Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Source for the 11 hours, please...

What are you trying to say here (especially the higlighted part) ???

Oh Vixen's just entirely making things up out of thin air, without a single shred of evidence to support them in any way whatsoever. It's very far from the first time. Shame.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bruno-Marasca is misconceived. It is entirely within a judge's jursidiction to dismiss an expert witness' testimony, in favour of the other party's. In this case, the prosecution expert. Nencini preferred the latter and that is his determination.

Yes, a judge can reject an expert witness's testimony. What both you (and Nencini acc. to B/M) cannot do is reject it arbitrarily. Bruno/Marasca actualy lay out the precedent in Italia law for judicial assessment in a battle of competing experts who say different things. Once again, I can only implore you to read M/B's reasoning in their report.

The only grounds for appeal would be that its decision was perverse, i.e., beyond the range of a reasonable decision, even if another court might have decided differently. Bruno-Marasca erred in saying the Nencini court was compelled to accept Conti-Vecchiotti.

Sigh.

No one said that Nencini was compelled to accept C-V. Why you raise this strawman, I do not know. Once again read the B/M report on this issue. Take a peek at the cited case law B/M cites.

Conti & Vecchiotti showed themselves to be unreliable witnesses in that they took it upon themselves to decline to test one of the samples, as they were directed to, failed to notify the court and showed contempt of it, and claimed it was 'rye starch' (when Rome Forensics took the responsibility away from the recalcitrant pair and tested it, it turned out to be DNA of Amanda Knox). The so-called 'experts' were found to be less than frank, with Chiefi labelling them 'intellectually dishonest'.

Sigh again.

Conti-Vecchiotti were NOT directed to test 36I. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Hellmann acquittal was annulled was because Hellmann refused to have 36I tested. Hellmann did not think that the testing of 36I would have changed his outcome.

Guess what? When 36I was tested by the RIS Carabinieri for the Nencini trial, it did not change the outcome. Once again, you refuse to address the most important issue - the RIS Carabinieri made full disclosure and brought their EDFs to the court. That was something Stefanoni did not do - an issue you never address.

The prosecution later filed a complaint that Conti & Vecchiotti had been seen enjoying improper familiarity (an ethical threat) with the Maori defence. Their labs were, in addition, closed down due to chaos, poor standards and filth. This does not inspire confidence in their competence or reliability as 'experts'.

What happened to that complaint? Nothing.

Their labs were not closed down. This is a lie you tell. At another section of the facility they work at, the improper handling of cadavers caused that section to be closed down. It had nothing to do with Vecchiotti.

As Nencini's finding was to reject Conti-Vecchiotti's specious claim the DNA was contaminated, as there was nothing to substantiate it, Marasca erred in overturning this decision and substituting its own, which is not within its remit. This is because the decision to dismiss the defense appeal on the grounds 'the DNA was contaminated' was within the range of a reasonable decision. You cannot appeal simply because you do not like it.

Sigh.

The proper procedure is to follow international protocols for the prevention of contamination. Those protocols were not followed, neither in the samples' collection nor in their storage nor in their analysis. THAT was what M/B wrote.

It is a misconception the claim 'Nencini was obliged to accept the defense 'neutral' experts' submission'.

Nencini was obliged to accept it because it was proper. One lie you keep telling is that C-V were defence experts. They were not. They were neutral, court appointed experts - Hellmann actually followed the protocol as outlined in the B/M report for judicial decision-making.

That you repeat the lie about them being defence experts is all one needs to know. You need to lie to advance your case.

You still have not cited ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's claims. The more you hold off on this, the more it looks like you are simply inventing claims to suit your argument, rather than let the evidence lead you.

 

[Vixen]

Ahh another dump of disingenuous nonsense, low-grade ignorance and partisan claptrap from everyone's favourite source of pro-guilt "argument"

I particularly like the hilarious logic fail between:

a) "Do you honestly think someone like Nencini - with years behind him as a successful barrister - doesn't understand the rules of evidence?"

and

b) Incessant accusations against SUPREME COURT JUDGES of not understanding the remit or limitations of the Supreme Court.

