Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[sherlockh]

IMO Otto, linking to tabloid trash like that seriously undermines the credibility of other links you provide. JMO

Ah tabloid stuff. I agree that is very bad (gets coffee, puts up feet, and starts reading).

 

[SMK]

Ah tabloid stuff. I agree that is very bad (gets coffee, puts up feet, and starts reading).

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[redheadedgal]

Is there a quote from this? All I read is that no confirmatory blood tests were done. That is not a lie.

Massei Report, Page 256/257:

With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she [Dr Gino] stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile.

 

[sherlockh]

Massei Report, Page 256/257:

Thanks but dr Gino is a defense expert. I thought there was an actual quote of what PS said.

 

[Bill C]

Is there a quote from this? All I read is that no confirmatory blood tests were done. That is not a lie.

No it may not be a lie but it is a form of dishonesty by omission. It is cherry picking evidence and shows a prosecutorial bias on the part of Steffanoni. A true scientist draws conclusions based on ALL the data. The public depends on the integrity of the people involved in law enforcement. When that integrity is compromised by one or more people's bias, whether that bias derives from racism, xenophobia or the a priori belief that the prosecution or the defense is definitely correct in their theories of the crime, ALL society loses. No matter which side of the case you fall on, I would hope you would want a fair trial. A fair trial requires a complete honest presentation of ALL evidence and that includes a thorough and honest evaluation of the available data. It appears that Steffanoni has not been capable of this. Apparently she believes that the ends justify the means and that is a very dangerous belief. OK I'll get off my soapbox.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks but dr Gino is a defense expert. I thought there was an actual quote of what PS said.

Defense witness or not she was still under oath when she stated this:

"we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

 

[otto]

Wow, this is interesting.

RS says "Only a crazy girl wanted this fame but she was really affected by mental illness."

http://starmagazine.com/2014/01/22/...oyfriends-desperate-affair/#jp-carousel-78270

I have to agree with Sollecito. He seems to have an ability to attract women with mental issues ... doesn't say much for him.

 

[sherlockh]

No it may not be a lie but it is a form of dishonesty by omission. It is cherry picking evidence and shows a prosecutorial bias on the part of Steffanoni. A true scientist draws conclusions based on ALL the data. The public depends on the integrity of the people involved in law enforcement. When that integrity is compromised by one or more people's bias, whether that bias derives from racism, xenophobia or the a priori belief that the prosecution or the defense is definitely correct in their theories of the crime, ALL society loses. No matter which side of the case you fall on, I would hope you would want a fair trial. A fair trial requires a complete honest presentation of ALL evidence and that includes a thorough and honest evaluation of the available data. It appears that Steffanoni has not been capable of this. Apparently she believes that the ends justify the means and that is a very dangerous belief. OK I'll get off my soapbox.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I need to see the context first. How can you call other people liars based on a single line? If the context was specific blood testing then she did not lie, and somebody misunderstood. Besides I think the misunderstandings have long been resolved as I don't recall a defense lawyer mentioning this 'lie'.

 

[aa9511]

Re: Raffaele's ex-girlfriend's Radar article -- I don't understand why he would choose the US when the US has an extradition treaty with Italy?

 

[otto]

Re: Raffaele's ex-girlfriend's Radar article -- I don't understand why he would choose the US when the US has an extradition treaty with Italy?

He's probably thinking that if Knox can avoid extradition as a US citizen, then if he was one too, he could also avoid extradition. He seems very mixed up and desperate.

 

[aa9511]

He's probably thinking that if Knox can avoid extradition as a US citizen, then if he was one too, he could also avoid extradition. He seems very mixed up and desperate.

Yes, that makes sense. Also perhaps Amanda has better lawyers and more "clout" because she is the more public figure of the two.

He does seem desperate.

Well, perhaps it will be "not guilty," so then they have nothing to worry about.

 

[Bill C]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I need to see the context first. How can you call other people liars based on a single line? If the context was specific blood testing then she did not lie, and somebody misunderstood. Besides I think the misunderstandings have long been resolved as I don't recall a defense lawyer mentioning this 'lie'.

It is not just a single line where Steffanoni neglected to reveal the negative MTB test but a series of actions by Steffanoni (please go back and look at several of my recent posts detailing specifics) that represent complete scientific ineptitude or lack of scientific honesty or a combination thereof.

As I've revealed before, I am an academic radiologist. What I haven't revealed until now is that I review scientific articles submitted for publication to some of the most respected radiologic journals in the world, determining whether the science in these articles meets accepted standards. I have also served on NIH committees reviewing grant applications to determine which grants should receive funding. In mention this not to brag but to demonstrate that I have been trained to recognize GOOD science. Believe me when I tell you that whether intentional or not, the work presented by Steffanoni in these trials has been suboptimal at best.

