Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I already did that. The word "menstrual" is used four times in the whole book and only by Garofano not by Stefanoni...

"Not the same kind of blood," Stefanoni rebutted. "There's a difference, I promise. Looks different, for a start."

There is another quote.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder whether he is a paid shill. I note he is critical of the way Seffanoni swabbed such large areas.

The DNA could come from anywhere that was swabbed.

I wish people could stick to a consistent story about DNA and blood. At one time we are told you can only get clear DNA results from blood, then when we get samples with DNA but no blood e.g. the bra hook, or the knife handle people seem happy to conclude the DNA is due to epithelials.

The truth is the size of the EPG does not indicate the source of the DNA. The quantification step is the measurement of the DNA.

FWIW one washes / rinses out knickers in the wash basin not a bidet!

Garofano, "a paid shill"? For someone who professes to be in the know, you appear divested of any knowledge of the case.

"Colonel Luciano Garofano of the elite Carabinieri is Italy's top forensic scientist."


As for the bidet, AIUI, Amanda confirmed she had never used it. I dare say, she had no idea what it was for.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. There is no reliable evidence that there were any mixed blood samples. A falsity that has been repeated so many times some take it for fact.

Stefanoni certainly concluded there was strong evidence of mixed blood. I think she knows rather better than the FOA, the paid - and unpaid - shills of Gogerty-Marriott advertising agency and the mealy-mouthed defense sharks, er, blood-sucking vultures who'd sell their own granny down the river, ah, erm, lawyers whose only aim in life is to get their clients off the hook, whilst bleeding them dry in order to line their pockets.

 

[Vixen]

What? Do you seriously want me to believe that Vixen is presenting us with assfacts? You know, the kind of facts that get pulled out of her *ss?

The PIP are a foul-mouthed bunch, for sure.

 

[Vixen]

"Ultra vires"!? Which superior court said that about Hellmann's court? The Chieffi ISC panel in 2013 said that Hellmann erred in letting Conti-Vecchiotti make the de facto decision on the testing of Sample 36I; namely, that the error was a legal one attributable to Hellmann and his court, not with the appointment of independent analysts per se.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/11-procedural-rulings-ordering-new-expert-review-of-genetic-evidence-and-denying-new-review-of-the-new-sample-trace/

​

(Highlighting and underlining not in original).

But it remains that despite Vixen's strange claim, the appointment of independent analysts IS in the purview of the court.

ETA - Vixen is on ignore, but comments are available when quoted by others. Damn.

The PIP certainly like their profanities. I guess they have nothing else in their repertoire but swearing.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. There is no reliable evidence that there were any mixed blood samples. A falsity that has been repeated so many times some take it for fact.

Sorry to disabuse you, but it as certain a fact as is possible.

Amanda was present at the murder scene. She did cover up for Rudy.

Ask yourself why she didn't come clean about being there - except when she blurted out her confession as soon as she learnt Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her (and has never given her one since) - and why she staged a burglary and rape, and all will become startlingly clear.

 

[sept79]

Stefanoni certainly concluded there was strong evidence of mixed blood. I think she knows rather better than the FOA, the paid - and unpaid - shills of Gogerty-Marriott advertising agency and the mealy-mouthed defense sharks, er, blood-sucking vultures who'd sell their own granny down the river, ah, erm, lawyers whose only aim in life is to get their clients off the hook, whilst bleeding them dry in order to line their pockets.

This Vixen post says it all. There is no point in any additional responses to her/him . . .

I'm checking out.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yea, I agree. Bidets are really not all that common in the US so it's kind of shot that Americans would be too stupid and ignorant about its purpose.

Granted, it is extremely petty but I have found that the pro guilt side can be extremely petty.

 

[Planigale]

Garofano, "a paid shill"? For someone who professes to be in the know, you appear divested of any knowledge of the case.

"Colonel Luciano Garofano of the elite Carabinieri is Italy's top forensic scientist."


As for the bidet, AIUI, Amanda confirmed she had never used it. I dare say, she had no idea what it was for.

So you accept that Italy's top forensic scientist was critical of Steffanoni's swabbing technique? That this particular forensic scientist, who is critical of Steffanoni, is not a paid shill?

But that as co-author of darkness descending his comments about Knox were speculation and contrary to the facts of the case.