The bigger irony, of course, is that she probably can't even see the contradiction.....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not my quote. Please get your attributions right.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, Vixen is talking - to use her vernacular - utter bollocks, in respect of UK police height requirements.

Up to the mid-1990s, the Met (Metropolitan Police - the London police force) had a minimum height requirement, but it was nowhere near as tall as Vixen purported: it was actually 5ft10 (178cm), in common with several other UK police forces. However, since the mid-1990s the minimum height requirement has been totally scrapped. Another pile of old crap from the "research genius" mind of Vixen

And another laughably inept aspect of the police "experts'" work on the shoe prints were that virtually all of the prints were incorrectly photographed in a way that distorted dimensions owing to perspective matters. The initial police measurements were simply taken with a ruler against the photo, and were thus in places significantly inaccurate. And even though the bath mat was in the police's possession, Rinaldi and Boemia did all their "expert" work based purely on (bad) photographs. They never even got to see with their eyes the pile and ridged pattern of the bath mat, both of which would have had a huge effect on the observable print, and both of which would have significantly distorted the observed print from the foot that made the print.

Bunch of total clowns.

City of London police had a minimum height requirement of 6'. It is now abolished in case it discriminates against ethnic groups who are naturally shorter.

There is nothing wrong with using photographs as long as the scale is correct.

How do you think they analyse fingerprints?

 

[Vixen]

Source for the 11 hours, please...

What are you trying to say here (especially the higlighted part) ???

Amanda herself. She claimed that had a fishy salad 'about 23:00' , then the pipes under the sink spontaneously dismantled themselves 'flooding half the house' (Raff's police statement) whereupon, Raff, according to Amanda's court testimony said, oh let's roll a joint', at which point they went to bed.


Amanda claims she got up about 10:00 next morning, whilst Raff slept on, even going back to bed after breakfast until about twelve.


As the kids criminally failed to report knowing of Mez' body behind the door, we can assume they had something to do with having locked it. Having finally admitted the police, the pair were free to roam freely and at least eight people tramped through the cottage, seriously compromising the crime scene.

 

[Vixen]

Oh Vixen's just entirely making things up out of thin air, without a single shred of evidence to support them in any way whatsoever. It's very far from the first time. Shame.

Your perma-aggressive quasi-hysterical tone is very tiresome. Please have some consideration for others.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, a judge can reject an expert witness's testimony. What both you (and Nencini acc. to B/M) cannot do is reject it arbitrarily. Bruno/Marasca actualy lay out the precedent in Italia law for judicial assessment in a battle of competing experts who say different things. Once again, I can only implore you to read M/B's reasoning in their report.


Sigh.

No one said that Nencini was compelled to accept C-V. Why you raise this strawman, I do not know. Once again read the B/M report on this issue. Take a peek at the cited case law B/M cites.


Sigh again.

Conti-Vecchiotti were NOT directed to test 36I. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Hellmann acquittal was annulled was because Hellmann refused to have 36I tested. Hellmann did not think that the testing of 36I would have changed his outcome.

Guess what? When 36I was tested by the RIS Carabinieri for the Nencini trial, it did not change the outcome. Once again, you refuse to address the most important issue - the RIS Carabinieri made full disclosure and brought their EDFs to the court. That was something Stefanoni did not do - an issue you never address.


What happened to that complaint? Nothing.

Their labs were not closed down. This is a lie you tell. At another section of the facility they work at, the improper handling of cadavers caused that section to be closed down. It had nothing to do with Vecchiotti.


Sigh.

The proper procedure is to follow international protocols for the prevention of contamination. Those protocols were not followed, neither in the samples' collection nor in their storage nor in their analysis. THAT was what M/B wrote.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]


Nencini was obliged to accept it because it was proper. One lie you keep telling is that C-V were defence experts. They were not. They were neutral, court appointed experts - Hellmann actually followed the protocol as outlined in the B/M report for judicial decision-making.

That you repeat the lie about them being defence experts is all one needs to know. You need to lie to advance your case.

You still have not cited ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's claims. The more you hold off on this, the more it looks like you are simply inventing claims to suit your argument, rather than let the evidence lead you.

