Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Strozzi]

Duplicate deleted.

 

[Strozzi]

Here is the problem I have Grinder. There is nothing that says the Rudy broke into the nursery. This is true. But there is also NOTHING but Rudy's story that he paid some stranger to let him in but Rudy's word. There is also nothing but Rudy's word that he had a date with Meredith. You can say that CT is not credible, still Rudy is caught inside the nursery and he has stolen goods on him from a burglary in Perugia near his home. But instead of saying that he bought the laptop in Perugia, he says he bought it in Milan. Rudy's a liar obviously. Yet you want to believe him? I think it is far more likely that Rudy was able to open a window than some stranger letting him in for 50 Euros.

Prata said Rudy stated he paid some stranger 50 Eurs. This was late October, not peak tourist season, certainly Rudy could have gotten a real room in a modest hotel near the Milan train station for less.

 

[acbytesla]

Duplicate deleted.

Exactly, Rudy is a liar and not a good one at that.

 

[Strozzi]

Laptops in 2007 are still pretty large items weighing several kilograms each. Using my L attitude C600 / C640, I don't see how you could transport more than two or three without being a pretty suspiciously large package. I suspect that you are not going to get much more than 100 Euros each. Small stuff is going to be far more effective.

He may not have been a very smart thief as far as what he stole.

Rudy might have taken what was there for the taking. Even low-end laptops. Evan desktops (if what was in his room were in fact desktops). Nobody said he was a smart, discerning thief or that he understood the technical and value difference between one computer and another.

After all, Rudy was a mere sound tech working for Mr. Armani.

 

[Dan O.]

Last week, I had a coworker decide to give himself ten+ years in jail.
He met a very underage girl on line and decided to drive some distance (across state lines) to have sex with her.
The police found them in a motel room tracing him through his cell phone.
She had used a friend's cell phone to text him and they used his number.
When did cell phones become effectively useless to steal?

They are not DF. Pull the SIM card and they are easily still bought and sold. Stolen I-phones for example are bought and sold all the time.

Technically that shouldn't work. Each phone has a built in unique identifier independent on the SIM (the EIMI in the case of GSM phones). If the cell operators didn't choose to look the other way there would be no market for stolen phones past the short term use of the stolen minutes. While it is possible for advanced phone hackers to change the built in identifier, it is also possible to watch the network for duplicate or bogus registrations.

 

[Grinder]

Here is the problem I have Grinder. There is nothing that says the Rudy broke into the nursery. This is true. But there is also NOTHING but Rudy's story that he paid some stranger to let him in but Rudy's word. There is also nothing but Rudy's word that he had a date with Meredith. You can say that CT is not credible, still Rudy is caught inside the nursery and he has stolen goods on him from a burglary in Perugia near his home. But instead of saying that he bought the laptop in Perugia, he says he bought it in Milan. Rudy's a liar obviously. Yet you want to believe him? I think it is far more likely that Rudy was able to open a window than some stranger letting him in for 50 Euros.

The accurate testimony I think brought here by RW indicates he told Mignini 20 Euros on the record.

Whether he paid someone for the entry or someone he was hanging with or doing business with let him in doesn't really matter. Nothing said by Prato or recorded anywhere even semi official say that he broke in.

CT isn't credible now that we know Rudi was at the very club CT said he was thrown out of. It isn't a credible story and if it went against Amanda you'd be all over it.

Rudi was only twenty years old and I doubt he had piled up 4 or 5 computers by the time of the crime. You keep focussing on the specific value of the computers but you also say he stole them. Do you think he stole worthless computers and kept them in his flat?

 

[acbytesla]

Technically that shouldn't work. Each phone has a built in unique identifier independent on the SIM (the EIMI in the case of GSM phones). If the cell operators didn't choose to look the other way there would be no market for stolen phones past the short term use of the stolen minutes. While it is possible for advanced phone hackers to change the built in identifier, it is also possible to watch the network for duplicate or bogus registrations.

Your right it shouldn't.

 

[Desert Fox]

Median household income in Italy in 2007 was 15,005 Euro
Median household income in US in 2007 was 52,673 USD (presently 38,636.38 Euros at 1.36 dollars per Euro)
In 2007, it varied from 1.29 to 1.48 dollars per euro so likely not too bad using today's rates.
On average, an Italian will make less than an American
50 Euros today is 68.17 dollars.
I can get a hotel room in a not horrid but not great area for that (in 2014.)
Figure though since people on average make less money in Italy, 50 Euro would likely be pretty easy to get a room.

 

[Desert Fox]

Rudy might have taken what was there for the taking. Even low-end laptops. Evan desktops (if what was in his room were in fact desktops). Nobody said he was a smart, discerning thief or that he understood the technical and value difference between one computer and another.

