Monday, October 17, 2016

Netflixhoax 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Posted by KrissyG

Above, modern Scientific Police labs in Rome; bottom, hellhole consultants labs (now closed)

1. Introduction

“Amanda Knox” by Netflix is massively misleading on the DNA. It completely ignores that Conti’s and Vechiotti’s 2011 report was unceremoniously ridiculed in 2013 by the First Chambers of the Supreme Court and the fraudulent pair branded as “˜intellectually dishonest’. 

Netflix presents Conti and Vechiotti as trustworthy and competent when Vechiotti’s appalling lab had already been forcibly shut down. They ignore that the pair illegally colluded with US and British DNA academics Hampikian, Budowle and Gill beholden to the defense who interfered to pervert the outcome of the appeal.

They present Knox and Sollecito as “˜exonerated’ and “˜innocent’ based in part on Vecchiotti & Conti’s misleading narrative when they were nothing of the kind.

They ignore that, in large part because of their incompetences and dishonesties, the 2011 appeal was annulled.  They ignore that the case was remitted back down to a different Appeal Court, in a different area (Florence) under a different judge (Nencini) while the 2011 judge (Hellman) was edged into retirement.

And they ignore that Italy’s best DNA experts, from the Carabinieri labs in Rome, were assigned the role of DNA analysis for the repeat appeal, as they should have been in 2011, and important confirmations were presented and barely challenged.

Here is TJMK’s series of DNA analyses and the Wiki’s giant DNA spreadsheet with a lengthy explanation of how it works. And here in Italian is the full rebuttal of all defense challenges by Dr Stefanoni, lead prosecution expert at trial and annulled appeal. 

Finally, a tip on the images below. These are movie snippets, with English subtitles included. They expand to full screen in Acrobat Reader (please download it if you dont have it) if you click on each image.

Part 2 below explains what is in the film that misleads, and Part 3 describes all that was left out.

2. What Is In The Film

In the film, Vecchiotti and Conti appear quite deeply into the film, at minute 64 of 92 minutes.  The appearance of the “˜DNA experts’ towards the end enables the film makers to reinforce the image of a great miscarriage of justice, leading up to the grand finale denouement. 

Enter Conti. Referring to the evidence of Sollecito’s DNA found on the bra, Conti introduces the audience to a key principle of DNA.  It is “˜dust spread everywhere,’ he avers.  To set the scene, we are informed that the Forensic Police (”˜Scientific Police’ in Italy) acted chaotically and that the crime scene was an absolute shambles.  We hear an audio voiceover of a supposed scientific policeman saying to another “˜this is absurd, there is unbelievable chaos everywhere’.

So there we have it.  “˜A crime scene must be completely sterile’.  We are roundly informed that this crime scene was not, based on Conti’s word for it.

Next, enter his co-partner, the other “˜independent’ expert hired by the Hellmann appeal court to evaluate the evidence concerning he DNA identified on the presumed murder weapon knife, and the bra clasp sample: Carla Vecchiotti.

Carla Vecchiotti claims that the issue of contamination of the DNA “˜was raised by the court’.  Shot moves to the scientific police as she continues, “˜ it could have been by other people’.

She then throws in a red herring.  “˜There was the DNA of two unknown males on the clasp’, which we can dispense with straight away.  In reality they were fragments of DNA, no more than 6 ““ 8 alleles, and precisely of the type of dust contamination Conti is talking about.  This effectively subverts the issue away from the strong DNA profile of Sollecito found on the clasp.

Vecchiotti then continues the theme of the film that the prosecutor Mignini was acting entirely intuitively.  “˜You can’t just make it what you want it to be’.

She claims there are “˜problems with contamination in the laboratory’, yet in court she insisted the alleged contamination was at the collection stage, and not at the laboratory.  A picture of the knife comes up.

Vecchiotti comments, “˜The Knox DNA profile is a very good one.’

Of the Kercher DNA on the blade she states, “˜It’s so small.  So scarce, the likelihood of contamination is very high.’

From this, she concludes the Kercher DNA is “˜inconclusive’.

The film makers show us the picture at least three times with “˜INCONCLUSIVE’ in bold red letters.  “˜I asked Dr Stefanoni (the forensic police chief in charge of this case) how she concluded this is the murder weapon without any other evidence?’

However, the courts upheld, and Conti and Vecchiotti themselves concurred under oath, that far from being inconclusive, it was a strong profile of Meredith, at 15 alleles.

Again, Vecchiotti repeats the lie that the laboratory was contaminated, when no such finding was upheld by any court, including Hellmann’s, by referring to Stefanoni stating she had examined fifty of Meredith’s samples at the same time, see above.  She insinuates Stefanoni overrode standards so that they would not have to close the lab up between samples.

The film then cuts to clips of US media outrage at Vecchiotti’s findings of “˜contamination’, even dragging in Donald Trump, no doubt sucking on a tic tac, with just a small cameo of Mignini for “˜balance’, stating that “˜all evidence’ needs to be looked at, implying that Mignini accepted the alleged contamination and was now trying to deflect from it onto other evidence.  The reader should bear in mind, that in fact, there was no such finding of contamination in Stefanoni’s labs.

Nor does she or her co-partner ever once in the film, and nor do the film makers mention that their report was discredited by the Chieffi Supreme court and Hellmann expunged.

Having established ““ falsely ““ that Vecchiotti and Conti had proven contamination to an unwary audience, the film then cuts to Amanda Knox claiming, “˜There is no trace of me in the murder room’.

We are shown a diagram of eight black spots of Rudy Guede’s traces and one white one for Sollecito, some distance away from the body, underneath which it was actually found.  A police mug shot of Guede appears on screen, whom Knox describes as “˜ a guy who regularly committed burglaries’.

From this we are led to believe Guede is a seasoned criminal career burglar, when as of the time, he had no convictions at all.  The film makers inform the audience it is, “˜a burglary gone wrong’, not a finding by any court, apart from the vacated Hellmann court.  The balance (at roughly six to one against, in terms of time coverage) once again is provided by Mignini who points out its unfairness, given the evidence found at the trial.

The film then cuts to Conti, who makes an astonishing confession ““ for a scientific professional expert witness and professor ““  stating, “˜What happened inside that room between Guede and Meredith, was not a job assigned to me.’

So now it is out in the open, Vecchiotti and Conti, far from protecting their professional integrity by following their ethical code, which states that they are expected to act with objectivity in their professional role and should safeguard this by recusing themselves should they feel that they have become advocates for a party, in the film do not even hide their partisanship.