Hellmann was completely annulled with an astonishing seventeen or more points of heavy criticism, which effectively ended his career, including completely ignoring the prosecution experts' submissions. You can find their names in the Motivations Reports. There are your expert scientists for the prosecution.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hellmann was completely annulled with an astonishing seventeen or more points of heavy criticism, which effectively ended his career, including completely ignoring the prosecution experts' submissions. You can find their names in the Motivations Reports. There are your expert scientists for the prosecution.

You still have not cited ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's claims. The more you hold off on this, the more it looks like you are simply inventing claims to suit your argument, rather than let the evidence lead you.

 

[Vixen]

You still have not cited ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's claims. The more you hold off on this, the more it looks like you are simply inventing claims to suit your argument, rather than let the evidence lead you.

Professor Guiseppe Novelli, who appeared for cross-examination together with Dr Patrizia Stefanoni.

http://www.sensibilia.it/Novelli.html

Happy now?

See also:

Giuseppe Novelli, a geneticist, rector of 'Tor Vergata University and advisor to the prosecutor, had told us that "the DNA and there is inequivocaibile. It needs to figure out why it's there, who put it there, but you can not say it's not enough. " Novelli explains that the police had demonstrated the absence of any contamination in the samples - claim accepted by the Court - and that the threshold indicated by the Americans, RFU 50, is a standard that "does not make sense." However, it is worth pointing out that, while the genetic material found on the knife is below the threshold, the one on the hook of the bra is much bigger than 50 RFU.

And:

Giuseppe Novelli, a geneticist and dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery of the University of Tor Vergata Rome and consultant for the Prosecution. Novelli made ​​three appeals to the Court. The first was the alleged contamination of the DNA: "
The police had shown that the samples are not contaminated and the Court has had to accept the appeal. Now they have thrown on the amount, but the standard of which also speak the Americans, the RFU 50, does not make sense. Suffice it to say that the Ris of Rome uses as a limit 35 RFU. You can not throw out a test only for a matter of quantity, if the quality is there. In any case, even if we wanted to exclude the knife, as we do with the clip, where the threshold is exceeded? ".
The other two appeals, rejected, concerned another track on the knife, not analyzed because it was considered too small, and biostatistics analysis on the DNA profile, to determine how likely membership. "Even if the track is not analyzed is called into question the amount, but say that it is 'too little' but it does not make sense. First you analyze, see what it is, how it is qualitatively and then you can discuss the amount. Also because the 'too little' depends on the competence and skill of the operator performing the analysis, "Novelli continues:" If we look at the curricula, public, of experts chosen for the Knox case, catches the eye who are not experts , so that they do not have publications in the area. What is little for some, not for others: there are workshops in Italy and abroad, are able to analyze this DNA, as there are experts who can perform the statistical analysis that not been done. "

PS Do see this article about faked peer reviews. I would say Peter Gill getting his own editorial board to review his article for his own journal could be seen to be a little unethical:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?query=TOC&#.ViiqeMXIs-A.twitter

 

[LondonJohn]

City of London police had a minimum height requirement of 6'. It is now abolished in case it discriminates against ethnic groups who are naturally shorter.

Oh but YOU said "A size 14 will get you in the Met where you have to be super tall" (is that attribution OK for you...? ) The Met is the Metropolitan Police, which is not the City of London Police. Or don't you know that either? And if you DID know that, then why did you write "The Met" and not "City of London Police"?

And either way, why didn't you write "....used to have a height requirement" in the past tense? Or didn't you know that it had been abolished over 20 years ago?

There is nothing wrong with using photographs as long as the scale is correct.

How do you think they analyse fingerprints?

You really are ignorant of scientific matters, aren't you? It's all to do with size of print and focal length of the camera. Fingerprints are small in scale (typically around 2cm by 1.5cm). Shoe prints are typically an order of magnitude 10 larger. Therefore the potential for perspective distortions to occur in inexpertly-taken photographs of shoe prints is way greater than it ever could be for fingerprints. You can look up the reason why - it will take me too long to explain here (especially to a science semi-literate).

Suffice it to say, on an inexpertly-taken photo of a shoe print, one cannot place a ruler against the photo of the print and get proper, consistent measurements. For example, at the centre of the photo one might measure (say) 21mm on a ruler, but that same 21mm on the ruler, when the ruler is now at the edge of the photo, might actually measure a real-life distance of 22mm. On the photo, however, they appear to be the same length.

