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

[griffinmill]

I understand what your saying but I disagree with the premise. If the defense asked for the EDFs in the pre trial motions and that was denied, it makes little sense for them to bring this point up during the trial. I mean if it wasn't important to the court during the motion, what difference do you think it would make to the same judge who turned you down on this point?

1. We don't know if the defense asked for the EDF's in front of Nencini, and that's partially my point. No one here can confirm that missing EDF's were asked for.

2. There is no reason that I can see not to bring up missing EDF's in the Nencini appeal unless it was specifically forbidden to bring that up. If they weren't forbidden, as seems to be the case, then that means Bongiorno didn't consider missing EDF's important to the case.

So again, why didn't Bongiorno bring up EDF's in her statement to Nencini?

Just anwer the question.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Breaker Morant

So in light of this, how important are the EDF's?

The EDFs are indispensable for any competent case review. I have given many, many quotes from different forensic experts on this over the years and written several essays, such as this link and this one. They can help to detect certain kinds of contamination, as well as find certain artifacts. Those points having been made, I am not sure what the best legal strategy was. You might think that a nation's highest court would want to protect the right of discovery, but I saw no evidence of this in the CSC's 2013 report. Maybe the court system just doesn't care about forensic discovery. The movie "Breaker Morant" has a moment where Harry Morant says almost sotto voce to his lawyer (whose argument was just met with stonewalling), "Why bother, major, why bother?"

 

[griffinmill]

The EDFs are indispensable for any competent case review. I have given many, many quotes from different forensic experts on this over the years and written several essays, such as this link and this one. They can help to detect certain kinds of contamination, as well as find certain artifacts. Those points having been made, I am not sure what the best legal strategy was. You might think that a nation's highest court would want to protect the right of discovery, but I saw no evidence of this in the CSC's 2013 report. Maybe the court system just doesn't care about forensic discovery. The movie "Breaker Morant" has a moment where Harry Morant says almost sotto voce to his lawyer (whose argument was just met with stonewalling), "Why bother, major, why bother?"

Sure, maybe there is reason why the "missing" EDF's matter. But why didn't Bongiorno even mention the missing EDF's in her address to Nencini?

 

[MichaelB]

We don't know what was requested, you assert it was requested, Bongiorno never mentions it in her address to the court, yet you presume that that the missing EDF's are meaningful when she apparently doesn't?

And you then think that she may raise the issue more forcefully later in the Supreme Court when she didn't raise it in the more important Nencini appeal?

This makes little sense to me. If she was prohibited from not raising EDF's at Nencini, I would have expected that story to come out -- the judges denied it, and Bongiorno was incensed.

Instead, there is no story that Bongiornio is incensed, she doesn't mention EDF's, and makes her case for contamination broadly, in other ways.

So in light of this, how important are the EDF's?

How do you know what Bongiorno said or didn't say? Those transcripts aren't available. Also neither side made public their appeal documents to Nencini so we don't know what's in them either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I have been reading variants of this question for four years

Sure, maybe there is reason why the "missing" EDF's matter. But why didn't Bongiorno even mention the missing EDF's in her address to Nencini?

I suggest you reread my previous answer. But if your point is that you believe that the EDFs are not important, that train left the station long ago.

 

[griffinmill]

How do you know what Bongiorno said or didn't say? Those transcripts aren't available. Also neither side made public their appeal documents to Nencini so we don't know what's in them either.

Tweets from both sides were made available from the courtroom. I read both extensively. I never found EDF files mentioned from either the PIP or PGP.

 

[Samson]

Sure, maybe there is reason why the "missing" EDF's matter. But why didn't Bongiorno even mention the missing EDF's in her address to Nencini?

Here are the TJMK minutes

- 11:15 The President of the Court Nencini, at the end of the introductory report, said: “ This is a trial for matters of undeniable seriousness, beyond the spectacularization, there is the willingness of the Court to give all of the possible space for debate to all of the parties, because in origin there was a important verdict and the actions for which we proceed are of undeniable seriousness”

- 11.25 Raffaele Sollecito defense lawyer Giulia Buongiorno was the first to take the floor.

“Sollecito’s defense does not ignore the motivations of the Cassazione, and we are in favor of any kind of verification that the Court will order, with the following caveats. This proceeding has always been based on two types of evidences, the testimonial and technical. We request that during this proceeding, we hope to be the last one, that the Court during the next hearings will concentrate only on the truly reliable evidences, putting aside the ones that are not nullified by the fact that it is a media proceeding.