Conti feels confident in this “˜documentary’, now as a global film star, to declare his advocacy for Knox and Sollecito with the above statement.

The Vecchiotti and Conti sequence of the film ends with a drawn out episode of a supercilious Conti leaning back in an attitude of condescension, no doubt aimed at Mignini, when he concludes,

“˜Cicero once said’ ““ pause ““ “˜ Any man can err, but only a fool perseveres.’

Next, the film completely ignores that his and Vechiotti’s 2011 report was unceremoniously ridiculed in 2013 by the next level court ““ Chieffi, Supreme Court ““ and the pair branded as “˜intellectually dishonest’.  It ignores that the case was remitted back to a completely different Appeal Court, in a completely different area, from Umbria to Tuscany, and under a completely different judge.

In the Netflix film, a diagram showing Knox’ DNA on the knife handle is admired as a strong profile.  Meredith’s DNA on the blade is highlighted as a question mark.  About three times, the viewer is shown the same diagram with the word “˜INCONCLUSIVE’ above the Meredith DNA in red letters.

The truth is, ALL of the defence experts ““ including Vecchiotti and Conti ““ accepted it was a strong DNA profile of Meredith (15-allele) so we see a blatant misrepresentation here, that rather than the confidently strong profile it is, Vecchiotti declares that it is “˜inconclusive’, and leads the viewer to believe this was because of proven contamination.

This deception is underlined by the film makers immediately galloping to the 2011 Hellman Court after the Vecchiotti & Conti interview, with wild scenes of Hellmann freeing the pair and declaring them innocent.

The connection is made: the knife DNA ““ and the bra clasp ““ is “˜contaminated’ and that is why the pair were freed.  “˜This was the only flimsy evidence,’ is the message conveyed. Thanks to the lurid and putrid imaginings of Mignini and Pisa, those kids suffered, the viewer is told.

Cue mass media bombardment by the outraged Netflix viewers, on Twitter and Facebook excoriating Pisa, mostly, and also Mignini as having botched up the whole case and ruined the lives of these two kids.

3. What Was Left Out

Part 3 is perhaps twice as long as Part 2 because Netflix lied by omission to its audience on such a grand scale. These are the areas to be covered.

  • I will look at Vecchiotti and Conti’s true track record, which is appalling. The husband of a murder victim was denied justice for a staggering NINETEEN years, as DNA investigator Vecchiotti, et al, negligently refused to investigate the DNA of the perpetrator of the murder.

  • How did Vecchiotti and Conti get appointed by Hellmann court at all? I reveal how the US contingent of pro-Amanda Knox scientists helped “˜fix’ it.

  • I will highlight the legerdemain ploys adopted by the pair in preparing their report, which predicated Hellmann freeing the pair from prison. It was a moot point henceforth as to whether they would ever return.

  • I will set out Chieffi’s and Nencini’s damning criticisms of Vecchiotti and Conti in the case.  Crini points out, in the Nencini report, that Vecchiotti’s own laboratory fridge did not have a thermometer!

  • I will show how the elaborate “˜heist’ of the judicial system in springing “˜the kids’ from jail happened. A US scientist, using Boise University resources Greg Hampikian was bragging to courts in the US under oath, even as Hellmann had been expunged and Nencini had just recommenced the appeal, that, “˜I am still working on the Amanda Knox case’.

  • My analysis exposes the interconnections between US advocates Hampikian, Bruce Budowle and British forensic expert, Dr Peter Gill, with Vecchiotti and Conti, which casts grave doubt on the pair being “˜independent’ expert witnesses at all.

Vecchiotti lab

The Conti and Vecchiotti Track Record

On 21 April 2016, Carla Vechiotti, together with Pascali, Vicenza and Arberello, was found guilty in a civil suit of gross negligence in the examination of the murder of Contessa Ogliata, dating from 1991, and ordered to pay €150,000 in damages.  Vecchiotti appears to have a reputation for cutting more corners than Stirling Moss, with other cases often quoted, with which she is associated.

Recently, Conti and Vecchiotti’s laboratory in Rome was closed down due to public health issues. Contamination almost certainly occurred in their laboratory.  Rotting cadavers unclaimed by relatives, were said to have piled up in the corridors.  Stefanoni’s laboratory, which followed all the conventional standards of the day was never proven to have been contaminated.
Carla Vecchiotti’s reputation is in tatters. She has made a number of shocking errors in a couple of murder cases, she repeatedly misled the appeal court - Judge Nencini described her and Conti’s work as “misleading” and “reprehensible”.

Vecchiotti lab

The Hellmann Court (Appeal Court)

On 18 Dec 2010 at the Hellmann appeal the defences made three unusual requests, (a) to get an independent review of the DNA and (b) to bring in Alessi to challenge Guede’s testimony and (c) Aviello, a mobster.  Hellmann agreed to appoint Conti & Vecchiotti from La Sapienza University in Rome.  In the interim 16 Dec 2010, Rudy Guede was definitively convicted.

Request (a) was challenged by Comodi, saying there were many experts for both sides already.  Hellmann argued a judge did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the experts’ opinions.  Having achieved the appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti , Conti & Vecchiotti [”˜the experts’] delivered the coup de grâce: claiming international standards were not met, contamination could not be ruled out, and that the DNA profile of Meredith could not be reliable.

The pair made the claim the DNA could have “˜come from dust’, strongly rebutted by Stefanoni, who said in that case, there should have been contamination elsewhere, not just on the bra clasp.

Contamination from the laboratory was completely ruled out, contrary to the claims made in the Netflix film, after which, “˜the experts’ moved to a stance that the contamination happened before it even got to the laboratories.  At the hearing, Conti was constantly asked what the criteria were for alleging contamination, to which he replied, “˜Anything is possible’.  As a scientist, a proper evaluation of probability was expected of him.

In their report they claimed, “˜The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.’

It transpired “˜the experts’ had decided to use the US standards of Bruce Budowle and supported by Gill, et al., that the threshold for Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA should be raised to 200 picograms, from the hitherto conventional 100 picograms.

In addition, “˜the experts’ argued, the US standard of 50 RFU’s should be used in place of the then Italian standard of 30 RFU’s.  Analysis of DNA below these levels introduces a higher risk of “˜background noise’; contamination from alien sources, i.e., everyday dust, which may contain DNA fragments.

Hellmann, “˜the experts’ and the US scientists getting involved, by virtue of “˜the experts’ quoting extensively from their papers, erred in presupposing that Dr Stefanoni knew nothing about these issues.  Professor Novelli, for the state, challenged the claim that there was any contamination.  Indeed “˜the experts’ were unable to demonstrate this other than by quoting lengthy academic papers which had little to do with mundane case law and more to do with ivory towers.