In addition, there were particular additional reasons why the partial foot print on the bath mat in this case actively required any proper analyst to view the original item (i.e. the bath mat itself) rather than just photographs. And of course that's on account of the composition, texture, pile and pattern on the bath mat. The mat was made of a very absorbent cotton pile (its job, after all, was to soak up water), meaning that all water in contact with the mat wicked down the pile and spread horizontally too. The pile was very high (over 2cm in parts), meaning that it distorted under the weight of a foot fall (thereby distorting the apparent print deposit). And the mat had a textural pattern cut into it, meaning that the levels of wicking and distortion varied across the print according to the height of the pile at each point. All of these things would have had a dramatic impact upon the observed size and shape of the partial print on that mat.

It was facile and incompetent to suppose that the bath mat print as photographed could ever begin to be comparable with a reference print made in printer's ink on a smooth piece of paper placed on hard surface. And any competent analyst would have examined the bath mat itself and easily realised that the observed dimensions of the print (as viewed from above) were of extremely limited value in attempting to conduct comparative analysis against reference prints. But the "experts" in the State Police never got as far as figuring that one out..........

 

[LondonJohn]

Professor Guiseppe Novelli, who appeared for cross-examination together with Dr Patrizia Stefanoni.

http://www.sensibilia.it/Novelli.html

Happy now?

You appear blind to the word "peer-reviewed". And, arguably, blind also to the words "forensic-DNA expert"..........

 

[LondonJohn]

Hellmann was completely annulled with an astonishing seventeen or more points of heavy criticism, which effectively ended his career, including completely ignoring the prosecution experts' submissions. You can find their names in the Motivations Reports. There are your expert scientists for the prosecution.

Massei and Nencini were completely annulled with an astonishing number of points of heavy criticism, including completely ignoring the court's own experts' submissions and misapplying the law egregiously.

See how this works? It's rather useless (though amusing) to be selectively invoking the competence of the Supreme Court when it suits your agenda.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your perma-aggressive quasi-hysterical tone is very tiresome. Please have some consideration for others.

Consideration for others??? I have consideration for those who enter this debate with intellectual honesty and a sincere quest for knowledge and understanding. I have no consideration whatsoever for people who pollute the debate with entirely invented "facts", regardless of whether or not those facts constitute unwarranted character attacks on Knox or Sollecito. But do YOU have consideration for two people whom you falsely accused (without one iota of evidence or even suggestion) of having sex over the dead body of Meredith Kercher. Perhaps you ought to think about that before coming over all holier-than-thou, eh.....?

 

[LondonJohn]

Not my quote. Please get your attributions right.

That's why it's not in inverted commas. Did you miss that? Or are you actually taking issue with my contention that you have, on various and multiple occasions, accused the members of the Marasca SC panel of not understanding the law or the SC's role and remit? If so, I'd love to hear more

 

[Bill Williams]

Professor Guiseppe Novelli, who appeared for cross-examination together with Dr Patrizia Stefanoni.

http://www.sensibilia.it/Novelli.html

Happy now?

See also:



And:




PS Do see this article about faked peer reviews. I would say Peter Gill getting his own editorial board to review his article for his own journal could be seen to be a little unethical:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?query=TOC&#.ViiqeMXIs-A.twitter

"I would say......"

You say lots of things. One thing you do is completely hilarious. You offer Noveli as an example, without detailing where he is in agreement with Stefanoni at the same time as providing a link to peer review fraud!!!

Nice move. Undercutting your own point in the same post!

 

[Bill Williams]

Professor Guiseppe Novelli, who appeared for cross-examination together with Dr Patrizia Stefanoni.

http://www.sensibilia.it/Novelli.html

Happy now?

What is the height of ludicrousness is that instead of supplying what Novelli was supposed to have said in support of Stefanoni.... you have quoted Nencini's own assessment of Novelli's words.

Once again, Marasca/Bruno annulled Nencini's conviction of the pair because it was Nencini, the judge who wrote the Motivations Report, who did not understand the difference between compatibility and identity of genetic samples.