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni certainly concluded there was strong evidence of mixed blood. I think she knows rather better than the FOA, the paid - and unpaid - shills of Gogerty-Marriott advertising agency and the mealy-mouthed defense sharks, er, blood-sucking vultures who'd sell their own granny down the river, ah, erm, lawyers whose only aim in life is to get their clients off the hook, whilst bleeding them dry in order to line their pockets.

Did she?

'Here, let's go into the part about the exhibits/pieces of evidence from the bathroom, the small bathroom. So the edge of the bidet drain, I don't [98] know if you can appreciate [i.e. see it clearly] here: it's slightly enlarged: there's haematic substance. And this is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection in order to collect this trace. The trace gave as a genetic result the mixed profile of victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. The same thing was done as an analysis on the cotton-bud container placed on the washbasin. There is an haematic trace, perhaps it is clearer on white paper, and this genetic profile extrapolated from this trace is a mixed profile victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. Again, there is an haematic trace that is also of a pinkish colour, so like the others, that was found on the part of the washbasin, on the left part of the washbasin, shall we say: it started from the upper part and went towards the drain, downwards. This trickling/dripping was ... perhaps it's clearer in this white part of the disk [NdT: of sampling/blotting paper]: it gave as a result human blood; and as a genetic profile, victim plus Knox. This is the other sampling that was carried out on the toilet-seat cover of precisely the toilet in the small bathroom. This is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection that gave as a genetic result the victim's profile and human blood. This is the obvious trace on the door of the bathroom. In fact here, as can be seen, [is] a dribble/trickle: this is the trace taken on [swabbing/blotting] paper.'

Steffanoni does not say mixed blood! But it is not surprising, if Vixen says one thing, the one thing you know is that this will be false.

Just look at the video of the swabbing, the DNA on the swab could have been picked up anywhere in the area swabbed. It is reasonable to conclude that one of the DNA profiles originates from the blood stain, but there is no way one can say the second profile comes from the blood stain as opposed to anywhere else on the area swabbed. Do not believe me, look for yourself. Even Italy's top forensic scientist (per Vixen - hence probably not true), criticised the large area swabbed.

ETA
I have been through Steffanoni's testimony she is very careful not to claim mixed blood. She says the mixed DNA could come from blood / blood, blood / sweat, blood / saliva, blood / epithelials and there is no way of knowing.

 

[Vixen]

Did she?

'Here, let's go into the part about the exhibits/pieces of evidence from the bathroom, the small bathroom. So the edge of the bidet drain, I don't [98] know if you can appreciate [i.e. see it clearly] here: it's slightly enlarged: there's haematic substance. And this is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection in order to collect this trace. The trace gave as a genetic result the mixed profile of victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. The same thing was done as an analysis on the cotton-bud container placed on the washbasin. There is an haematic trace, perhaps it is clearer on white paper, and this genetic profile extrapolated from this trace is a mixed profile victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. Again, there is an haematic trace that is also of a pinkish colour, so like the others, that was found on the part of the washbasin, on the left part of the washbasin, shall we say: it started from the upper part and went towards the drain, downwards. This trickling/dripping was ... perhaps it's clearer in this white part of the disk [NdT: of sampling/blotting paper]: it gave as a result human blood; and as a genetic profile, victim plus Knox. This is the other sampling that was carried out on the toilet-seat cover of precisely the toilet in the small bathroom. This is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection that gave as a genetic result the victim's profile and human blood. This is the obvious trace on the door of the bathroom. In fact here, as can be seen, [is] a dribble/trickle: this is the trace taken on [swabbing/blotting] paper.'

Steffanoni does not say mixed blood! But it is not surprising, if Vixen says one thing, the one thing you know is that this will be false.

Just look at the video of the swabbing, the DNA on the swab could have been picked up anywhere in the area swabbed. It is reasonable to conclude that one of the DNA profiles originates from the blood stain, but there is no way one can say the second profile comes from the blood stain as opposed to anywhere else on the area swabbed. Do not believe me, look for yourself. Even Italy's top forensic scientist (per Vixen - hence probably not true), criticised the large area swabbed.

ETA
I have been through Steffanoni's testimony she is very careful not to claim mixed blood. She says the mixed DNA could come from blood / blood, blood / sweat, blood / saliva, blood / epithelials and there is no way of knowing.

The script for the trial was to not mention it, to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from. Stefanoni was certainly adamant it was from blood in the case of the sink and that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point.

Initially, she was convinced by the blood drips, pure at the cotton bud box and getting more diluted at the sink, that this was the knife dripping blood before it was rinsed.