Vecchiotti, born 1951 with a long CV from medical student days would have known what Italian standards were, yet tried to subvert them in retrospect.

A complaint was lodged by the prosecution about the pair being seen to openly fraternise with Sollecito’s defence team during the hearing, a strict Bar Standard “˜no, no’ for an independent expert witness.

“˜The experts’ refused to analyse a further sample of DNA found on the knife, giving the reason it was LCN, and they “˜didn’t want to make the same mistake as Stefanoni.’

Hellmann accepted “˜the experts’ findings and acquitted Knox and Sollecito declaring them innocent, aside from the calunnia for Knox, together with finding that Guede acted alone, as a “˜burglar disturbed.’

For the film makers, this defines the end of the film.

The Chieffi Court (Supreme Court)

In 2013 the next level of appeal court overturned completely Hellman’s findings.  It rebutted that the DNA sample of Meredith’s was ipso facto low quality just because it was LCN.

“˜The experts’ had claimed, relying on their US sources that LCN sampling should only be done on special projects, such as missing persons or cadaver identification, and that there was not the technology as it was “˜too innovative’.

Chieffi did not buy this, pointing to embryology studies.  He scoffed at the idea of “˜the experts’ being more expert than Professor Novelli or Dr Torricelli.  He censured Hellmann for failing to consider their equivalent expert knowledge.  Chieffi was particularly critical of “˜the experts’ refusing to test the remaining knife sample, calling their reasoning, “˜intellectually dishonest’.

On 25 March 2013, Chieffi ordered the case back to the Appeal court to consider the DNA evidence again, amongst other issues, and that the knife sample be tested.  One suspects “˜the experts’ were loath to test the sample in case it turned out be further DNA of Meredith, and this may be why Chieffi smelt a rat.

The Nencini Court (Appeal Court)

In 2014 Judge Nencini made it clear in a newspaper interview it was not within his remit to criticise “˜the experts’, but rather, to assess the legal rectitude of the Massei court decision, which Hellmann patently failed to do.  However, criticise he does. 

He directs Dr Barni, witness for the Carabinieri Lab, that “˜no US standards’ are to be quoted which C&V had done profusely. In upholding the findings of the Massei court he makes the following point in his reasoning about the DNA of the knife and bra clasp:

“”¦ The consultant holds furthermore that the most appropriate technical approach to interpret the genetic profile arising from trace 165B and to avoid subjective interpretations is to “call upon”, meaning to consider as valid, all of the alleles with RFU > 50, independently of their position or whether or not they might be stutter.

Once the complete profile is determined, given that there may also be more than two contributors to the trace, we feel that the only statistical approach that can be used adequately here is the RMNE (Random Man Not Excluded) method.

This statistical approach makes it possible to estimate the possible error due to a chance compatibility, meaning that of a person chosen randomly from the population and who by pure chance is fully compatible with the genetic characteristics of the individual represented in the trace.

The higher and nearer to 1 that probability is, the more likely it is that the profile could be the result of a random choice and thus the higher the probability of an error in the attribution of the genetic profile to a given individual. In this case, as seen in Table 5, the profile of Raffaele Sollecito is compatible at all the loci analyzed in the mixture of DNA found on Exhibit 165B.

The probability that a random individual from the population would also be compatible (the inclusion probability) [245] was calculated, and came out to be equal to 3.05592 x 10^-6, which is about 1 in 327 thousand. This computation is considered to be extremely conservative, since all of the allelic components are taken into consideration together with their frequency in the reference population.” (Pages 15-17 of the technical report submitted at the 6 September 2011 hearing before the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia.)

The same investigative method was also suggested by the consultant of the Prosecutor in relation to the interpretation of the genetic profile of the markers located on the Y chromosome of trace 165B. Here again, all alleles with RFU>50 were considered, giving the following table:

[246] On the basis of the data in the above table, applying the method of statistical calculation indicated above, Prof. Novelli estimated the probability of a chance inclusion of a random person from the population in the mixed profile, together with the chance compatibility of this random individual with the major contributor to the Y chromosome, as about 1 in 3 billion.”

He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by “˜the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited.  Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination.

The sample on the knife “˜the experts’ had claimed was “˜starch’ and “˜too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox.  None of this is mentioned by Vecchiotti & Conti in the film and nor do the film makers point it out, leaving their audience to believe “˜the experts’ claim of “˜contamination is proven’.

A key finding was that Professors Novelli and Torricelli had already been the target of the criticisms raised specifically by Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, technical consultant for the Sollecito defense, at the first instance trial court, and thus was a matter settled (res judicata).

This is important to note, for Marasca later describes Tagliabracci in glowing terms as “˜world renowned’ when he reinstates the Hellmann findings in this matter, at the next level.  Nencini observes, “˜Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.’

Nencini also found that the second instance [Hellman] court undervalued the fact that the tests carried out took place during the preliminary investigation [of which the Defence was notified and had the right to attend], that at the time of those tests, there were no objections concerning the sampling and laboratory activity, nor was a pre”trial hearing requested regarding the testing, all of which proves agreement with the [laboratory] procedures.


Was There Contamination?

There were NO full male DNA profiles on the bra, apart from Sollecito and Guede’s.

Vecchiotti and Conti, significantly, in the film, try to detract from this highly incriminating scientific fact, by making reference to everyday dust fragments, as if that could possibly account for it.

The assertion by Conti in the film that “˜a crime scene must be kept sterile,’ is meaningless for there are many environmental pollutants at every crime scene.

The expert witness testimony of Professor David Balding, to the court is as follows, and who, until October 2009 was Professor in Statistical Genetics at Imperial College, London, where he still retains an affiliation as Visiting Professor. He is an editor of the Handbook of Statistical Genetics.

“Sollecito’s alleles are all represented and these generate the highest peaks, but there are some low peaks not attributable to him; so at least one of the additional contributors of low-level DNA to the sample was male.”

“They correctly criticised the scientific police for ignoring these: many do appear to be stutter peaks which are usually ignored, but 4 are not and definitely indicate DNA from another individual.  The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA.

That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses.  There is virtually no crime sample that doesn’t have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime.

This does create additional uncertainty in the analysis because of the extra ambiguity about the true profile of the contributor of interest, but as long as it is correctly allowed for in the analysis there is no problem - it is completely routine.” (David Balding).

“in some cases we have peaks that correspond to a fourth person.”