On that issue, Novelli - as quoted by Nencini - appears to agree with what was later written in the B/M report.

I quote Luca Cheli, who offers a more readable English rendering of what you offered to make the point:

Nencini states that even if the fluorescence peaks were low, the “negative control of the amplification” showed that there was very low background noise. Just to introduce the subject, the negative controls of trace 36B are the shooter behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll: some say they exist, some that they don’t, some even say they have been suppressed.

Nencini then quotes Novelli’s opinion about the need of (at least) a double amplification and Novelli answers that yes, there are the protocols, but then it also depends on the experience and the capability of the operator and one has to get in any case the profile and then see if it is good or not good,

"otherwise we put in doubt all the DNA analyses we have made since 1986-1987, at least in our country." (page 213)​

Novelli offered no evidence to the Nencini court as to Stefanoni's specific skills so as to skip the step that even Novelli insists is part of proper protocol.

Do you wish to try again, to find one peer-reviewed forensic-expert who will stand with Stefanoni?

The other place where Nencini cites Novelli is about the existence of the negative controls from Stefanoni. Nencini says that Novelli received them during the Hellmann trial, where Galati says they were supplied by the prosecution.

But they are curiously NOT part of the trial record. Nencini then makes the matter murkier by neglecting to say that he, himself, had seen them at the Florence trial.

So it seems that the other contribution Novelli made to the Hellmann trial was to participate in the hoax that the controls had been released!

This just gets funnier and simply underlines that you still cannot cite anyone who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

 

[Vixen]

Consideration for others??? I have consideration for those who enter this debate with intellectual honesty and a sincere quest for knowledge and understanding. I have no consideration whatsoever for people who pollute the debate with entirely invented "facts", regardless of whether or not those facts constitute unwarranted character attacks on Knox or Sollecito. But do YOU have consideration for two people whom you falsely accused (without one iota of evidence or even suggestion) of having sex over the dead body of Meredith Kercher. Perhaps you ought to think about that before coming over all holier-than-thou, eh.....?

I am asking you very politely to cease and desist addressing me in an offensive manner.

 

[Stacyhs]

In his book Honor Bound Raff says:

Quote:
After the day of the discovery of the body on 3 November...[...]...I made a joke in English, "Wow, you're going to look smoking hot in those".

You left out the other part of what he wrote. He made a joke because the "G-string" had a cartoon cow on them:

"So we moved on to a teen discount store where she tried on some jeans and eventually settled on a laughably childish thong with a cow motif."

Why would he make a joke about a sexy G-string with all that talk of "wild sex"?




Clearly something of that nature was said and the persons who were witness to it were shocked enough to report it to the press. Everybody else was devastated by Mez' death, but these two were on a high.

No other witnesses came forward to say they had heard any such thing. It was only the store owner who claimed others heard it and he alone went to the press. It's interesting that he said this:

"Their behaviour struck me as very odd. They were laughing and joking as they were holding up the underwear and the girl kept saying she was going to wear it before they had sex," and "'Afterwards I'm going to take you home so we can have wild sex together'."

LOL! Sure she did. No one talks like that! And he didn't speak English! Explain that.

"When I realised it was them and the fact that the poor girl had only been found the day before, their behaviour struck me even more as unusual." (Telegraph Nov 23, 2007)

So he claims he recognized them barely 24 hours later. Really? I wonder why he didn't bother going to the police then about this strange behavior? Because he couldn't get paid for it?

Remember, the cops had no idea who did it, at this stage.

The shopkeeper didn't go to the police with his video until 2 days after the two were arrested. And the police suspected Amanda and Raffaele from day one.

Raff also says, about Amanda's behaviour:

Quote:
The English girls said they were appalled by Amanda's behaviour and I admit, it made me feel a little uneasy, too...[...]...This was a public place...[...]...Days earlier, under very different circumstances, this quirky unrestrained behaviour had drawn me to her, but now it was embarrassing, and I can understand why Meredith's friends were put off.


So, not just my opinion.

That has absolutely nothing to do with claiming they had sex over Meredith's body or wanting to re-create it when they got home with her "sexy G-string" with the cow on it.


