Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

As C&V note, TMB was negative (see the very last page of the SAL: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Stato-Avanzamento-Lavori-SAL.pdf).

So, why would she perform a species-specific test? To confirm what kind of animal the not-blood didn't come from?

Anyway, you will also see on the SAL that the place for "species" is blank, meaning that she did not perform a species-specific test.

But, we can see that Stefanoni in her Technical Report says that the species-specific test was "negative." In my opinion, this is an obvious error--there was no species-specific test. In fact, the Technical Report is riddled with mistakes like this, particularly with respect to blood testing. In my opinion, all of the "cat" blood findings are made up, too. The fact of the matter is that there is no backup for any of the claimed blood-testing results (i.e., there are no contemporaneous records available), and none of them should be credited unless they are statements against the prosecution's interests.

This is one of my main problems with C&V: they trusted Stefanoni to be honest and didn't verify. Had they gone the extra step, and demanded the records, this would be a totally different case right now.

I understand your POV but think it is informed by hindsight (Hellman acquitted and everybody reasonably expected the ISC to uphold Hellman) and fails to take account of The Italian Way in which nobody is allowed to accuse anyone else of lying.

This is the first I have heard of the suggestion that she did not in fact undertake a species specific test. However, I think C-V were perfectly justified in taking her at word if she recorded that she had conducted such a test provided, as here, the result was stated to be negative.

 

[Diocletus]

I understand your POV but think it is informed by hindsight (Hellman acquitted and everybody reasonably expected the ISC to uphold Hellman) and fails to take account of The Italian Way in which nobody is allowed to accuse anyone else of lying.

This is the first I have heard of the suggestion that she did not in fact undertake a species specific test. However, I think C-V were perfectly justified in taking her at word if she recorded that she had conducted such a test provided, as here, the result was stated to be negative.

The only place where a species-specific test is referenced is the Technical Report, which was written months after he fact. The SAL, which obviously was compiled earlier, is silent on the issue of a species specific test. I say she didn't do it. I don't think she lied about it (why would she?), I just think its more evidence that she is a slob, and her report--and more generally her work--is unreliable.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Barbie Nadeau's latest..... you have to give her something - that she's been by far the most successful in monetarizing this horrible tragedy.

She's done it through complete, one-sided reporting, all based on her sluttly book, and the notion that Perugian college life runs on threesomes....

Now she is chiming in on the "separation" issue of the two defence appeals.

Lo and behold! She now claims something that does not put PLE in good light!

​

There are transcripts! And her use of "According to...." might suggest that she has read them?

Or is she just lying?

Bill

Thank you without your posts about Ms Nadeau and Vogt articles I would have missed them, yout better than google alert. Did you read any of the comments? Someone even mentioned your "Y" chromosomes”.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Racists? Not even close. I think it's a corollary of Goodwin's law.

I find that racism and sexism are overused. Sometimes there really is a problem but the use of them just gets extremely aggravating at times.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the false confession and its retraction

CoulsdonUK,

Ms. Nadeau wrote, "The next day, she asked her jailers for a piece of paper and pen and backed up that confession with a handwritten statement in which she wrote, “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” When she had legal guidance, she retracted the so-called “false confession”, but, right or wrong, that statement has always been, and continues to be, the crux of the case against Knox and, by default, Sollecito." Do you think that this passage is an accurate summary of these events (which happened in November of 2007)? Why or why not?

 

[Desert Fox]

CoulsdonUK,

Ms. Nadeau wrote, "The next day, she asked her jailers for a piece of paper and pen and backed up that confession with a handwritten statement in which she wrote, “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” When she had legal guidance, she retracted the so-called “false confession”, but, right or wrong, that statement has always been, and continues to be, the crux of the case against Knox and, by default, Sollecito." Do you think that this passage is an accurate summary of these events (which happened in November of 2007)? Why or why not?

Seems to be pretty common. . . Somebody is interrogated until they confess and then the next day they wake up "what the hell did I do."