After all, Rudy was a mere sound tech working for Mr. Armani.

Not arguing that he did not steal them just that he did not get much money for them or even on some cases could not sell them

 

[acbytesla]

The accurate testimony I think brought here by RW indicates he told Mignini 20 Euros on the record.

So do you think 20 Euros is much money Grinder? I don't. Sounds broke to me.

Whether he paid someone for the entry or someone he was hanging with or doing business with let him in doesn't really matter. Nothing said by Prato or recorded anywhere even semi official say that he broke in.

You still fail to acknowledge that an unlocked window is all that Rudy needs to get inside the nursery and that wouldn't leave evidence of a break in.

Rudi was only twenty years old and I doubt he had piled up 4 or 5 computers by the time of the crime. You keep focussing on the specific value of the computers but you also say he stole them. Do you think he stole worthless computers and kept them in his flat?

I never said they had to be stolen. In fact, if you go back and look at my post 8170 earlier on this page
I said the following

I don't think Rudy was stealing laptops just to collect them. I don't even know if all those computers (not sure they were any or all of them were laptops besides the laptop from the law office) were stolen.

You are making some big assumptions Grinder. How many times did the Spanish girls see the laptops at Rudy's? How many precisely were there? You'll have to excuse me. I don't have RW story accessible so this is friom memory. I din't think the Spanish girls story was specific about the number. We also don't know if they were there one day and gone the next.
Does anyone have an inventory of his apartment after he left town? Police or from his landlord?

 

[RandyN]

Amanda's and Raffaele's defense was handled in Italy by Italian lawyers. Her parents were there as much as possible, confused, without US lawyers deciding strategy, and trusting in the Italian lawyers. They may not have been so aware of the technical details in the LCN DNA data printouts, missing or buried in the Italian record

A US suit will probably succeed against the machine's manufacturer. Succeed in the sense that it will put the manufacturer on the stand and compel them to repudiate the improper use of their machine by the police lab and Steranini. There may be a financial settlement.

Mignini, et al, are suing both defendants and their families in Italian court. This is turn-around. Sue the police lab, Stefanoni, and the machine manufacturer in a US court.
The machine's manufacturer (hopefully a US company or foreign company with a presence (nexus) in the US) sold the test instrument to an Italian police lab and it was misused (LCN) by the Italian police and Amanda and Raffaele were harmed. The manufacturer knew (forseeable) the machine could be misused, specified how it was to be used and specified/required that it was not to be used for LCN analysis. This case was in the news and the machine manufacturer's scientists and executives certainly knew their instrument was improperly used to develop (false) results on LCN DNA. Manufacturer deliberately or negligently failed to warn the lab, Stefanoni, the court, prosecution, or defendants of its misuse, unreliable (false) results, and harm. Defendants suffered great harm as a result. I see it as a product liability issue by the manufacturer of the DNA test instrument who also developed/specified and licensed testing procedures and parameters. Sue them for an enormous sum!

Filing a suit in US court might invigorate Amanda and Raffaele, even if he does not participate. Amanda certainly has standing to initiate such a suit in a US court. Maybe even one in Seattle.

I would think a product liability attorney would take this case for the publicity - to appear on and discuss the case on national news where he will be viewed as an aggressive product liability attorney seeking just damages for the injured parties.

Don't forget the test kit manufacturer...they need sued too. And a personal suit against Biondo for falsely confirming Stefanonis work. Sue the board who approved the certification of Stefanoni and the lab she worked in. The certification may not have been up to date but there was still some amount of a certification standards certified and so they need sued!

The manufacturer certainly has provided the manual which would detail the proper operation and limitations plus warnings. Still they may be on the hook because apparently the whole country of Italy has missed the data in these manuals since we have heard no defense issues raised and no reports and no stories out of Italy about the proper or improper use of these machine...in fact I recall someone from the prosecution side IIRC stating that Italy was about to teach the world about DNA testing.

This suit is a perfect idea since it is calling the bluffs of all prosecution "experts" who have ignored the science that they certainly understand and instead chose to present a false case against innocent persons when they knew perfectly well the tests were invalid.

It is either that or the manufacturer of the test equipment seriously failed to warn and properly explain the test procedures along with the precautions necessary to obtain reliable results.

Sounds like a big pockets case to me! The kids need to take some action that helps gets the media onto this fraud that Italy is pretending (so far successfully) is a case. I bet the machine manufacturer can get those electronic data files.

The product liability here is real and a threat to everyone in Italy apparently.

 

[Strozzi]

Don't forget the test kit manufacturer...they need sued too. And a personal suit against Biondo for falsely confirming Stefanonis work. Sue the board who approved the certification of Stefanoni and the lab she worked in. The certification may not have been up to date but there was still some amount of a certification standards certified and so they need sued!