Any idea what happened to Amanda's coat? Disposed of, by any chance? Or was the adrenaline rush she was experiencing, enough to keep her warm, even though they supposedly knew nothing about a body at this stage. Or maybe it was the energetic cleaning she was doing with her mop?

Methos answered that for you; it was in the cottage.
The mop? You mean the one that tested negative for blood? The one she used to clean the hallway with the invisible intact footprints? How do you wipe a floor with a mop and leave intact footprints?

 

[LondonJohn]

I am asking you very politely to cease and desist addressing me in an offensive manner.

And I am asking you to cease and desist from making up "facts" - especially where they involve warped sexual fantasies of yours - within the framework of this debate. Do we have a deal?

 

[Vixen]

Nencini's Scientific Findings

From his report re the luminol:

The Court notes that this criticism has scientific value in theory, in the sense that it is unarguable that the bluish luminescent reaction is not necessarily indicative of the presence of blood. But this emphasis, while certainly accurate in general terms, loses all value in the case under consideration, as soon as the traces detected with luminol by the Forensic Police are put into context.
And in fact, if we delve into the hypothesis that some traces were found in an area that was of no significance in relation to a murder, it might well be hypothesized that the [luminescent] reaction could be the result of a spill onto the floor of reactive substances (traces of potato, fruit juice, or something else) that were not adequately addressed through routine cleaning activities that would normally be carried out in any home. On this basis, one might not necessarily arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that blood had been shed inside that apartment. Just as one might judge the luminescence resulting from the luminol application to be a reaction to the use of bleach for cleaning the surrounding areas, for example, if extensive traces were highlighted in a single room and the area had no significance with regard to the occurrence of a murder.
In the case under consideration, however, the context is entirely different, since we are certain that a murder occurred in the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola, and we have an area [187] that is extensively affected by a copious loss of the victim’s blood, and not just in the bedroom occupied by the latter. In a context of this sort, and in the presence of specific and localized traces (some of which are actually in the shape of a foot- or shoe-print) highlighted by luminol, asserting that these traces reveal the presence of substances other than blood, such as potatoes, fruit juices or bleach, without, however, providing any concrete proof in point, seems from an objective point of view to be a remarkable exercise in dialectical sophistry rather than trial evidence on which any Judge might base reasoning that would be beyond criticism.
In the house on Via della Pergola, blood was abundantly present in the bedroom of poor Meredith Kercher, just as it was also significantly present in the small bathroom next to the bedroom, and more or less everywhere. One must not forget the evidence that, together with the traces highlighted by luminol, there were likewise other traces that were visible to the naked eye and that were analyzed as involving human blood. Thus the presence of blood traces highlighted using the luminol technique, rather than representing a disparate trial fact, is on the contrary confirmation that, after the murder, the apartment underwent intensive and thorough cleaning.

Nothing about the 'selective cleaning' Marasca mentions.

Nencini goes objectively through all of the genetic and scientific evidence, including that of Rudy's, point by point.

Regarding the blood in the bathroom:

The presence of all three traces of blood, their position (on the mat as regards the foot print, on the bidet and the washbasin as regards the remaining traces) shows that at least one of the aggressors, but logically two of them – a man and a woman – entered the small bathroom in order to cleanse themselves of the victim’s blood, which evidently had soaked them on various parts of their bodies, and to wash themselves, using the bidet and washbasin. The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction.
The Court considers it extremely unlikely, in accordance with case record that is deeply rooted in the common experience of life, that the man or woman who washed his or her hands and feet in that bathroom could be someone other than Amanda Knox.