“The fourth person is not Guede, it seems. This mystery fourth person hasn’t been mentioned much. (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

“But because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 16 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, as the legal threshold, so 16 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong.”

“In this case all the peaks associated with Sollecito seem clear and distinct so I think there can be no concern about the quality of the result as far as it concerns him or Kercher.”

The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI - the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:

“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.

In other words, Conti and Vecchiotti were not referring to the specific guidelines and recommendation of one particular international forensic organisations despite giving that impression at the appeal in Perugia.

They cited a number of obscure American publications such as the the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook. The Italian Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.

Professor Novelli also pointed out that contamination has to be proved:

“The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it originated from and where it is. The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”

Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it. Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result.

Back in 2008 pre-trial there was an independent review of the forensic evidence.

Dr Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He testified at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial in October 2008 and confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He also praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team.

“We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”

So thus we have a pointer as to why Conti introduced his presentation by claiming “˜DNA is spread like dust.’

To the bottom line, then, WAS there any possibility of contamination, as Vecchiotti and Conti are now claiming in the film?

    1. Conti and Vecchiotti didn’t prove there had been any contamination. Judge Chieffi pointed this out.

    2. Conti and Vecchiotti lied to the appeal court - Judge Nencini pointed this out - and they didn’t test the DNA sample despite the fact they were specifically instructed to do so.

    3. Numerous DNA experts believe the bra clasp is strong evidence - Professor Balding, Professor Novelli, Luciano Garofano, Professor Torricelli and Dr Biondo.

    4. It’s impossible that the knife was contaminated.

    5. There is no universally accepted DNA standards for collecting and testing DNA evidence. DNA protocols vary from country to country.

    6. Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure sources, They didn’t refer to the specific guidelines of an international forensic organisation.

    7. Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory.

    8. The defence experts had no objections when the DNA evidence was tested.

    9. Vecchiotti made calamitous errors in other cases and her lab was closed down.

    10. Does anyone really believe Sollecito’s DNA floated on a speck of dust under Meredith’s door and landed on the exact part of her bra clasp that had been bent out of shape during the attack on her?

The Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court (Final)

In the final Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court appeal, the short-form provisional 48- page reasoning from March 2015, the guilty verdicts as upheld by Massei and Nencini are overturned, and Vecchiotti & Conti”˜s report reinstalled.

“The second reason [the first reason being: The first reason challenged the violation and inobservance of the criminal law], highlights a problem of great relevance in the circumstance of the present judgment, that is the right interpretation of the scientific examination results from a perspective of respect of the evaluation standards according to article 192 of the criminal procedural code and the relevance of the genetic evaluation in the absence of repeatable amplification, as a consequence of the minimal amount of the sample and, more generally, the reliability coefficient of investigations carried out without following the regulations dictated by the international protocols, both during the collecting phase and the analysis.

Particularly, anomalies were challenged in the retrieval of the knife (item 36) and the victim’s brassiere hook, which do not exclude the possibility of contamination, as correctly outlined in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, ordered by the Perugian Court of assizes, which also notified the unreliability of the scientific data, precisely because it was not subject to a further examination.

It was also denied that the retrieved knife would have been the crime weapon.”

Thus, we see the First (Chieffi) Supreme Court Chambers directly challenged by the Fifth Chambers and the criticisms of Vecchiotti and Conti swept aside, as though they had never happened.

Judges Marasca & Bruno write:

“˜In fact, no trace of Sollecito was found in the room of the murder. The only element of proof against him was represented by the DNA trace retrieved on the brassiere hook of the victim; trace of which relation with the indicted was actually denied by the Vecchiotti-Conti report, which, in this regard, had accepted the observations of the defense advisor Professor Tagliabracci, world-renowned geneticist.’

It further states:

“˜12) Also erroneous was the interpretation of the results of the genetic evidence on item 36) “¦[”¦]

14) Obvious also was the flawed reasoning on the results of the genetic investigations on the bra hook, “¦[”¦]”¦

With regard to the possible contamination of the item, the appeal judges overlooked the photographic material placed before the court, which clearly demonstrated the possible contamination, regarding the way the hook was treated, with a “hand to hand” passage carried out by persons who wore dirty latex gloves.

Furthermore, a second amplification was not carried out on the hook “¦[”¦]”¦ With regard to this, the objections by the defense and the contrary conclusions of the defense adviser professor Tagliabracci, were not considered.’

In other words, the DNA evidence for the knife and the bra clasp is completely dismissed.  We see no proper rationale by Judge Marasca, just a few handfuls of abstractions along the lines of Conti’s famous, “˜Anything is possible.’

It takes on board Gill’s theories of “˜secondary’ and “˜tertiary’ transfer of DNA, when Gill himself appears to have overlooked that he himself wrote, that “˜this is highly improbable after 24 hours have passed’.

If Marasca’s rulings are considered bizarre, then light is shed when one realises that Bongiorno, for Sollecito, was given NINE times longer to present her appeal than any of the other parties, so it is fair comment to assume its reasoning is based on Bongiorno’s appeal points.

Nobody from either the Perugia or Florence prosecution teams was even present.

In addition, her 306 page appeal was appended with Gill’s advocacy report. Gill was never cross-examined.

The resuscitation of the hitherto presumed decaying corpse of Vecchiotti & Conti is remarkable, given the cadaver of their report to Hellmann was picked raw, first by the First Chambers Supreme Court (Chieffi) and then Judge Nencini.

Vecchiotti and Conti have risen like Lazarus from a car crash, shrouded in the malodorous cloth of something fishy.

Illegal intruder Hampikian

How the “˜Heist’ was pulled off.

Andrea Vogt wrote of the Marasca reasoning:  “˜In my opinion, their report is superficial at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, when even the most minimal amount of Quellenkritik is applied’.

Andrea Vogt writes an incisive analysis of the US influence on the C&V reports, which I cannot better here, so do read it for yourself.

However, I will repeat her prophecy, ironic in hindsight:

“If Knox is acquitted at the end of this month, the quiet American hand in her forensic defense will be heralded as the turnkey that made the ultimate difference in her case. But if she is convicted, there are legitimate questions to be asked about exactly what public resources were spent on this international defense.”

Vogt uncovered what appears to be a whole secret network that she was unable to penetrate through the fog of Freedom of Information law, which enabled Hampikian to claim “˜trade secrets’ as a project of Boise University, where his laboratory is based, to evade the question of, “˜Who was funding his Amanda Knox advocacy work?’