The manufacturer certainly has provided the manual which would detail the proper operation and limitations plus warnings. Still they may be on the hook because apparently the whole country of Italy has missed the data in these manuals since we have heard no defense issues raised and no reports and no stories out of Italy about the proper or improper use of these machine...in fact I recall someone from the prosecution side IIRC stating that Italy was about to teach the world about DNA testing.

This suit is a perfect idea since it is calling the bluffs of all prosecution "experts" who have ignored the science that they certainly understand and instead chose to present a false case against innocent persons when they knew perfectly well the tests were invalid.

It is either that or the manufacturer of the test equipment seriously failed to warn and properly explain the test procedures along with the precautions necessary to obtain reliable results.

Sounds like a big pockets case to me! The kids need to take some action that helps gets the media onto this fraud that Italy is pretending (so far successfully) is a case. I bet the machine manufacturer can get those electronic data files.

The product liability here is real and a threat to everyone in Italy apparently.

I contend that the machine-generated data on LCN DNA should automatically have been marked in SCREAMING text as unreliable below the machine's ability to measure with scientific reliability, so there Is no way it could pass as acceptable. When data indicates possible contamination in the instrument, the printout should state POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION IN THE TESTING iNSTRUMENT. No layman or scientist or legal proceeding should be mislead by ambiguous printed results that may look normal but in fact are sub-par.

The misuse, whether accidental or deliberate, was foreseeable and the manufacturer of the machine should have included protections to prevent it. Great harm has been inflicted on two people either accidentally (with negligence) or deliberately. It was done by the police lab and the manufacturer bears some responsibility. Go after all parties in US court.

 

[Strozzi]

It is my understanding that when a foreign entity, including a foreign government, is sued in a US court the entity may challenge the court's jurisdiction and request the court dismiss the case against them (only them). To do that, the entity's attorney must appear and request dismissal due to the court's lack of jurisdiction. Sue the manufacturer and the Italian parties. Let those who claim the court lacks jurisdiction over them cause their attorneys to appear. THe court may conclude it lacks jurisdiction and dismiss the suit against some, but perhaps not others. The news media will be all over it.

Amanda should sue all those involved in her midnight interrogation including the police officer who struck her, the interpreter who told her she was there but did not remember because she was traumatized, et al. This will force them into the sunlight and require them to appoint legal consul to request dismissal in a US court. The court may decide that it has jurisdiction over some.

 

[acbytesla]

It is my understanding that when a foreign entity, including a foreign government, is sued in a US court the entity may challenge the court's jurisdiction and request the court dismiss the case against them (only them). To do that, the entity's attorney must appear and request dismissal due to the court's lack of jurisdiction. Sue the manufacturer and the Italian parties. Let those who claim the court lacks jurisdiction over them cause their attorneys to appear. THe court may conclude it lacks jurisdiction and dismiss the suit against some, but perhaps not others. The news media will be all over it.

Amanda should sue all those involved in her midnight interrogation including the police officer who struck her, the interpreter who told her she was there but did not remember because she was traumatized, et al. This will force them into the sunlight and require them to appoint legal consul to request dismissal in a US court. The court may decide that it has jurisdiction over some.

I'm good with the first but not the second. Suing the manufacturer may make sense, but you are getting nowhere with the interrogation. I don't see how Amanda is going to get money from the mfr but she might be able to get the manufacturer to say on the record that Stefanoni definitely misused their equipment.

 

[codyjuneau]

I do realise from the latest discussion that the prosecution have been incredibly insulting to the memory of Meredith Kercher. They have her sleeping on a pillow covered in sperm for no idea how long and they have four men innocently touching her bra, which would suggest she hasn't washed her underwear in quite a long time - and yet they continue to argue that it is Amanda who paid little regard to personal hygiene.

I think it would be more likely that the sperm belongs to Guede and that the bra-clasp has been severely continated, than Meredith Kercher paid that little care to her personal hygiene.

I was also hoping that someone could explain the bra clasp DNA to me? What exactly was found? Was it a complete profile of Raffaele or just y haplotype mixed with the DNA of others and therefore could not rule him out, but was also not a definite match. I remember from the Hellman trial the experts saying they could have found a match for anyone amongst the mixture of DNA, is this corret?

.
Hi Nancy

Recall also that Meredith did her laundry that very day, so it seems likely she would have put all her dirty laundry, including semen stained pillow cases and previously worn bras in the laundry.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

.
Hi Nancy

Recall also that Meredith did her laundry that very day, so it seems likely she would have put all her dirty laundry, including semen stained pillow cases and previously worn bras in the laundry.