 

[analemma]

CoulsdonUK,

Ms. Nadeau wrote, "The next day, she asked her jailers for a piece of paper and pen and backed up that confession with a handwritten statement in which she wrote, “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” When she had legal guidance, she retracted the so-called “false confession”, but, right or wrong, that statement has always been, and continues to be, the crux of the case against Knox and, by default, Sollecito." Do you think that this passage is an accurate summary of these events (which happened in November of 2007)? Why or why not?

This is a lie taken out of context.
What Knox actually said was "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.", but Barbie left out the second part("but I..").
This was pointed out in the comments by many posters.
This lie has been used at least three times in the Beast: I found them while searching for the phrase
Analemma

 

[Chris_Halkides]

prior to legal counsel

Seems to be pretty common. . . Somebody is interrogated until they confess and then the next day they wake up "what the hell did I do."

Desert Fox,

I agree with Analemma's comments with respect to the truncation of the quote, but I would also highlight that Ms. Knox's first full retraction was in the form of her 7 November statement, sometimes also called the second memoriale. That occurred prior to her first meeting with her lawyers, which was minutes before the hearing in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November. I agree with your implication that this is an obvious case of someone's making a coerced false confession/accusation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

Thank you without your posts about Ms Nadeau and Vogt articles I would have missed them, yout better than google alert. Did you read any of the comments? Someone even mentioned your "Y" chromosomes”.

My Y-chromosomes! !!! Acc. to Nencini they belong to Meredith's girlfriends! !!!!

You're not the first to accuse me of being one of the few whow read Nadeau. But the implication of what she writes is that there are transcripts of iinterrogations when the PLE say there are none.

You are doing for me what I'm doing for Nadeau. Nobody reads me!

 

[acbytesla]

I understand your POV but think it is informed by hindsight (Hellman acquitted and everybody reasonably expected the ISC to uphold Hellman) and fails to take account of The Italian Way in which nobody is allowed to accuse anyone else of lying.

This is the first I have heard of the suggestion that she did not in fact undertake a species specific test. However, I think C-V were perfectly justified in taking her at word if she recorded that she had conducted such a test provided, as here, the result was stated to be negative.

The cat blood is one of the stranger items in this case especially since I think they found it next to the light switch? How many species specific tests did Stefanoni perform? I think it is quite interesting that there is no actual record she performed any.

Which leads me to another puzzling question. "Why do the PLE and the PGP discount negative TMB tests with a wave of their hand and easily accept that the blood downstairs was cat blood when there isn't any record of that test being performed?

 

[Desert Fox]

Desert Fox,

I agree with Analemma's comments with respect to the truncation of the quote, but I would also highlight that Ms. Knox's first full retraction was in the form of her 7 November statement, sometimes also called the second memoriale. That occurred prior to her first meeting with her lawyers, which was minutes before the hearing in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November. I agree with your implication that this is an obvious case of someone's making a coerced false confession/accusation.

I would argue that it is still within that "Sanity coming back" period.

 

[xinonix]

well it is like algebra, there is an equation with an unknown number called X. We don't know what the number is, but we assume that it exists.
X is the reason why Meredith was killed.
Maybe Rudy was going crazy and/or high on drugs and he decided to rape Meredith. Then she kicked him in the nuts and tried to call the cops on her cell phone. Then Rudy decided that he must kill her. That was not the real reason, the real reason is X.
If something simple like Rudy went bezerk is what happened, the cops would just have charged Rudy with rape and murder. Instead of that ,there is a multi million dollar project that involves hundreds of people to help Rudy and put the blame on 2 other people.

 

[Strozzi]

The only place where a species-specific test is referenced is the Technical Report, which was written months after he fact. The SAL, which obviously was compiled earlier, is silent on the issue of a species specific test. I say she didn't do it. I don't think she lied about it (why would she?), I just think its more evidence that she is a slob, and her report--and more generally her work--is unreliable.