As for the issue of compatibility and identity, which part of Nencini is an abuse of his office, as claimed by Marasca?:

Also of undoubted interest is Exhibit no. 7, that is to say the small light blue mat soaked with Meredith Kercher’s blood – blood that to the eye forms the imprint of a foot with dimensions [that are] compatible with those of a man’s [foot]. This is undoubtedly the outline of a foot without footwear, and its attribution was debated at length. According to the prosecution’s hypothesis (expert witness Rinaldi, in the court files), the outline is seemingly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot, whereas the Defense has contested this specific attribution (expert witness Vinci, in the court files) since the preliminary enquiry.
While it is understood that we will return to this issue later, there are already some fixed points that can nonetheless be determined now.
In the first place, this is clearly the outline of a foot without footwear, of a male person (given the dimensions of the footprint), a person who had earlier stepped barefoot in the copious puddles of Meredith Kercher’s blood that were present in her bedroom and who had then gone into the small bathroom, probably to wash himself.
In the second place, the outline is certainly incompatible with an attribution to Rudy Hermann Guede, since, even leaving aside the different morphological configuration of Guede’s foot, the attribution of the latter to footprint “5 A” (the print of the Nike Outbreak model 2 mens’ sports shoe) [which is] now undisputed evidence, and [which was] originally mistakenly attributed to Raffaele Sollecito, leads [the Court] to hold that it is highly likely, if not certain, that Guede, during the time he was moving around inside the apartment after the perpetration of the crime was wearing sports shoes on both his feet and was not moving around with one foor bare and the other in footwear.

Where, here, does Nencini show any sign of ignoring scientifc protocl?:

In analyzing the investigations of a technical nature to which Exhibits nos. 36 and 165 B were subjected, this Court must therefore evaluate first the results of the forensic-police tests, and then [evaluate] the objections to these which were advanced by the defendants’ technical consultants, as well as by the court-appointed experts in the Perugian appeal verdict.
Bearing this in mind, it is necessary to confront the issues – which are common both to the defendants’ Defense teams and to professors Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti – of the potential contamination of the exhibits. This argument, obviously, must be resolved first, since in the event that a conclusion of probable contamination of the exhibits is reached, any evaluation of the findings on the analyses would be irrelevant for the purposes of the trial.
This Court considers that speaking of the contamination of exhibits in a generalized way and allowing for abstract possibilities, as was several times repeated by the Defense and by the court-appointed experts, Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti, even in their written conclusions [points 4) and 5) of the conclusions of the technical report, signed by them, and quoted several times], has absolutely no meaning in the context of a criminal trial, and is objectively deceptive.
In a general way and allowing for abstract possibilities, all or any instrument forming part of the evidence in the trial may contain within itself the seeds of contamination and of unreliability. And this is true not only for the defendants’ statements, but also for the witnesses’ statements (who [196] may be corrupted in order to give false testimony, or even intimidated), and even, finally, for any other assessment of a technical nature or of an unrepeatable nature carried out by the State Police, which may be tainted by falsification of the related test-transcripts carried out by those same police officials (as several trials of national importance have taught us). In the context of a criminal trial, in the face of probative/evidentiary or circumstantial evidence, whether this is thus a document, a declarative proof, or even a test of a technical or unrepeatable nature, it is necessary that the latter [i.e. evidence] should always be subjected to the critical scrutiny of those judging, which involves an evaluation of the evidence of the established fact, and of its significance in the overall context of the circumstantial or probative findings. It is necessary that the Judge naturally should also consider the issue of the genuineness and of the consequent reliability of the evidence and circumstantial evidence. But such genuineness and reliability, once the probative or circumstantial evidence has been formed, cannot be cast into doubt by mere conjectures, or by deductions based on the acceptance of mere possibility. The unreliability of the evidence or of the circumstantial evidence must be tested and linked to specific data of at least concrete probability, if not of outright certainty.

Nencini's reasoning for ruling out contamination of the knife is entirely within the bounds of a reasonable decision:

And in fact, none of the State Police officials who carried out the search in Raffaele Sollecito’s home came from areas contaminated with the DNA of Meredith Kercher, and at any rate all of them wore new gloves and were shod with new shoe-covers. For this reason, it must be ruled out that Meredith Kercher’s DNA could have fallen accidentally on the blade of Exhibit no. 36 during the course of the search operations.
Subsequently, the knife was then enclosed first in a previously unused paper envelope, and then in a cardboard box taken from inside the offices of the Flying Squad of the Perugia police office, that therefore – without passing any judgment on the suitability or otherwise of the container – certainly did not contain Meredith Kercher’s DNA. Later, the box was opened in the laboratories of the Forensic Police in Rome, seven days after the performance of the last analysis relating to biological traces attributable to Meredith Kercher, and at a time when in those same laboratories there had been another 103 analyses carried out concerning pieces of evidence from other judicial proceedings, without there having been any possibility of accidental transit of Meredith Kercher’s DNA from one piece of evidence to another, or from one piece of evidence to an operator, who might subsequently have deposited it accidentally on the knife.
The contamination of Exhibit no. 36, following a careful analysis of the chronological succession of times and methods of collection and conservation of the physical evidence, and on the basis of the criteria of reasonableness and factual-reality previously highlighted, must therefore be utterly ruled out.