Many witness have said things because they have read them or heard to them. So the proceeding was reopened,but not to collect this type of guesswork. We do not want to inflate this proceeding with new conjectures. We request to examine in depth the crime seen, as pointed out by the Cassazione. In the crime scene room there are copious traces of two of the four presumably present persons, Rudy Guede that admitted to have been there, and none of the two indicted, except on the hook of the victim’s bra.

When the Prosecutor asserts that there are no traces because Amanda and Raffaele cleaned them, we think that it is impossible. For this reason we request to have a evaluation done in order to verify if it is possible to clean selectively”. “The Cassazione mistake has been that it didn’t noticed the entry in the crime scene room before the bra hook was found , so we request the acquisition of two reports.

We want to understand if in a sealed place it is possible to get evidence even after the admission by the police of other searches . We do not request to get the hook and to say that it is contaminated, I want to know if in that environment it was possible to collect some genuine evidences, because on the crime scene there were not ten traces of Raffaele but only that one”.

A subordinate request by Giulia Buongiorno requests that experts , new ones or the ones of the second trial, will read the electropherograms. Buongiorno requests even the analysis of both of Meredith Kercher cell phones that she consider the “black box” of the crime and that “ was never analyzed deep enough except from the Corte d’Assise di Perugia” The defense requests also the analysis of the presumed sperm trace on Meredith’s pillowcase.

 

[griffinmill]

I suggest you reread my previous answer. But if your point is that you believe that the EDFs are not important, that train left the station long ago.

Your previous answer does not explain why Bongiorno does not address missing EDF files in her address to the Nencini court. That is what I'm asking.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your previous answer does not explain why Bongiorno does not address missing EDF files in her address to the Nencini court. That is what I'm asking.

Why would someone hammer away at what Biogiorno did or din't do when things of far greater import are out there?

I am not sure why this would bother anyone in comparison to things like Nencini has said.... women having y-genetics being one.

Can you please give a reason why the issue of Biogiorno and the EDFs (which has been answered many times in the past day alone!) bothers you, while there is an Itlain judge making a determination based on flawed science?

 

[MichaelB]

Tweets from both sides were made available from the courtroom. I read both extensively. I never found EDF files mentioned from either the PIP or PGP.

Tweets? That's nice.

Without their appeal documents and every transcript we can't say for sure exactly what was and wasn't said about this matter.

 

[griffinmill]

Tweets? That's nice.

Without their appeal documents and every transcript we can't say for sure exactly what was and wasn't said about this matter.

Yet in tweets, taken from both sides of the debate, EDF files are not mentioned.

Why do you think that is if Bongiorno didn't specifically exclude missing EDF files from her defense?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet in tweets, taken from both sides of the debate, EDF files are not mentioned.

Why do you think that is if Bongiorno didn't specifically exclude missing EDF files from her defense?

Why would someone hammer away at what Biogiorno did or din't do when things of far greater import are out there?

I am not sure why this would bother anyone in comparison to things like Nencini has said.... women having y-genetics being one.

Can you please give a reason why the issue of Biogiorno and the EDFs (which has been answered many times in the past day alone!) bothers you, while there is an Italian judge making a determination based on flawed science?

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think Griffinmill has had a good answer to his or her very good question. Assuming the defence teams did not ask for the EDFs (a possibility weakly supported by Samson's quoted tweet which refers only to a new expert review of electropherograms*) what are the possible reasons or implications? I suggest these, with my comments (for 'Bongiorno' read 'the defence teams'):

1. EDFs aren't, in fact, important or necessary for an understanding Stefanoni's work - based on the knowledge I have gained here and elsewhere and the uniform opinions of those well-qualified to comment, I reject this.
   
2. Bongiorno does not understand the science well enough to get the importance of the EDFs - this is very possible. Lawyers aren't scientists and generally don't have them on tap. In my own more mundane field of law, we are sometimes required to understand accounts. Lawyers and judges will often go out of their way to resolve issues without having to get to grips with accounting principles. There are plenty of criminal cases in which good forensic points get missed by the defence. Nyki Kish, for example.
   
3. Bongiorno's judgement on the point differs from ours - we think the EDFs are crucial but she doesn't. That simple. The case is enormously complicated and judgment is going to play a part in where time and resources are directed. Her aim is different from ours too. We want The Truth, she wants to win. Those are different things.
   
4. Some banal reason like lack of preparation time due to limited funding/other commitments - self explanatory. It should not be assumed she had the hundreds and thousands of man-hours we have collectively between us here.
   