 

[aa9511]

Someone asked the other day (I think MyVice) whether we think Rudy will talk after he gets out....I was just thinking that he will probably write a book or something (not he himself, a ghost writer of course), b/c you know these killers in prison, you know they have so many years to perfect their story and make it just right. I mean, he has had so many years by now, he must have invented a pretty good story. So I think he will talk, still keeping his line that he did not participate.

 

[sherlockh]

It is not just a single line where Steffanoni neglected to reveal the negative MTB test but a series of actions by Steffanoni (please go back and look at several of my recent posts detailing specifics) that represent complete scientific ineptitude or lack of scientific honesty or a combination thereof.

As I've revealed before, I am an academic radiologist. What I haven't revealed until now is that I review scientific articles submitted for publication to some of the most respected radiologic journals in the world, determining whether the science in these articles meets accepted standards. I have also served on NIH committees reviewing grant applications to determine which grants should receive funding. In mention this not to brag but to demonstrate that I have been trained to recognize GOOD science. Believe me when I tell you that whether intentional or not, the work presented by Steffanoni in these trials has been suboptimal at best.

Then why isn't anybody giving me the context in which she is supposed to have said this? I haven't even seen a direct quote yet. I have seen several statements made that were all false which I have proven with direct quotes from reports and articles. Negative controls were done, no further testing was possible after the negative TMB test, TMB is less sensitive than Luminol, Stefanoni never 'lied', she never planted any evidence. What is really left of all the criticism?

 

[Bill C]

Then why isn't anybody giving me the context in which she is supposed to have said this? I haven't even seen a direct quote yet. I have seen several statements made that were all false which I have proven with direct quotes from reports and articles. Negative controls were done, no further testing was possible after the negative TMB test, TMB is less sensitive than Luminol, Stefanoni never 'lied', she never planted any evidence. What is really left of all the criticism?

1) If the controls were done, where are they? Neither the court or the defense has seen them. Most reputable labs store their data electronically so that copies are easily available. Has their been another computer fried (note my cynicism). Was that good science?
2) Why were no further tests possible after TMB tests were run? Why didn't they save some of the sample and not test it with TMB so that other tests could be run? Was that good science?
3) Why did she not test her assistants' DNA and the DNA of every male that entered the murder room after the body was discovered to determine if there was a match to any of the 2-4 sets of male DNA also found on the bra clasp? if there was a match it would have proven contamination and that would have ruined a perfectly good piece of prosecution evidence. Again, note my cynicism. Was that good science?
4) I can't prove, at this time and maybe I never will, that she planted evidence but I have my suspicions. Can you prove she didn't? Yet you make the claim she didn't. I hope both you and I can recognize the irony here. I'm asking you to prove Steffanoni's innocence (which unquestionably is difficult to do) and it seems to me that the ISC, in essence, is asking AK and RS to prove their innocence.
5) What about the farcical collection of the bra clasp that Steffanoni supervised? Was that good science?
6) What about letting the bra clasp rust so that no further tests could be performed on it? Was that good science?

 

[aa9511]

It is not just a single line where Steffanoni neglected to reveal the negative MTB test but a series of actions by Steffanoni (please go back and look at several of my recent posts detailing specifics) that represent complete scientific ineptitude or lack of scientific honesty or a combination thereof.

As I've revealed before, I am an academic radiologist. What I haven't revealed until now is that I review scientific articles submitted for publication to some of the most respected radiologic journals in the world, determining whether the science in these articles meets accepted standards. I have also served on NIH committees reviewing grant applications to determine which grants should receive funding. In mention this not to brag but to demonstrate that I have been trained to recognize GOOD science. Believe me when I tell you that whether intentional or not, the work presented by Steffanoni in these trials has been suboptimal at best.

Bill_C, I do not mean any disrespect at all, but I do find it odd that you seem to, for lack of a better word, despise Stefanoni so much. Just speaking for myself as a "neutral" observer, by neutral meaning I have never met or talked with any of the parties involved in this case, I do not hold such strong feelings for any in the case. For example, I am pretty convinced that Amanda and RS were involved in the murder in some way or another (I am still working it out, but have stated my theory in recent posts), however, if the verdict comes in Not-guilty, I am fine with that. Even "knowing" they were there and, whether accidental or not, they killed Meredith along with Rudy. But I will be ok that they got a trial (loooonnggg trial), and the jury spoke, and I will accept their decision no matter what it is. Because I know that, as an outsider, no matter how much interest I have in the case, I am still an outsider and I am on the outside looking in - a much different position than those who are actively involved or were actively involved with the case.

I know you are a scientist and have stated that your feelings about Stefanoni are because of this. However, there is not pnly one piece of DNA or one piece of forensic evidence on Amanda - there are many in the cottage. If one is dismissed because of contamination, there are still more there. The situation is different for RS, I admit that, DNA-wise.