I agree with you that Stefanoni is a slob. She runs a dirty lab, cuts corners, skips steps, doesn't save data, doesn't keep a contemporaneous log, tolerates contamination, switches machines without explanation (obfuscating results). Her supervisors don't enforce standards. And that does not include what she does to deliberately deceive.

I would like to see Stefanoni's lab, procedures, and court testimony written up as a case study for college students to read/view. An example of what not to do.

 

[Kaosium]

This is one of my main problems with C&V: they trusted Stefanoni to be honest and didn't verify. Had they gone the extra step, and demanded the records, this would be a totally different case right now.

Remember the scope of C&V's commission was limited to the knife blade and the bra clasp:

“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

“whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification“
“if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.”

It causes me to wonder if some of Stephanoni's dissembling in her exchange of notes with Hellmann was based upon this; there's a part where she says something about not being able to separate something and I never quite figured out what she meant. I wonder if it was that there wasn't any (or an easy) way to produce the edfs from only the bra clasp and knife blade and that was the cause of her 'perplexity.'

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with you that Stefanoni is a slob. She runs a dirty lab, cuts corners, skips steps, doesn't save data, doesn't keep a contemporaneous log, tolerates contamination, switches machines without explanation (obfuscating results). Her supervisors don't enforce standards. And that does not include what she does to deliberately deceive.

I would like to see Stefanoni's lab, procedures, and court testimony written up as a case study for college students to read/view. An example of what not to do.

That's the problem with scientific evidence. One must be extremely meticulous with everything that is done and extensive notation is required. Frankly Stefanoni is much better at her job than I would be, but she and her lab must be run at much much more exacting standards than that. A tiny unnoticeable mistake can have tragic ramifications as we have seen in this case.

 

[codyjuneau]

Seems to be pretty common. . . Somebody is interrogated until they confess and then the next day they wake up "what the hell did I do."

.
Imagine a long distance truck driver who is not allowed to rest until he or she has had an accident. Eventually the driver will have an accident, good driver or not.

Imagine an interrogation where the person is not allowed to rest until he or she tells the police what they want to hear. Eventually the person will cave, guilty or not, which kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

Cody
.

 

[Anode]

The cat blood is one of the stranger items in this case especially since I think they found it next to the light switch? How many species specific tests did Stefanoni perform? I think it is quite interesting that there is no actual record she performed any.

Which leads me to another puzzling question. "Why do the PLE and the PGP discount negative TMB tests with a wave of their hand and easily accept that the blood downstairs was cat blood when there isn't any record of that test being performed?

Oh, I know. I can answer that question with two words:

Confirmation Bias

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I know. I can answer that question with two words:

Confirmation Bias

It reminds of me arguing with a religious person about evolution. They don't know why evolution is wrong but that it just must be because the bible tells them so.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

The Prognosis is Not Good, Gentlemen

well it is like algebra, there is an equation with an unknown number called X. We don't know what the number is, but we assume that it exists.
X is the reason why Meredith was killed.
Maybe Rudy was going crazy and/or high on drugs and he decided to rape Meredith. Then she kicked him in the nuts and tried to call the cops on her cell phone. Then Rudy decided that he must kill her. That was not the real reason, the real reason is X.
If something simple like Rudy went bezerk is what happened, the cops would just have charged Rudy with rape and murder. Instead of that ,there is a multi million dollar project that involves hundreds of people to help Rudy and put the blame on 2 other people.

And you're serious presumably? Still - if you find this sort of wild and lonely fantasy entertaining who am I to deny your self-indulgent pleasures!?

 

[Diocletus]

Did the Kerchers ever Pray for the Sollecitos/Knoxs

Just wondering if anyone knows whether the Kerchers ever prayed for the Sollecitos and Knoxes and acknowledged their pain? The reason I ask is that I see that Yara's parents are doing that for the family of the accused, so I thought that might be the way it works over there: http://www.ilmessaggero.it/PRIMOPIANO/CRONACA/yara_gambirasio_genitori/notizie/756008.shtml.

I mean, I know they're all dignified and all of that, but did they do what Yara's parents are doing?