Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Skind]

Yet again - and hopefully for the last time - no-one should have to point out that demonstrating the origin of contamination requires that the origin was tested (by luck or modus operandi) and that such records be passed over to the defence regardless of the importance or use in the actual case.

The defence can not be expected to demonstrate the route of contamination if the prosecution/police consultant neglected to test it.

As such it's entirely the responsiblity of the police/prosecution forensics team to demonstrate that they took reasonable precautions against contamination - as in literally. Novelli shouldn't have backed up Stefanoni, but should have been asking her to pay back some of her wages for not doing her job.

It's the police experts fault for this mess, end of story. No if's or buts.

 

[Grinder]

If I may offer a third option, this is a simple derailment of the discussion at hand. Indeed, given that I have read the link it has absolutely nothing to do with the case or discussion.

This is yet another pointless distraction.

Right!

Do you believe that contamination must be proven?

Does it concern you that the ILE made so many mistakes?

What do think of the "confession" being in the media within days if not hours?

 

[toto]

Supercalifragilistic launched an anti American rant, suggesting probably from Britain (language crude but probably native speaker)
I linked to an article saying Brits trusted wikipedia above BBC for news.
Wikipedia on Knox is scathing of the Italian process.
This is a joint British and Italian prosecution of an American.
I pointed out that Americans don't buy the annulment that you introduced to the dialogue, Briton Soulmate's American experience.
I pointed out no one (informal citation admittedly) from North Carolina is fooled by the Italian process and the joint British and Italian prosecution.

And so on.

I don't understand this bit. What have the British got to do with the prosecution? (leaving aside a handful of internet posters).

 

[Samson]

I would like to see this taken a step further. There are 3 potential launch points for the rock: from the yard below, from the wall of the parking area and from the slope between those two. Physics may be able to deduce which position was used.
QUOTE]
I believe the key is the damage to the shutter frame, and no damage to the panel. Look at it and imagine any way this can occur without free extended movement of the shutter away from the striking rock.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't understand this bit. What have the British got to do with the prosecution? (leaving aside a handful of internet posters).

Toto:

I am not 100% sure but I understand that initially at least most U.K public opinion polls were negative towards Amanda. The US and British science / skeptical communities actually are pretty comfortable with each other but not sure that there is the same comfort with the regular U.K. subject.

I do want to add that in my discussions on other boards, I have found that generally mainland European posters are anti-Amanda. They don't seem interested in reading the evidence and seem most interested in sticking it to the Americans.

 

[toto]

Toto:

I am not 100% sure but I understand that initially at least most U.K public opinion polls were negative towards Amanda. The US and British science / skeptical communities actually are pretty comfortable with each other but not sure that there is the same comfort with the regular U.K. subject.

I do want to add that in my discussions on other boards, I have found that generally mainland European posters are anti-Amanda. They don't seem interested in reading the evidence and seem most interested in sticking it to the Americans.

Well, internet posters perhaps. I wouldn't necessarily blame the initial view people may have had about the case, and I rather suspect most people in Britain have forgotten about it. But, aside from the dodgy BBC 3/Vogt programme I have found what programmes etc that have some connection to the case, whether it be an interview with Knox or Sollecito, or a Guardian article or a Radio 4 piece or a Channel five presentation of the evidence to be broadly supportive, or at least neutral. ( I thought the owner of the TJMK site was American; I must admit to be being very ashamed if he were British. Say it isn't so!)

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, internet posters perhaps. I wouldn't necessarily blame the initial view people may have had about the case, and I rather suspect most people in Britain have forgotten about it. But, aside from the dodgy BBC 3/Vogt programme I have found what programmes etc that have some connection to the case, whether it be an interview with Knox or Sollecito, or a Guardian article or a Radio 4 piece or a Channel five presentation of the evidence to be broadly supportive, or at least neutral. ( I thought the owner of the TJMK site was American; I must admit to be being very ashamed if he were British. Say it isn't so!)

Even if he is wrong, I think my explanation at least works towards what Samson's impression are. There is an impression that British posters are anti-Amanda.

If things are changing or impressions are wrong, that is good. Hopefully my impression of mainland Europeans is also wrong.

I need to add that I am not forgetting Raff but the motivation of the pro guilt seems targeted at Amanda and Raff is kind of just caught in the storm.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Right!

Do you believe that contamination must be proven?

Does it concern you that the ILE made so many mistakes?

What do think of the "confession" being in the media within days if not hours?

I think the case is way past this and I have forgotten how many times this has been raised. However, I can understand in an Italian court that it is not enough for defence lawyers to throw their hands up in the air shouting “contamination”; that they need to provide an explanation to the court of how contamination occurred. As I recall in the OJ Simpson trial they were able to cast doubt of Mr Fung’s (testimony), I don’t recall either defence team doing this, well not effectively.

I believe most police investigations have mistakes and or issues, I don’t know that this case is particularly bad in the context of Italy; certainly the passage of time has allowed a great deal of scrutiny discussion.

Come on there are leaks all the time, I have lost count the amount of times TV reporters outside the Whitehouse or 10 Downing Street quoting “government sources have said this or that”, this case is not unique in the world for leaks.