If then it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that both Meredith’s and Sollecito’s DNA is strong and background contamination ruled out by the trial courts, why then does the film revisit the discredited testimony of “˜court experts’ Vecchiotti & Conti?

We can link this back to the film makers own self-professed strong pro-Knox beliefs in her innocence.  Thus we have come full circle.

The defence managed to convince the now expunged Hellmann court to appoint “˜independent experts’; the Chieffi Supreme Court ruled that, whilst this was within Hellmann’s remit, he did not provide adequate reasoning for doing so. 

Vecchiotti & Conti, remarkably, in their report, relied heavily on US standards, thus making the straw man claim that Italy hadn’t followed them, notwithstanding their strong academic and legal background in Italy.  This therefore cannot have been due to ignorance, so we have to point to their own volition to be influenced strongly by Knox-advocates.

For example, Hampikian, funded by Boise University grants and protected by a blanket of secrecy, citing “˜trade secrets’ when journalist Andrea Vogt requested information under the Freedom of Information statutes.

In addition, Bruce Budowle, a more conservative ex-FBI forensic expert, was heavily relied upon, together with peers Gill, et al.  It was at this stage Gill may have got roped in.  His later book draws on Vecchiotti &Conti’s Hellmann’s Report.

Thus, we see a band of pro-Amanda Knox advocates determined to influence the so-called “˜independent’ experts, even when both Hampikian’s and Budowle’s reports were rejected as depositions by the courts.  Even when “˜the experts’ were spiked by the Chieffi Supreme court, Hampikian was still averring, “˜I am involved in the Amanda Knox case’.

Friends of Amanda Knox even today lovingly quote Hellmann despite his de facto ex-communication from the judiciary.  Little surprise we see the film makers eager to include Vecchiotti and Conti, who made it all possible for the birds to fly.

On the subject of Dr Peter Gill, who is widely regarded as having influenced the Fifth Chambers, via Bongiorno’s Appeal, to which his theories were attached, is now drawing on Vecchiotti and Conti as his main source, so we have a case of the experts’ racing car, as it were, driven by the man referred to devoutly by the defence as “˜the father of forensic science’.

Dr Naseer Ahmed of was moved to comment:

““ A look at his sources show that the chapter on Meredith Kercher was directly influenced by the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

““ He argues contamination, but doesn’t prove a path of transmission.

““ He cites papers on secondary transfer of DNA, but misses the point his suggested routes, RS>door handle>investigator’s latex glove>bra clasp is tertiary transfer.

““ He argues the low cell count of Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA on the knife suggests contamination without considering that rigorous washing with household bleach might degrade it. (Yet miraculously those cells did provide a full match with Meredith’s DNA)

““ The shoe box belonging to Meredith story has been shot down.

““ He clearly has not read Inspector Gubbiotti or Finci’s testimonies, which removes all possible paths of “˜innocent transfer’.

““ Reading the actual research papers he cites, there is no way that such significant amounts of DNA could actually transfer to the bra clasp.

““ He did not review Patrizia Stefanoni’s Scientific Report or any of her notes, instead relying on the IIP translated C&V report and Hellmann decision.

““ He refers to the Meredith Kercher wiki, but never even looked at the DNA segments which would have alerted him to problems with the C&V report.

““ He may have had indirect input from Sollecito’s first DNA expert, Vincenzo Pascali, and Carla Vecchiotti, but does not seem to know of Vecchiotti’s colorful record of falsifying evidence.

Last, and worst of all, he did not refer to the Supreme Court decision annulling Hellmann even though the translation was widely available almost ten months before his book was published.

There is no way he could not have known this, since we had been in contact with him since earlier this year. It is unconscionable that he chose this route to promote his theories. Elsevier under its new ownership and editorial policies seem to have allowed any number of self-published books to be written.

If Professor Gill had written a scholarly text book it would have to be reviewed by an editorial board and sent for peer review, which might have led to professional experts critiquing and hopefully pointing out his errors.

Instead, he wrote a slim, unreviewed “˜popular’ book to promote his own theories, which, embarrassing perhaps for him, is being critiqued and torn apart by lay persons, ahem.

Misleading DNA Evidence ““ Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.  Quote:

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20).”

The irony is not lost.

Illegal intruder Gill

My Main Sources:

Thanks to Naseer Ahmed and The Machine, for the section on “˜Contamination?’

The Machine’s analysis of 50 of the most common myths still promoted.

The Meredith Case Wiki

The Perugia Murder File Forum (Net Version)

The Nencini Sentencing Report.

The Chieffi Sentencing Report.

The Massei Report.

The Marasca-Bruno Report:

My thanks to the wonderful translators and everybody who helped me with material.


Nicely explained examples by Krissy at the Hellmann court level and the Marasca/Bruno level of the notorious CSI Effect.

That required a lot of illegal comings and goings and some really silly or tainted judges. Reporters could see the defense tricks. Read this pretty cynical Corriere interview.

Grrr. Does Italy REALLY need those juries at the appeal level?!?! That get NO full presentation of the prosecution case?

The Nencini panel did well although one juror complained later that she had no idea what the evidence looked like.

Dr Stefanoni patiently waited 64 days for the defenses to provide an observer for the collection of the bra clasp. She also waited patiently for defense observers every time she did some processing.

She never proceeded without them. They were sitting right there staring at the whirling machines. Not one ever complained of any mistake made. Not one.

TAKE NOTE Hellmann & Bruno & Marasca, and all those who whined about contamination and wrong protocols. 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/17/16 at 05:16 PM | #

Just a quick note: in the Nencini Report, the table shows all SIXTEEN loci of Sollecito’s, which were >50 RFU’s, so within the standards of the entire international community.

Marasca-Bruno gives as its second reason for overturning the verdict, Nencini’s supposed failure to look at the ‘photographic evidence’.  If you recall, this refers to the DVD Conti & Vecchiotti furively shared with the defense, and when two police patrol cars arrived to seize it, Hellmann was called for his protection.  The DVD wasn’t seized as the police had no warrant.  However, C&V were forced to provide the prosecution with a copy.  Yet another indication that, far from being ‘independent’ they were in the pocket of the defence the whole time.

Interesting, Bruno,as the junior judge (aged 81), tasked with writing the Supreme Court motivation report, to be signed off by Marasca - delayed by three months - should decide this DVD should be cited as key reason to reinstate C&V, when it hardly proves ‘contamination’ at all.

It’s as though Profs Novelli, Torricelli, Balding, Biando, Rinaldi, et al were just the oily rags, despite the wheels coming off C&V’s report at an early stage.