 

[acbytesla]

The script for the trial was to not mention it, to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from. Stefanoni was certainly adamant it was from blood in the case of the sink and that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point.

Initially, she was convinced by the blood drips, pure at the cotton bud box and getting more diluted at the sink, that this was the knife dripping blood before it was rinsed.

This is worse than arguing with Christian apologists. It is a morass of denial, circular reasoning.and appeals to authority.

 

[Bill Williams]

The script for the trial was to not mention it, to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from. Stefanoni was certainly adamant it was from blood in the case of the sink and that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point.

Initially, she was convinced by the blood drips, pure at the cotton bud box and getting more diluted at the sink, that this was the knife dripping blood before it was rinsed.

This is worse than arguing with Christian apologists. It is a morass of denial, circular reasoning.and appeals to authority.

Vixen is on ignore, so I can only take your word for it, that you haven't played around with her posting.

Suffice it to say, Vixen assumes that Italian courts act according "to script". In a stunning reversal of traditional guilter-dogma, she now assumes that a reason to "not go there" in relation to DNA in the courtroom is:

to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from.​

Now there is this - that in a bathroom two young women shared together it is somehow suspicious, "that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point." To make it relevant to the investigation of a horrid murder, surely one needs to also show that this happened according to a timeline relevant to that event?

In Vixen's last paragraph, Vixen claims that Stefanoni was "initially" convinced of something. Vixen then fails to complete the thought - if that was what she was initially convinced of, what happened after that?

You see, this is why Vixen is on ignore.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen is on ignore, so I can only take your word for it, that you haven't played around with her posting.

Suffice it to say, Vixen assumes that Italian courts act according "to script". In a stunning reversal of traditional guilter-dogma, she now assumes that a reason to "not go there" in relation to DNA in the courtroom is:

to avoid the controversy of where the DNA came from.​

Now there is this - that in a bathroom two young women shared together it is somehow suspicious, "that both Amanda and Mez bled together at some point." To make it relevant to the investigation of a horrid murder, surely one needs to also show that this happened according to a timeline relevant to that event?

In Vixen's last paragraph, Vixen claims that Stefanoni was "initially" convinced of something. Vixen then fails to complete the thought - if that was what she was initially convinced of, what happened after that?

You see, this is why Vixen is on ignore.

Oh, I know why we should ignore Vixen. I haven't put her on ignore as I find her illogicality to be funny. I have no interest in engaging her arguments as I find them silly, dishonest and a total waste of time. They are a guilty pleasure of mine. As is iistening to religious people debate with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al. BTW, if you haven't watched on YouTube Christopher Hitchens debate religion you've missed a great experience.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, I know why we should ignore Vixen. I haven't put her on ignore as I find her illogicality to be funny. I have no interest in engaging her arguments as I find them silly, dishonest and a total waste of time. They are a guilty pleasure of mine. As is iistening to religious people debate with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al. BTW, if you haven't watched on YouTube Christopher Hitchens debate religion you've missed a great experience.

Speaking of guilty pleasures, I was rooting for Tony Blair!

ETA - before this thread gets sent to "Abandon All Hope", I do want to say that Christopher Hitches is well worth the listen, and he's raising exceedingly crucial points. So is Dawkins. I've never heard of the other fellow. When the process becomes less of a win/lose debate and more of a dialogue of understanding then people on all sides learn something. My experience has been that when good-faith dialogue happens, we agree on more than we disagree.

 

[acbytesla]

Speaking of guilty pleasures, I was rooting for Tony Blair!

In his debate with Hitchens? I loved that Hitchens spanked him.

 

[Bill Williams]

In his debate with Hitchens? I loved that Hitchens spanked him.

I'd prefer to say that Hitchens outvoted him. Still, Blair lost a great opportunity to completely undercut Hitchens by at the first denying and repudiating all forms of supernaturalism.

Supernaturalism is always the wet sand that quickly erodes under the feet of folk on Blair's side of things.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd prefer to say that Hitchens outvoted him. Still, Blair lost a great opportunity to completely undercut Hitchens by at the first denying and repudiating all forms of supernaturalism.

Supernaturalism is always the wet sand that quickly erodes under the feet of folk on Blair's side of things.

Exactly. It is far far easier to win a case based on the provable vs the unprovable. I was a debater in High School and College. We were required to argue the affirmative or the negative on every issue. I would be excited at the prospect of arguing the atheistic viewpoint as opposed to the theistic viewpoint. I would also enjoy an opportunity to argue that Knox is innocent (keeping us on topic) It's simply far easier when you are supplied with the easier case.

