean from the beginning. Your false narrative calling her a person “caught lying” is just making up stuff, nothing but stupid and childish invention.

"From the beginning" means before judge Micheli in 2008, page 21: Stefanoni is asked whether she thinks that peaks of the knife chart are “very low”, under what she would consider “at risk”, she answers “yes, yes, yes”. In the same Oct. 2008 hearing, just after the line when she answers the defense question about the magnitude (“hundreds of pictograms”) she is asked by the defence “this made think you think it could be a low copy number?” she answer “Yes it’s possible, of course!” (hearing of Oct. 8. P. 178).
Stefanoni already stated it was a low copy number, the esteem about hundreds of pictograms is correct (based on the Fluorimeter sensitivity and volume) and she did not say that in the way C&V report that, since previously she pointed out many caveats about the amount, saying she didn’t know. Dut the defence attorney wanted to know a rough esteem whether she thought it was like in the magnitude of pictograms or nanograms, and she said (correctly) she thought magnitude was the hundreds of pictograms.

That is so idiotic I don't know where to start. Claiming that because she got no reading from the Qubit Fluorometer implies a higher template is akin to saying that a microscopic particle must be bigger if you can't determine its size with a yardstick as opposed to a (foot long) ruler.

Come on you are smart enough, you can understand. You can understand it makes absolutely no sense to lie about the method of quantification telling about a more sensitive method, given that the truth is that the profile was extracted with an instrument which is less sensitive, so it must have been even bigger, necessarily bigger than the minimum concentration threshold to be detected by the Fluorimeter.

I don't know what Potenza did but I do recall his analysis of Stefanoni's work was scathing. It is also apparent he realized that Stefanoni was lying about her interpretation of the bra clasp.
Well you should use his work not only to read what his opinions of Stefanoni are, but also consider it as a trial paper which he has signed, what he said and what he didn’t say is on the records, and he certainly had the possibility to witness all what Stefanoni did, hence, by definition Stefanoni did not hide any action she performed.

Yeah, but only showed the alleles that contributed to Raffaele and Meredith's profile and tried to pretend the rest was 'stutter.'

No, she wrote that there are extra alleles. But anyway, she made clear that her list of extra alleles and stutters was her interpretation and her own opinion, and she gave the chart – including the peaks heights - to be discussed before the judge.

And hiding what data? She provided herself the electropherograms in Oct. 2008, the defence could see all the peaks and their heights.

No, she didn't, I've already gone through this and showed you the electropherograms she produced and how they didn't even have peak heights at that juncture.

Well, you are lying. You went through this, but you didn’t succeed in making any valid point.

The truth is Stefanoni had already provided the chart with all the peaks heights before the hearing of Oct. 8. 2008. This is evident from her testimony at pages 98-99-100.

She discussed with the other experts and she points out that there are peaks heights indicated on the charts, and she points out that “this is the information I was requested to write in the chart”.

I will conclude my post stating again in the most adamant fashion that all your allegations you brought here against Stefanoni are false. The fact that everything is made up is manifest, this response of mine alone includes quotes which belie you completely on a series of points, itself should show how your entire system of beliefs about the allegations on Stefanoni is false. You claim you took the time to read things, in fact it looks like you never got near to trial papers. What you do is a grotesque, nonsensical attempt of cherry picking and twisting, coupled with an adamant denial of the fact that it is obvious that Vecchiotti is a liar.

Let's sum up just a few of your errors:

- You ignore and you deny Stefanoni presented the whole charts of profile including the height peaks.

- You ignore the implications of the fact that Potenza took part to the porforming of the DNA tests on the knife.

- You falsely stated that Stefanoni attempted to make it look like a high template, while you denied and you ignored the truth that Stefanoni stated it was a low template sample already in 2008.

- You falsely asserted that Stefanoni maintained they didn't make any test in the corridoor, "only luminol" (while she actually carefully restricted the observation only to one specific point near the door, and discussed with the defence to understand the location they were asking about).

- You stated that the prosecution or Stefanoni were "caught lying", when there is absolutely zero trace of this in the papers, it's completely made up.

- You stated that the prosecution attempted to "hide" laboratory records, saying they released information only because were "ordered" to, while facts are the prosecution themselves let them know about the documentation and they themselves stated they were ready to give it to the defence.

- You omit and forget that the "differences" (omission in the report) like the TMB test not reported, has not been "discovered" by the defence but is insted information that was provided by Stefanoni and the prosecution temselves (you refuse to draw the due implications from that). Thus, it is nothing but a documental failure/imprecision, has nothing to do with fictional "catching" people "lying".

- You make up that the prosecution has a "duty of rebuttal" of Sarah Gino's statements, otherwise according to you they become "true" even thought they don't exist in the trial record, and that is complete making up stuff.

- You don't realize how your Vecchiotti-based accusation of "lying" about the "hundred of picograms" not only was shown to be incorrect, because through later calculation of the detection threashold of fluorimeter and volume it came out the esteem of magnitude was correct, but also above all because it is completely irrelevent, since it would make no sense as a "lie" (given the lower sensitivity of fluorimeter, given that Potenza was there during the test, and given that she had stated multiple times it was a low cop number).

 

[kwill]

There are, of course, also other things the English girl witnessed themselves.
But what Mereith and her friends report is not that "Amanda was loud", what they say is "Amanda was strange".
The fact that she started to sing alone inside a restaurant is not something that makes them thing about her loudness. It makes them feel she has an empathy problem with people and context surrounding her.

Now, now. Let's be fair. Apparently students singing is a thing in Italy just as it is in the USA. And on one of her first nights out, Amanda didn't know she was in the presence of people so easily scandalized.

On one of Amanda’s first nights in the cottage, Meredith had invited her to meet Robyn and several other British friends in Il Bacio, an underground pizzeria in the center. The Seattle girl had managed to scandalize the entire table.

“She burst into song loudly during the meal–it was very out of place and very odd,” Robyn complained.

Asked about this singing incident a year later, Il Bacio’s manager shrugged, fingered the cash register keys wearily, and said he didn’t remember the American girl with the loud voice. How could he?

“Yes, yes, the students, they like to sing. Why do you want to know this?”

Amanda's lack of "touch" with surrounding environment is described in multiple different episodes by witnesses from different cultures and different contexts.
Reports like "Amanda always talked about herself" is not the same of "being loud".

Did the English women testify that Amanda always talked about herself? Did anybody? More importantly, did anybody testify that she disliked Meredith?

Ever?

Or are you suggesting that this ear-ring copying, loud singing, talking about herself narcissist who lacked touch with her surrounding environment and missed obvious social cues ALSO possessed enough savvy to hide her murderous rage from everyone?

 

[Machiavelli]

So you say the killers wanted to help everyone along with the real motive, jealousy?
(...)

No, I don't think a "motive" for a crime of this kind works that way.

 

[Dan O.]

In fairness, I do not believe Machiavelli ever said this. I, too, once claimed he did and thought I had read him posting this on IIP.... but I cannot find it.

In the words of Machiavelli, using Machiavelli's own deceptive stile:

... my position is that Amanda was a prostitute and Guede was her pimp.