Marasca-Bruno didn’t even bother reconstructing the body work.  We are all just supposed to watch this DVD.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/17/16 at 06:40 PM | #

Just to make clear, The Machine wrote virtually the whole of the ‘Was it really contaminated?’ section, with just one or two expansions by me.

All credit to The Machine, for spelling it out.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/17/16 at 06:56 PM | #

Vecchiotti is under continuing investigation - yeah, she knows and she and has apparently rolled over on Hampikian already; so if Krissy’s narrative seems like new news to you there is newer news brewing than that.

Who knows? Vecchiotti & Hampikian may one day share cells side by side. That would be nice. Boise State University shielded Hampikian from investigations that he misused public funds, so he could not be made to talk. And yet, there he is, in the image above, prattling on again about his amazing self.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/17/16 at 09:58 PM | #

C&V are not experts on contamination. They have no credentials to comment on contamination.

There is a concept called “good laboratory practices”- are they themselves followers of GLP?

Posted by chami on 10/18/16 at 12:23 AM | #

Some additional facts.

Bongiorno’s father is/was a professor of “medico - legal” law at La Spienza University.

Conti and Hellmann’s professional colleague Zanetti are known to each other socially. Both members of the same hang gliding club.

Umbria’s top criminal judge, Sergio Matteini Chiari, was to preside at the first appeal. He was forced aside by Chief Judge de Nunzio and replaced by Hellmann without any explanation.

Conti and Vechiotti not only hobnobbed with the defence teams in court but were reported by members of the press as being seen socializing with them and members of the Sollecito family in town. Conti and Vecchiotti were actually photographed shaking hands with a delighted Francesco Sollecito when they walked into court to give their evidence.


There is absolutely no evidence at all that trace 36B on the knife was the consequence of contamination, either at the point of collection, during transmission to, or at Stefanoni’s laboratory. Furthermore there was not a single rational doubt expressed as to that let alone a judicial finding as to the probability that such had occurred.

Stefanoni did make the mistake of failing to record the quantity of the DNA in the trace though her recollection was that it was in the order of 100 picograms. This would have made it LCN since 200 picograms is often cited as the threshold now. But this does not render the result unreliable as such. The sample C&V refused to test, 36I, was only 5 picograms, 20 times less than the sample in 36B, yet the result of the testing on 36I was not contested let alone was it averred that it was the result of contamination. It was further validated by statistical analysis and yes a repetition of the test due to improvements in the sensitivity of the testing equipment, which improvements were already known and available to C&V.

C&V and ultimately Marasca/Bruno determined that 36B was unreliable, that is not validated, purely because the result was not capable of repetition. What this means, of course, is that there could have been the possibility that a repeat would not have validated the first test. A moments thought and one understands that if that had happened then there must have been something wrong with the first test, and the only possible conclusion would be that the testing equipment on the first test had been contaminated. We can exclude this because -

1. There were negative controls done.
2. There were experts from the Sollecito and Kercher families present at the testing in accordance with Article 360 and no one had any objections to the anti-contamination protocols they observed. Article 360 allows non-repeatable testing as admissable evidence.

The known problem with LCN is the phenomenon of allele drop out and occasionally, drop in. This was encountered also with the repeated test on 36I but without, and despite the extremely low quantity of DNA, altering the determination of the profile. What this tells us is that LCN DNA is not inherently unreliable and indeed it is accepted by many legal jurisdictions including the Supreme Court of Queens County in New York, the case which Budowle lost. Despite this Budowle, at the instigation of Dalla Vedova (with stateside offices in Washington) and Ted Simon, published an open letter as to his concerns on the case.

It is exceedingly unlikely that with a repeat amplification of trace 36I, from the original sample taken, there would be such a host of drop outs that one would no longer be confident of the initial profile interpretation. Remember that of the 16 individualising loci that can be found in an individual’s unique DNA sequence, there was a precise match with Meredith for 15, and the stutter was so low that no one could mistake this for an allele. As you correctly state 10 matches (as used in the UK) would be sufficient.

The quantity of DNA on the bra clasp was not even LCN, even allowing for Sollecito being the minor contributor. It was over 5 nanograms (as recorded by C&V with reference to the lab data), and even if Sollecito’s contribution to the mix there, at it’s lowest, was in a ratio of 1 : 10 (according to Professor Tagliabracci for the defence) then his DNA was still not LCN. As a matter of simple arithmetic his proportion on a ratio of 1 : 10 means that the quantity of his DNA was over 577 picograms, well over the 200 picograms as the guideline below which we can talk about LCN DNA.

Sample 165B revealed, along with Meredith’s DNA, and probably that of an unidentified “other” male, the genetic profile of Raffaele Sollecito which, even if there had been a mis-attribution (as argued by Tagliabracci and C&V) of some four loci to his profile, still left sufficient loci to match his profile in accordance with standard protocols for attribution and identification. And even if there could have been some doubt about that there was his Y haplotype as well in 17 loci.

C&V raised a number of concerns which had they been bothered to check the facts can be easily discounted.

For example they said that the testing on the knife and the bra clasp was done on a lab in a context in which other material with Meredith’s and Sollecito’s DNA had just been tested, suggesting that there had been cross contamination. The implication was firmly rebutted by the 1st Chambers and Nencini because of the lapse of time between the testings and Vecchiotti had to admit in Court that this would have ruled out contamination.

Their report was a disgrace. They know it and are now engaged in trying to resuscitate their reputations be it the only avenue appears to be as documentary celebrities. With their lab closed down they may be thinking of trying their luck in America! Indeed Vecchiotti and Hampikian are known to be close, not that Hampikian has been able to spread his wings since the Idaho Innocence Project had it’s funding terminated.

Great article KrissyG!

However a couple of points.

Balding did not give evidence to the Court.

The State did address the 5th Chambers. Saying that no one from the prosecution was present is a bit silly.

Submissions on the part of the parties started with the Prosecutor General, Mario Pinelli. These were followed with submissions on behalf of Lumumba and the Kercher family. Being allowed up to two hours each these concluded an hour or so after a late lunch break on the first day.

Perhaps you are referring to the final day of the Appeal when Maori and Bongiorno addressed the Court. Bongiorno did a considerable overrun on the time allotted to each speaker.

I have no hesitation in saying the result was bent and fixed. Incompetence is not an adequate explanation.

Thank you, KrissyG, for your solid and sensible review of my book, Justice on Trial, on Amazon.