Is a Federal judge in a position to re-try a case in the context of the US\Italy extradition treaty? Is there an actual mechanism that would allow a federal judge to question any of the points being discussed here, DNA, alleged botched police investigation etc etc. Do or can US citizen 5th Amendments rights apply in the case of an extradition?

 

[Bill Williams]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

Machiavelli,

What you are arguing is utter tripe. The videos showing how the evidence was collected and the electropherograms are there for everyone to see. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote, “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.” By contrast Dr. Novelli's main research interest is not forensic DNA; he is not in the same league.

Nothing exposes the deficiencies of the guilter PR campaign than this exchange.

Comments sections of newspaper on-line articles and the twitterverse are swamped with factoids about "abundant DNA convicts the two". Then reputable scientists - in fact every forensic expert outside of Italian law enforcement - disagree. As Halkides is fond of saying, "don't start with your confirmation bias, start with the data and move from there."

Two things happen to reputable, independent experts start with the data and apply what is currently known:

1) they move to the innocence side
2) guilters go on a campaign against them, as if their findings are some slight against Meredith Kercher.​

And then, the "abundant DNA evidence convicts the pair" reappears in comments sections and on these threads, as if people like Gill had never ventured an opinion.

It goes on and on.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the case is way past this and I have forgotten how many times this has been raised. However, I can understand in an Italian court that it is not enough for defence lawyers to throw their hands up in the air shouting “contamination”; that they need to provide an explanation to the court of how contamination occurred. As I recall in the OJ Simpson trial they were able to cast doubt of Mr Fung’s (testimony), I don’t recall either defence team doing this, well not effectively.

If the question is "Can you show some plausible route of contamination," that has clearly been done. They are quite reasonable routes as well.
The trouble is that it is impossible to show for sure which one, if any, of those routes is how the contamination got there.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think the case is way past this and I have forgotten how many times this has been raised. However, I can understand in an Italian court that it is not enough for defence lawyers to throw their hands up in the air shouting “contamination”; that they need to provide an explanation to the court of how contamination occurred. As I recall in the OJ Simpson trial they were able to cast doubt of Mr Fung’s (testimony), I don’t recall either defence team doing this, well not effectively.

I believe most police investigations have mistakes and or issues, I don’t know that this case is particularly bad in the context of Italy; certainly the passage of time has allowed a great deal of scrutiny discussion.

Come on there are leaks all the time, I have lost count the amount of times TV reporters outside the Whitehouse or 10 Downing Street quoting “government sources have said this or that”, this case is not unique in the world for leaks.

Is a Federal judge in a position to re-try a case in the context of the US\Italy extradition treaty? Is there an actual mechanism that would allow a federal judge to question any of the points being discussed here, DNA, alleged botched police investigation etc etc. Do or can US citizen 5th Amendments rights apply in the case of an extradition?

If the highlighted is repeated as if it is something new, I can only repeat....

..... Stefanoni herself told the Massei court of four routes of possible contamination, and then between Stefanoni and Massei (in his motivations report) decided to discount those routes.

1) Stefanoni herself probably touched the hasps in Dec, as seen on film\
2) Stefanoni herself admitted to the Massei court that another of the Scientific Police also handled the clasp
3) Stefanoni conceeded that the simple act of replacing the clasp onto the floor is itself a route of contamination. The film shows the clasp being replaced onto the floor, photographed, and thn bagged.
4) the 118 Medical people, on Nov 2, entered Meredtih's room without anticontamination protection. Massei said that the clasp was probably under the pillow at that time, therefore the 118 people probably didn't contaminate it.​

This gets tiresome to point this out, and then a few days later yet another post is made blaming the defence for not being vociferous enough in pointing this out. At the Massei trial at least, they had every reason to believe that Stefanoni had "outed" herself to the court as incompetent.

Yet, here was are 5 years after those court proceedings still raising the same issues.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Even if he is wrong, I think my explanation at least works towards what Samson's impression are. There is an impression that British posters are anti-Amanda.

If things are changing or impressions are wrong, that is good. Hopefully my impression of mainland Europeans is also wrong.

I need to add that I am not forgetting Raff but the motivation of the pro guilt seems targeted at Amanda and Raff is kind of just caught in the storm.

Yea LondonJohn, Anglolawyer. I know what you mean.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, internet posters perhaps. I wouldn't necessarily blame the initial view people may have had about the case, and I rather suspect most people in Britain have forgotten about it. But, aside from the dodgy BBC 3/Vogt programme I have found what programmes etc that have some connection to the case, whether it be an interview with Knox or Sollecito, or a Guardian article or a Radio 4 piece or a Channel five presentation of the evidence to be broadly supportive, or at least neutral. ( I thought the owner of the TJMK site was American; I must admit to be being very ashamed if he were British. Say it isn't so!)

I think Peter Quennell is from New Zealand however has some connection to or affinity for Britain but lives in the US, somewhere in New Jersey if I recall correctly.

So pretty much everyone involved in this tangent would have reason to feel shame, but as I understand it, the British the least.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If the highlighted is repeated as if it is something new, I can only repeat....