5. The chilling effect of Italian law - unlike my jurisdiction, lawyers in Italy do not enjoy immunity from suit for things said in court. Try framing an application for the EDFs which does not involve an imputation of fraud. Not only does Italy not have a Brady rule it's not even clear that judges can override prosecution decisions on disclosure (see Comodi's statement and Hellman's seeming helplessness in the face of stubborn obstruction and game-playing over the e-grams)
   
6. The fact the defence has already won on the issue - as I already said, Bongiorno has different goals from ours. C-V already shredded Stefanoni. The EDFs can have no effect on their many damning findings which, in a sane world, are enough to destroy the DNA evidence for all but the demented or dishonest. As of Hellman, the EDFs ceased to matter given the terms in which C-V reported to the court. If the ISC is willing to can C-V because they didn't test 36I then it will take more than some mysterious electronic files to make any difference.

* which we already have

 

[Desert Fox]

I have a question for AngloLawyer here:
The Italian defense lawyers in effect are gagged to make certain arguments.
Let us assume that for argument sake that AK/RS get accepted to the European Court of Appeals.
Do they want to get new lawyers at that stage? Concern is that anything that the Italian defense lawyers argue could have repercussions back in Italy and they still would be effectively gagged?

 

[katy_did]

I don't think Griffinmill has had a good answer to his or her very good question. Assuming the defence teams did not ask for the EDFs (a possibility weakly supported by Samson's quoted tweet which refers only to a new expert review of electropherograms*) what are the possible reasons or implications? I suggest these, with my comments (for 'Bongiorno' read 'the defence teams'): [snip]

What exactly are the EDFs? Are we talking about the negative controls or something else?

 

[MichaelB]

Summary: The investigators didn't find anything relevant because they stated that the people that appeared in the video were not recognizable, whereas the article says there are some pictures that are very clear. Between 21 and 22 hours it captures 37 people, and all those captured between 21:31 and 21:52 all do the same thing once they go past the barrier – they stop and look to their left towards the entrance to the car park, i.e. towards Meredith’s house. There is a family of father, mother and two children. They stop, the mother looks to the left, then one of the girls, then both girls. They seem to discuss something. In the end, they go away. The couple that passed just before them had done the same thing. What got their attention? What did they see or hear? Why were they never questioned?

 

[anglolawyer]

What exactly are the EDFs? Are we talking about the negative controls or something else?

My understanding (I stand to be corrected by Chris, Randy etc) is the acronym stands for electronic data files. Some of the machines used for e.g. quantification, amplification and electrofluoresis record the operations by way of internal electronic, digital data. All that has been disclosed to date are hard copy PDFs of the egrams, not the underlying data. The data would include information about negative controls at the amplification and electrofluoresis phases and probably much else besides. Diocletus and Chris would better be able to tell you exactly what.

RandyN has explained to me in the past that the hard copy egrams, which is all C-V got and then only in stages (at first they got the peak heights and later they go the peak areas) are like photoshopped pictures. They are not themselves 'the real thing' since they can be manipulated by interaction with the machines or some other funky software type of thing. They are the product of the electronic data, not the data itself. I take that to mean, they are not like the squiggly line produced by a lie detector, which (I think) is an analogue amplification of real bodily reactions to questions but an expression of digital data which can be manipulated.

If attempting to defraud you want to control the data and I surmise that the EDFs contain information Stef does not want anybody to see. Even the dates of the knife amplifications have been suppressed. That would be in there. It is relevant to the 6 day claim for instance.

Others may (no, do) know more and will hopefully correct and/or add to any of the above.

ETA see this post by Chris on this very page.

 

[anglolawyer]

What's the date of that article, Mike?

 

[anglolawyer]

I have a question for AngloLawyer here:
The Italian defense lawyers in effect are gagged to make certain arguments.
Let us assume that for argument sake that AK/RS get accepted to the European Court of Appeals.
Do they want to get new lawyers at that stage? Concern is that anything that the Italian defense lawyers argue could have repercussions back in Italy and they still would be effectively gagged?

I wish they had changed lawyers after losing in the ISC. They certainly need specialist representation in the ECHR. It is not something I would take on lightly and I certainly would not instruct a non-specialist barrister for an appeal of this kind. One would need to consult the treaty forming the ECHR and the court's own procedural rules to answer your second question. I would be astonished if advocates appearing before the ECHR did not enjoy immunity for statements properly made in carrying out their instructions. Given the type of cases they hear, that would neuter the court. However, I do not know the precise answer.

 

[MichaelB]

What's the date of that article, Mike?

Yesterday.