Posted by James Raper on 10/18/16 at 08:16 AM | #

Hi, James. The Idaho Innocence Project did receive further Federal grants for 2016 though its 2017 status is unclear
but Greg Hampikian is doing quite well 😊

GREG HAMPIKIAN NEWS Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:36 am

Posted by Ergon on 10/18/16 at 11:59 AM | #

Great stuff, KrissyG. Knox herself told her mom she was worried about the knife. This was during the whispered parent conference with her parents. Why would Knox say she was worried about the knife if she had not been at the crime, or if she knew it was not the knife they used on Meredith?

Knox PR and defense set about to disqualify any forensic evidence against the brat by the simplest method possible: claim ineptitude on the part of the evidence gatherers and labwork. It’s the first trick of a weak defense: lambaste the police. 

KrissyG, you have done such extensive work on this post from serious sources. It’s a masterful takedown of the Netflix entertainment version.

Also, it led me back to the Dr. Andrew Hodges book about thoughtprints, how killers have a deep need to confess, how everyone has a super intelligence that goes deeper than even hypnosis can divulge.

Hodges suggested that the All Souls and All Saints date of the crime was a very sensitive time for Raffaele whose mother had died two years prior. The November 2007 remembrance for deceased loved ones which Italians take more seriously than the U.S. would have been only the second time for Raffaele to face his mother’s demise.

Possibly his grief mixed with guilt and his fear over his impending move to Milan (irrc) to do graduate work without Foxy had him badly churned up and needing to discharge his repressed rage and misery.

So Raffaele was extremely vulnerable to acting out at the same time that Knox was hopped up on Halloween, drugs, and Hodges believes a serious narcissistic injury when slighted by Meredith who didn’t include her in party plans, nor did Meredith show Knox her Dracula costume. The next day Meredith did describe the punchbowl with the frozen “hand” made from a glove to Knox, but Knox had not been there.

Raffaele had painted whiskers on her as a cat. A black cat, unlucky to cross paths with. Hodges suggests alley cat, a stray, unwanted cat with no permanent abode.

Dr. Hodges also reminds us that Knox was not the naïve waif that she used PR to create, since she would stand fully naked during her Skype calls to David Johnsrud. That takes some serious longterm immodesty, especially as she was practically living with Raffaele at the time.

Also Dr. Hodges (a psychiatrist) recalls the prank Knox pulled at UW. Could that UW student have “rejected” her in a similar way to Meredith, and Knox couldn’t be told “No” without aggressive payback.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/18/16 at 05:43 PM | #

Hi James.  The Balding ‘testify’ comment was my error - last minute thing, when I wasn’t thinking 😊.  Pete inserted about the prosecutors not being there when Bongiorno had her grossly extended submissions.  I doubt that he meant they didn’t make submissions at all, because, of course, all parties did. 

Great comments James.  Always interesting to hear from you.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/19/16 at 05:16 AM | #

I have made errors as well. It has been pointed out to me by Hugo on .net that Bongiorno’s father is a professor of Bankruptcy Law and that it is La Sapienza (not Spienza). It is C&V who are apparently associate professors of medical law.

He has also today unearthed a long comment by Yummi on Vecchiotti’s history of botching things although she did in fact get at least one thing right.

Posted by James Raper on 10/19/16 at 12:07 PM | #

I was interested to see on Perugia Net, Nell’s reproduction of a Yummi post setting out Carla Vecchiotti’s record.

She appears to be one of these ‘expert witnesses’ who abuses their expert status to swing it for their client.  There was a tv programme about a year ago, Panoram-style, wherein an undercover report was able to get ‘expert witnesses’ to say whatever he wanted them to say for a fee.  The difference in the Kercher case, is that Conti & Vecchiotti were supposed to be ‘INDEPENDENT’, yet they opnely flaunted their partisanship.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/19/16 at 01:05 PM | #


The idea that supposed ‘nice girls’ could not possibly kill their roommate brutally, must surely be proven to be untrue by the Spalding murder case, where a then 14 year old girl was found guilty of a mother and daughter.  Although it looks like an Erin Caffey-type scenario (as the killers’ identity is protected for now, as shan’t say more than that) there are parallels with the the Kercher case IMV. 

The picture in the media of the kitchen knife looked alarmingly like the presumed murder weapon at the cottage.  We know why Knox had a conniption, when taken to the cottage to look at the knife drawer, she realised police were looking for the murder weapon ‘at home’.  Mignini observing her must have known at that moment for sure.

The actual knife was found at Sollecito’s appartment and it was amusing to note Vecchiotti kicking up a stink about Finci not changing his glove after opening the drawer, before picking up the knife, given Knox herself had confirmed to police Meredith had never been at Sollecito’s house.

In her prison diary she avers it’s ‘Bullsh!t’ that her traces had been found on it, ‘Your fingerprints, her DNA’ she wrote some prison guard jeered at her.  ‘Your fingerprints, her DNA’.

I note that anytime any key evidence comes up, both Knox and her mother always reply with, ‘It’s bullsh!t!”

Cue for us to look closely at anything labelled thus, by this pair.

Imagine, as a maths teacher, Edda yelling, ‘It’s bullsh!t!” every time someone gives the wrong answer, and we note her sprog had to retake her maths module before being allowed to pass, so not a very good role model.

The other thing to come out of the Spalding murder, aside from getting her anti-establishment boyfriend to do it, and their bathing together, having sex and watching an anodyne film on afterwards (Twilight), is the way it was carefully planned for days in advance, with their meticulously going through the details the day before in MacDonalds. 

Visions of the pages leading up to 31 October 2007, hastily torn out of Knox’ precious ‘journal’, the knife furtively exported in the roomy green bag she was pictured with at the military museum laughing manically with a rudimentary maching gun/cannon pointing at the camera and caption, ‘the nazi with’ on myspace.

Like the Spalding killers, Amanda and Raff were the ‘outsiders’ - everybody out having fun and being popular except them.  The Spalding girl refused to speak to anyone.  She and her boyfriend ran away from home together the year before to live in a tent.  The tabloids have dubbed them ‘Bonnie and Clyde’, the girl quoted as saying she always wanted to kill, and even that she was glad they were dead.  No remorse from either, nothing.

They stabbed the woman and daughter int he neck to stop them from screaming, the body was covered with a sheet because the girl couldn’t stand the smell of blood.  She hid in the bathroom while her boyfriend carried out her bidding, because she couldn’t bear the ‘gurgling sounds’ coming out of the woman’s throat as she grabbed her hand.

Note the smashed upper floor window.  Did they mean to make it look like a stranger-intruder?

The question does arise: is the Spalding murder a copy cat of the Perugia murder?