Regarding the bra clasp. I cannot see anything that should merit Marasca's reprimand of Nencini:

Also in relation to Exhibit no. 165 B, it is opportune to follow the same considerations as those observed with regard to Exhibit no. 36.
Indeed, there was extensive discussion about the circumstance that – before being collected by the forensic police – Exhibit 165B) had been affected by mechanical actions [i.e. had been moved] by the personnel present inside the apartment, with clear proof of this being the fact that its finding on 18 December 2007 took place in a different location than that in which it was photographed during the first crime-scene inspection, by a distance of approximately one and a half meters.
[203] This Court holds that this circumstance is entirely irrelevant for the same reasons, as previously asserted, that the potential/possible degradation of the exhibit, either as a consequence of its wrong preservation, or of its outright unprofessional handling, cannot add anything under the profile [obtained from] the organic substances on the exhibit itself, but would, if anything, subtract [something].
The mechanical action applied to Exhibit 165 B (which was, evidently, an inadvertently-delivered kick that moved the bra clasp, given that the photographic documentation in the case files does not reveal any structural modification to the hook in comparison to the first photograph shot on the evening of 2 November 2007), which resulted in the bra clasp being found in a different place than that in which it was photographed on the night of 2 November 2007, together with the questionable proceedings – from a professional point of view – of the State Police personnel, who neglected to immediately collect the bra clasp on the night of 2 November 2007, delaying this until a later moment, could not have caused a degradation of the exhibit, which would otherwise have been stripped of all significance from an analytical point of view, and therefore on the probative or circumstantial level.
This concept, which was repeatedly confirmed by Dr. Stefanoni during the course of the two hearings when she was examined during the first-level trial (22 and 23 May 2009), was not meaningfully countered by any of the defense technical consultants.

In fact, Nencini's reasoning is objective, clear and rational:

It is worth tracking, in the trial papers, the route that Exhibit 165 B followed from the moment of “gathering” until the moment of analysis.
[204] As regards the moment when the bra clasp was collected and recorded as a piece of evidence [repertato], on 18 December 2007, it should be noted that, precisely because of the long lapse of time between the searches carried out in the apartment and in Raffaele Sollecito’s car (more than 40 days), it does not enter the realms of possibility that the forensic police personnel – who on 18 December were wearing protective apparatus, as revealed by the video shoot contained in the case files – could have brought Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA with them from outside the cottage on Via della Pergola no. 7, thereby putting it accidentally on the bra clasp.
In the same way, it does not enter the realms of possibility that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was transferred inadvertently, again by the forensic police personnel who were working inside the cottage on 18 December 2007, from the cigarette butt found in the kitchen ashtray (which, as we have had reason to specify in dealing with it specifically, constituted the sole other presence of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA inside the cottage) onto precisely the metallic part of the little hook.
Also, in fact – apart from the absolute improbability that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA, having been inadvertently collected by contact with the cigarette butt in the ashtray, was then transferred onto precisely the metallic part of the little hook, and not also on the cloth surrounding it, or onto any of the other objects found on the same date of 18 December 2007 – it should be noted that the trace found on the cigarette butt is a mixed trace of Raffaele Sollecito-Amanda Knox. In the event of accidental contact, therefore, the forensic police operator would have had to transfer a mixed trace, Sollecito-Knox, to the bra clasp, and not the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito alone.
The contamination of Exhibit no. 165 B, from a detailed analysis of the chronological sequence of the times and of the methods of collection and conservation of the body of evidence, and on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria of reasonableness and of actual feasibility, must therefore be fundamentally ruled out, at least in relation to the moment of collection.

So, in effect, an unfair and unkind evaluation by Marasca.