I think Hitch is so erudite that he beats most people on almost every issue but he he is most persuasive on religikn. There, they are just grist for the mill.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. It is far far easier to win a case based on the provable vs the unprovable. I was a debater in High School and College. We were required to argue the affirmative or the negative on every issue. I would be excited at the prospect of arguing the atheistic viewpoint as opposed to the theistic viewpoint. I would also enjoy an opportunity to argue that Knox is innocent (keeping us on topic) It's simply far easier when you are supplied with the easier case.

I think Hitch is so erudite that he beats most people on almost every issue but he he is most persuasive on religikn. There, they are just grist for the mill.

I thought you were going to claim that it is impossible to argue "for" religion if supernaturalism is off the table. I find that debates are far more even-handed when all references to the concept, from either side, are simply identified, bracketed and put aside. To repeat, from both sides - it is up to the atheist side to point out that the religionist has lapsed back into supernaturalism; just as much as it is up to the religionist to point out to the atheist that he has lapsed back into a repudiation of supernaturalism - not religion per se.

Bracket it, put it aside, and get on to other issues.

But I also agree with you about Hitchens - he's such an accomplished debater to begin with that it was hard to tell if he'd bested Blair on the issues or simply because he was a better "parliamentarian".

It did Blair no good to undercut his own position, though. He was asked why he had been so silent about his devout Roman Catholicism during his years as PM in the UK. His answer: "I did not want people thinking me a nutter." At least John Kennedy never backed away from his own Roman Catholicism, although retreating to, "religion is a personal issue, not a public one" was a strategic move on Kennedy's part, to calm the fears in 1960 that he would take direction from the Vatican.

Indeed, most of the progressive, liberalized laws in my own country have come from Catholic politicians, and every once in a while a Bishop threatens to excommunicate one just to make an example. But that is one of the ironies..... Blair made a strategic mistake (for debating purposes) in conceding from the start that he might simply be dismissed as a nutter.

Hitchen's (IIRC) made mincemeat of him on that point alone.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. It is far far easier to win a case based on the provable vs the unprovable. I was a debater in High School and College. We were required to argue the affirmative or the negative on every issue. I would be excited at the prospect of arguing the atheistic viewpoint as opposed to the theistic viewpoint. I would also enjoy an opportunity to argue that Knox is innocent (keeping us on topic) It's simply far easier when you are supplied with the easier case.

I think Hitch is so erudite that he beats most people on almost every issue but he he is most persuasive on religikn. There, they are just grist for the mill.

Getting back to the Sollecito/Knox case - the case for guilt has always been the convoluted argument to make. Just one the grounds of which side one might wish to argue on the basis of "the easier argument", it is obvious - one would want to argue innocence every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I' looking for it as I type - but someone on Ground Report (I think) argued about the illogically of the Chieffi ISC reversal of Hellmann's acquittals - arguing that Chieffi was simply illogical to cite the "osmotic" evaluation of ALL the evidence as some reason to reverse Hellmann.

If it was ALL the evidence Chieffi was looking for (before that other thorny issue of actually weighting each individual item), what followed in the Ground Report piece was as a listing of ALL the other evidence that Chieffi simply had to ignore; the criticism being that while insisting on the "ALL", Chieffi was ignoring a large portion.

For instance, "ALL" the evidence should have included the missing data from Stefanoni; raw-electronic data that would have shown Stefanoni's work. Rather than criticise the lower courts for not insisting on full disclosure, Chieffi turned everything further onto its head by insisting that the defence cannot just claim contamination, the defence actually had to propose a plausible route of contamination - either at the scene or in the lab.

We've been around THAT block 1000 times. In the supposedly stalled transition in Italy from the Inquisatorial to Adversarial system of criminal law, what first should have happened was the prosecution making full disclosure; so that the only reasonable outcome of that disclosure was to show that contamination was unlikely. Absent that, the defence (in an adversarial BARD system) has no obligation to show a route.

It just went to demonstrate that to argue a guilter position, there are flaws in key areas that have to be ignored - or one simply has to appeal to authority or judicial truths, the thing that probably threw the case off-whack - appeals to authority with no, real evidence undergirding it.

It's always been easier to argue for innocence. To argue for guilt, jurists like Nencini had to believe Rudy Guede on one part of his own story, while ignoring the implications of believing Rudy on anything.