Given it could lead to fame and riches…

Luckily the Spalding pair confessed.  The boy when asked for the police what had happened,  replied, ‘Go and see for yourself.’

It recalls, someone other than Knox and Sollecito had to be the ones to find the body, as they stood well back.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/19/16 at 01:39 PM | #

Nicely done Krissy.
Very thorough.

Posted by Chimera on 10/19/16 at 06:35 PM | #

Hi Everyone I have been off line for about three weeks recording. But Now back with a vengeance….........(A little play on words)

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/20/16 at 12:48 AM | #

Really good article.
So much corruption, lies and support has created confusion and helped the culprits hide.
I’m just glad to get the truth here!

Posted by DavidB on 10/20/16 at 04:13 AM | #

What a fantastic, forensic article @krissyG. If the mainstream media would only pick up on stuff like this when they interview Poxy Knoxy, she would be exposed; fully and finally.

An extremely fine piece of work of which you should be very proud indeed. Thank you.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/21/16 at 09:17 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes, welcome back. KrissyG provides enough evidence in the post above to convince anyone with a brain that Knox used that knife on Meredith. Oh, if only the erudite Garofano would weigh in even now in retrospect with his DNA expertise.

Meredith’s DNA was in the grooves of the blade, which had been thoroughly scrubbed and washed. How could her DNA have been put that deeply into the knife by the wildest accident of contamination (which I don’t believe happened)? Wouldn’t it have required a lot of her DNA plus force to lodge her DNA into the metal so that it withstood soap and water scrubbing?

Knox cries malicious prosecution, yet KrissyG points out the multiple evidence points against her.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/22/16 at 11:25 AM | #

Catnip and jamie at inform us today 10/22/16 that Raffaele is knocking on the door of Florence Appeals Court on January 27, 2017 early next year asking them to hand him a half-million euros in compensation for his false detention.

Florence (hallelujah) will look at all the courts’ decisions to determine how much money Raffaele is due. Many facts of the case will be rehashed.

As jamie comments, Raffaele ought to be careful what he wishes for. Florence Appeals is now going to look closely again at his lies, flopping alibi, the flickknife he carried into questura, not to mention the victim’s bra clasp with his DNA on it. In the cold clear air of late January 2017 all this will return to light, scrutinized by judges in the cold light of day. Brrrr, it’s getting chilly in here for cold hard cash.

Let’s hope Florence will put Raffaele under a microscope and block his brash request. Raffaele the dishonourable liar and saboteur of justice, the wretch.

I learned today from Jamie’s comment that after Meredith’s murder Raffaele bleached the soles of his Nike’s. Perhaps this is not new information, but it had escaped me. Why should he do so, and right after a murder?

Also as KrissyG revisits in the post above, Raffaele’s alleles were clearly found on the bra clasp with contamination unlikely or impossible. So were Guede’s DNA found on clasp, so those two guys were together handling Meredith’s underclothes. Raffaele the innocent lamb was removing Meredith’s clothes, so he was at the crime, and now the huckster bold as a brass mule is clamoring for a payout.

Let’s hope this appeal to Florence totally boomerangs on him in his dishonourable quest. Let’s hope Florence will send him out the door with not a penny, and force him to pay for a frivolous lawsuit. His lawyers that are doing this are Maori and Bongiorno.

Let’s hope Raf’s conscience-free audacity slaps him in the face at the same time it highlights again Knox’s false claim to innocence. Be careful what you wish for, Raffaele deluded deceiver.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/22/16 at 01:52 PM | #

Doesn’t the fact that Sollecito wilfully lied to the police exempt him from any monetary claim against them or the judiciary ?

If so, he has some neck.
Either that or he knows already, which doesn’t surprise me.

Posted by Deathfish on 10/22/16 at 04:41 PM | #

Sollecito? well he always was the weak link. However, Knox perhaps can fool some people but beneath it all she knows she is guilty. This will eventually eat her away. Take a look at her now. Once the bloom of yet another male victim dies off she will once more be alone. This is her fate for as along she lives which, if there is any justice, won’t be long. It would not surprise me if she tried to fake a suicide thereby garnering sympathy. That won’t happen of course because she is too much of a coward.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/22/16 at 11:41 PM | #

Thanks Krissy, for a thorough and detailed breakdown of the rough edges of the Netflix documentary that are presented as truths and evidence. To tell you the truth, I have not had the stomach to watch the “documentary”, as I wasn’t even able to get through the trailers without feeling that it was a professional whitewash job.

Isn’t there some sort of filmmakers’ or journalistic deontological code that prohibits calling something a “documentary” (which connotes a studied, honest, thoroughly researched balance) when the product in fact seems to be a (not-so-subtle) attempt to promote a certain view?

So, with much emphasis in the media coverage of the case on the DNA (which is only one of many important evidential foundations of the case), the documentary gets Vecchiotti & Conti on board. LOL, when Vecchiotti comments: “It’s so small.  So scarce, the likelihood of contamination is very high.” With that sort of logic, they should give him the boot both from the “documentary” and from his university.

In spite of these sorts of whitewashing efforts, and in spite of the years that go by, Amanda Knox & Co. will just never be able to feel that the ongoing PR effort can convince the general public of her being unconnected to Meredith’s murder. Knox was there: she admitted it and the final Supreme Court underlined in their ruling that she was in the cottage. A dozen more Netflix-type “documentaries” won’t change that.

Posted by Kermit on 10/24/16 at 08:00 AM | #

As Hopeful says, let’s hope the prosecution point out all of the physical evidence which gave them reason to rightly prosecute Sollecito.  Florence will be aware of the shenaningans going on at the Cassazione between the Hellmannists and the Chieffi-ists.

For now, the Hellmannists are on a winning streak.  To be frank, if Florence let’s them get away with it who knows where the corruption will lead?  OK, so they pay Sollecito off, maybe pay off Knox, but where does that leave the good, decent honest forensic police who did a sterling job - presented solid evidence (DNA, luminol, phone logs) and had their names and reputations thoroughly muddied and their hard work swept aside on the nod and the wink between Bongiorno and Bruno.

Truth is, unethical practice cannot be swept under the carpet, for it will never go away unless it is dealt with and firmly rooted out.  History tells us that.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/24/16 at 08:13 AM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Netflixhoax 14: Omitted - Any Mention Of Big Red Flag In Forced Closing Of Vecchiotti’s Laboratory

Or to previous entry Netflixhoax 12: Omitted - How In Multiple Ways Poorly Researched Movie Contradicts Knox’s Own Book