Also, even taking out all of the DNA, there is still, IMO, much circumstantial evidence against Amanda and RS having nothing to do with DNA.

So I don't understand why the intense dislike for Stefanoni?

IMO it's not like the case would have just crumbled down if it weren't for her. There would still be a case, there would still be DNA, there would still be their stories, the alibi problems, etc..

 

[otto]

Then why isn't anybody giving me the context in which she is supposed to have said this? I haven't even seen a direct quote yet. I have seen several statements made that were all false which I have proven with direct quotes from reports and articles. Negative controls were done, no further testing was possible after the negative TMB test, TMB is less sensitive than Luminol, Stefanoni never 'lied', she never planted any evidence. What is really left of all the criticism?

The court concluded that Knox stepped in blood in Meredith's bedroom and then tracked the blood, evidenced by her luminol revealed footprints, to various places in the cottage (page 382 Massei Report).

The attack on Dr Stefanoni is like deja vu with the attacks on Dr Mignini, and so many other officials connected with the case. I had hoped that we were long past the stage of attacking the people involved in seeking justice for Meredith Kercher, but I guess not.

 

[sherlockh]

1) If the controls were done, where are they? Neither the court or the defense has seen them. Most reputable labs store their data electronically so that copies are easily available. Has their been another computer fried (note my cynicism). Was that good science?

Galati Appeal

These controls had been presented by the experts, though, as if not effected by the Scientific Police biologist, only in so far as not being annexed to the report. These same [controls] had been, instead, shown in court by the Public Prosecutor as documents already annexed to the case file at first instance (cf ibid pp 130 and following).

2) Why were no further tests possible after TMB tests were run? Why didn't they save some of the sample and not test it with TMB so that other tests could be run? Was that good science?

Simply a matter of sensitivity.
Massei Report (pls note that Dr Gino is the defense expert)

the negative result of the TMB test (tetramethylbenzidine) made it impossible to determine exactly what material had been analysed.

3) Why did she not test her assistants' DNA and the DNA of every male that entered the murder room after the body was discovered to determine if there was a match to any of the 2-4 sets of male DNA also found on the bra clasp? if there was a match it would have proven contamination and that would have ruined a perfectly good piece of prosecution evidence. Again, note my cynicism. Was that good science?

Don't confuse a few peaks with an actual DNA profile. You can't compare a few peaks to anybody. It only showed that there were other male contributors

4) I can't prove, at this time and maybe I never will, that she planted evidence but I have my suspicions. Can you prove she didn't? Yet you make the claim she didn't. I hope both you and I can recognize the irony here. I'm asking you to prove Steffanoni's innocence (which unquestionably is difficult to do) and it seems to me that the ISC, in essence, is asking AK and RS to prove their innocence.

I am not the one to prove anything here. Such accusations should be supported with evidence.

5) What about the farcical collection of the bra clasp that Steffanoni supervised? Was that good science?

It is being exaggerated to somehow make it sound that there is an actual change of Sollecito's DNA getting on to the bra clasp by some guys touching it with gloves. There is zero change of that happening. This would be tertiary DNA transfer which has a probability that can be safely ignored. This was pure touch DNA from nobody else than the owner of the DNA IMO.

6) What about letting the bra clasp rust so that no further tests could be performed on it? Was that good science?

I agree with this one. That should not happen.

 

[sherlockh]

The court concluded that Knox stepped in blood in Meredith's bedroom and then tracked the blood, evidenced by her luminol revealed footprints, to various places in the cottage (page 382 Massei Report).

The attack on Dr Stefanoni is like deja vu with the attacks on Dr Mignini, and so many other officials connected with the case. I had hoped that we were long past the stage of attacking the people involved in seeking justice for Meredith Kercher, but I guess not.

Yes, but it does show the strength of the evidence IMO. It reflects the position of the defense. They can't explain Sollecito's DNA on the bra. Wasn't it Sollecito Sr. that tried to explain it by saying Knox used Meredith's bra? This is the kind of explanation the defense really needed but there was none. So all that was left is trying to get it thrown out based on technicalities. Attacking the work of the police. It is not a very strong defense.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, but it does show the strength of the evidence IMO. It reflects the position of the defense. They can't explain Sollecito's DNA on the bra. Wasn't it Sollecito Sr. that tried to explain it by saying Knox used Meredith's bra? This is the kind of explanation the defense really needed but there was none. So all that was left is trying to get it thrown out based on technicalities. Attacking the work of the police. It is not a very strong defense.

I agree with this. I also think that Raffaele made, or let, Amanda do most of the clean-up while he was very careful to stay on the "sidelines" so he wouldn't risk leaving much evidence anywhere.