Cody
.

Has this point been made previously?

Amanda, the last reliable eyewitness of Meredith in the cottage says

As we were eating together Meredith came out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in, one or the other and returned into her room after saying hi to Raffale. After lunch I began to play guitar with Raffale and Meredith came out of her room and went to the door. She said bye and left for the day. It was the last time I saw her alive.

Why not test the stain for substance and dna, since with the above evidence from Amanda, it was almost certain to be part of the evening's tragedy?

 

[Planigale]

I contend that the machine-generated data on LCN DNA should automatically have been marked in SCREAMING text as unreliable below the machine's ability to measure with scientific reliability, so there Is no way it could pass as acceptable. When data indicates possible contamination in the instrument, the printout should state POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION IN THE TESTING iNSTRUMENT. No layman or scientist or legal proceeding should be mislead by ambiguous printed results that may look normal but in fact are sub-par.

The misuse, whether accidental or deliberate, was foreseeable and the manufacturer of the machine should have included protections to prevent it. Great harm has been inflicted on two people either accidentally (with negligence) or deliberately. It was done by the police lab and the manufacturer bears some responsibility. Go after all parties in US court.

Manufacturers tend to be conservative with their recommendations, I suspect you will find that the manuals clearly specify the approved limits of use. What you are suggesting is like insisting all motor vehicles have a speed regulator for whatever the local maximum speed limit is e.g. 70mph for UK. Good luck with suing manufacturers because someone was killed by a speeding car.

There are ways of improving sensitivity of most machines, the problem is not that the equipment was used for LCN analysis, but that the appropriate precautions were not followed. At about this time the UK forensic service was beginning to use LCN; the equipment was no different. The difference was the details around validation carried out by Gill et al. The identification of particular precautions e.g. environmental sampling. The courts insisted on detailed validation of the technique. The Italian courts seem to be completely unaware of the novelty of what was being done, Machiaveli used to argue methodology was not of interest to the court, just the result, having achieved a result this was evidence however suspect the methodology. We go on about negative controls, but I can see the Italian courts saying even if the negative controls showed presence of DNA, the courts still need to consider that the DNA from the tested sample was due to a genuine result.

All of the uncertainty around LCN, the needs for particular precautions etc. Stefanoni seemed ignorant of. She seemed to just decided to do this routinely. It would be interesting to know for how long.

 

[griffinmill]

Manufacturers tend to be conservative with their recommendations, I suspect you will find that the manuals clearly specify the approved limits of use. What you are suggesting is like insisting all motor vehicles have a speed regulator for whatever the local maximum speed limit is e.g. 70mph for UK. Good luck with suing manufacturers because someone was killed by a speeding car.

There are ways of improving sensitivity of most machines, the problem is not that the equipment was used for LCN analysis, but that the appropriate precautions were not followed. At about this time the UK forensic service was beginning to use LCN; the equipment was no different. The difference was the details around validation carried out by Gill et al. The identification of particular precautions e.g. environmental sampling. The courts insisted on detailed validation of the technique. The Italian courts seem to be completely unaware of the novelty of what was being done, Machiaveli used to argue methodology was not of interest to the court, just the result, having achieved a result this was evidence however suspect the methodology. We go on about negative controls, but I can see the Italian courts saying even if the negative controls showed presence of DNA, the courts still need to consider that the DNA from the tested sample was due to a genuine result.

All of the uncertainty around LCN, the needs for particular precautions etc. Stefanoni seemed ignorant of. She seemed to just decided to do this routinely. It would be interesting to know for how long.

Are you saying the Kercher murder was the first time that either Stefanoni or the Italian courts had encounterd LCN? I'm not aware of this, so if it came up in testimony I'd like to know.

 

[griffinmill]

Also, I'm curious about another thing: where is the specific proof that the defense, or C&V, never received all the files from Stefanoni that they are alleged not to have received?

Additionally, I don't recall (and I could be very wrong) the defense bringing up the issue of not receiving missing files from Stefanoni at the most recent appeal. Was the issue of missing data from Stefanoni raised before Nencini by the defense attorneys?

 

[Planigale]

Are you saying the Kercher murder was the first time that either Stefanoni or the Italian courts had encounterd LCN? I'm not aware of this, so if it came up in testimony I'd like to know.

I do not know. But I suspect she had been doing this for some time. I think her ability to come up with results was why she was called in. But I do not know how the Italian Forensic service worked, Rome may have been the nearest regional forensic service.

What I do know is that The Scientific Police make big play of how since 2009 they have met ISO and other international standards and have quality control mechanisms in place.

I think that whilst they cannot admit it, this case made them look at their systems and realise they were inadequate.