..... Stefanoni herself told the Massei court of four routes of possible contamination, and then between Stefanoni and Massei (in his motivations report) decided to discount those routes.

1) Stefanoni herself probably touched the hasps in Dec, as seen on film\
2) Stefanoni herself admitted to the Massei court that another of the Scientific Police also handled the clasp
3) Stefanoni conceeded that the simple act of replacing the clasp onto the floor is itself a route of contamination. The film shows the clasp being replaced onto the floor, photographed, and thn bagged.
4) the 118 Medical people, on Nov 2, entered Meredtih's room without anticontamination protection. Massei said that the clasp was probably under the pillow at that time, therefore the 118 people probably didn't contaminate it.​

This gets tiresome to point this out, and then a few days later yet another post is made blaming the defence for not being vociferous enough in pointing this out. At the Massei trial at least, they had every reason to believe that Stefanoni had "outed" herself to the court as incompetent.

Yet, here was are 5 years after those court proceedings still raising the same issues.

Bill

Please do point to where either defence teams used your points in the trial or Florence appeal, thanks.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yea LondonJohn, Anglolawyer. I know what you mean.

They are on this board so they could be considered part of the skeptical community. They also likely have more of a scientific background than many.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think Peter Quennell is from New Zealand however has some connection to or affinity for Britain but lives in the US, somewhere in New Jersey if I recall correctly.

So pretty much everyone involved in this tangent would have reason to feel shame, but as I understand it, the British the least.

New Zealander!! You're kidding me, I hope Samson was sitting down when he read your post. Oh the irony.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They are on this board so they could be considered part of the skeptical community. They also likely have more of a scientific background than many.

Yea but their Brits first and foremost. I am just teasing

 

[platonov]

They are on this board so they could be considered part of the skeptical community. They also likely have more of a scientific background than many.

What ? You mean as volunteers in drug trials or something.
It's not unpossible but AFAIK neither have ever claimed this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

Please do point to where either defence teams used your points in the trial or Florence appeal, thanks.

I'm not sure I can. The little I know about "strategy" about the Florence trial is that they probably tried to keep to the agenda set by the ISC in March 2013.

What I do know is that all but one of the defence motions at the beginning of the Florence trial were denied. The one allowed had something to do with Raffaele's fingernails. AFAIK even that did not make it into Nencini's report.

Machiavelli and I have argued the status of the Conti & Vecchiotti report as per the parameters set up by the ISC for the Florence Trial. Some think that C&V was erased all together with the quashing of the Hellmann verdict. I believe that Nencini used Conti & Vecchiotti, while obviously not agreeing with its conclusions. There was at least once where Nencini said that his court (on a particular issue) had no reason to doubt Vecchiotti.

By this I mean that Nencini signalled early to the defence that this was not going to be a complete retrial in Florence, and I have no idea if Stefanoni's "four possible routes of contamination" even *could* have been used, given the number of denied motions at the start of Nencini's trial.

It still remains a fact, though, regardless of how the defence could have or should have used Stefanoni's admissions.

For the purposes of discussion here - where many say "prove a route of contamination" - Stefanoni herself admits to four possible routes, and Massei is honourable enough to account for those four routes in his motivations, even as he discounts them with what I regard as a wave of the hand.

If you want to shine a spotlight on the defence though, rather than the larger issue, I think they had reason to believe that shining a spotlight on Stefanoni's admissions was going to do no good.....

..... esp. in a courtroom atmosphere where accusing police of incompetence or misconduct is liable to get you a defamation charge - anything but an investigation into alleged misconduct.

 

[Samson]

I don't understand this bit. What have the British got to do with the prosecution? (leaving aside a handful of internet posters).

11 Aug 2013

REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT
FIRST PENAL SECTION
COMPOSED OF Ill.mi Sigg.ri Magistrati:
Dr SEVERO CHIEFFI -President
Dr MASSIMO VECCHIO -Council Member
Dr GIUSEPPE LOCATELLI -Council Member
Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO -Recording Member
Dr GIACOMO ROCCHI -Council Member

has pronounced the following
JUDGEMENT
On the appeal proposed by:

THE PROCURATORE GENERALE FOR THE APPEAL COURT OF PERUGIA
KERCHER STEPHANIE ARLINE LARA. DOB 21/07/1983 KERCHER ARLINE CAROL MARY, DOB 11/11/1945 KERCHER JOHN ASHLEY DOB 21/10/1976 KERCHER LYLE DOB 03/07/1979 KERCHER JOHN LESLIE N. IL 11/12/1942 against AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987 SOLLECITO, RAFFAELE DOB 26/03/1984 Also: AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987against the judgement in. 10/2010 APPEAL COURT of PERUGIA of 03/10/2011

Taking account of the facts, the judgement and the appeal,
heard in PUBLIC HEARING on 25/03/2013, proceedings recorded by
Councillor Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO

Hearing in person Procurator General Dr Miji RIELLO
Which has concluded with the rejection of the petition by KNOX; annulling the judgement in
relation to Headings A,B,C,D,E, and concerning heading F, annulment limited to the aggravating
factors which relate to the act,Glu2cp (hand-written, barely legible)