Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

Thank you, so you are unable to point out where either defence teams used the points you raised in # 205 during the original trial or the Florence appeal, got it thanks.

 

[Samson]

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.

Please tell me it ain't so.
This is interesting if so, I will research.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you, so you are unable to point out where either defence teams used the points you raised in # 205 during the original trial or the Florence appeal, got it thanks.

In the strict sense, true.

My opinion is that at the original trial (2009) the defence probably thought Stefanoni's admissions to be enough. After that, raising it would have brought defamation charges against the defence lawyers.

 

[Kaosium]

Once again I wish to request a list of all those neutral DNA experts that have spoken to this case affirming the work of Stefanoni.

In the specific discussed above wasn't it the case that the officers involved in placing the knife in the box were involved in other aspects of the case and had in fact been to the cottage and had handled other evidence that could contain MK's DNA.

Anglo has made the point that no DNA was found on the knife in any case. Similar spots that tested low were not retested and Stef never identified what the alleged substance was.

So I agree that the box most certainly wasn't the source of the "DNA" but was just another example of lack of protocol by the ILE.

If the knife was cleaned well enough to get all the blood off then Amanda's DNA would certainly have been deposited there after the cleaning not during the murder; therefore, where it was on the knife makes no difference and can't be used to determine how it was held or by whom during the murder.

Future comments by experts should list the problems with the DNA work by categories. Major testing errors, minor (or miner) testing errors, major collection errors, minor collection errors, etc. should be on the list. The box would most likely fall to a lower level than, for example, collection with dirty gloves or leaving the bra part in an unsecured cottage.

I would take Samson's challenge on the knife being used in the murder. You could wire me up with one electrode on the...front...and the other up the kazoo and hook them up to a few megavolts if that knife had anything whatsoever to do with the murder. Even if they were involved that knife was not, and I'd take the challenge on them even being involved but without the electrode up the kazoo as that would be discomfiting!

As for where and how the DNA came to be on the electropherogram I think by far the most likely is lab contamination, but I'm not doing any electrodes on that one. Other means of transmission are possible. I too would be interested in a categorical analysis of all errors on a hierarchical basis. This case is very much a 'teaching moment' on the necessity of protocols for LT/LCN DNA work.

The one experiment I would like to see tried is simulating just how DNA can migrate on the basis of all those forensic technicians working in that room, then trashing it, then it left for 46 days or whatever with the door broken and a window out. It's sometimes lost on some that they collected more than the bra clasp from that room on the second trip. It wasn't like calculating the odds of it just getting on the bra clasp, but anything that was tested from that room the second time around. Finding Raffaele's DNA on the purse or her sweatshirt would have served the same purpose.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. I was going to post something about SuperCal's Rule 12 violation of the Members Agreement, but SuperCal's post was gone before I could even complain!

 

[Kaosium]

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

Please tell me it ain't so.
This is interesting if so, I will research.

I'm not sure of this and I actively avoid that person, he creeps me the hell out. It's just something I came across I am uncertain of. There is a video of him that might give some hint from his accent, I forget the name of it though. It was after the original trial sometime and he doesn't look good in it, it is the source of some of the unflattering pictures you may have seen posted.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Au contraire, it is central to the current appeal. Have you read the summary of AK's appeal? If not, you should. If it is the case that in Italy one must do more than point out that proper protocol were not followed then that is an issue that doesn't go away until they right the wrong.

I don't recall the collection, transport or testing protocol being the issue. The big breakthroughs were the glove not fitting and the Det. Fuhrman being caught lying about using the term ******.

I don't understand what you mean in the highlighted sentence.

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.

Really? Just the CSI collection should be enough, but we can add a long list: the frying of three computers, the losing of the hair and blood from F's window, the leaving behind an identified piece of MK's clothes worn the murder night, neglecting to mention the negative TMB test on the footprints, exacting the statements from Amanda with providing counsel or recording the interrogations, making her buckle and tell the what they knew to be correct when in fact it wasn't, destroying the only DNA evidence against Raf, forgetting to mention super witness Curatolo had a pending heroin dealing charge outstanding and much more.

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.

Well, lousy analogies. Police releasing details of an investigation isn't or shouldn't be politics. Generally police keep details secret in order to conduct a professional investigation.

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?

This will most likely be decided by the executive not by the courts. All of the things being discussed will be made clear to the State Department to the extent they don't know already. I personally don't believe the 5th or any Constitutional aspect will be brought to bear.

 

[toto]

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)

Ok I now understand what you are saying, though not sure I would characterise it as an UK/Italian prosecution.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

In the strict sense, true.

My opinion is that at the original trial (2009) the defence probably thought Stefanoni's admissions to be enough. After that, raising it would have brought defamation charges against the defence lawyers.

Ah! I see you’re editorialising both defence team’s strategies, fair enough. I guess the both defence teams have been hampered by having to follow the protocols and rules of operating in an Italian court.

Do you know whether there is a mechanism for a US federal judge to effectively re-try this case in the context of the US\Italy extradition treaty; I mean can they ask for court documents etc?

It’s a simple question, yes or no would suffice; for now.

 

[Samson]

Ok I now understand what you are saying, though not sure I would characterise it as an UK/Italian prosecution.

I typed that from a PDF file key stroke for key stroke so can't resist the opportunity to wheel it out

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah! I see you’re editorialising both defence team’s strategies, fair enough. I guess the both defence teams have been hampered by having to follow the protocols and rules of operating in an Italian court.

Do you know whether there is a mechanism for a US federal judge to effectively re-try this case in the context of the US\Italy extradition treaty; I mean can they ask for court documents etc?

It’s a simple question, yes or no would suffice; for now.

Trouble is, if I just got snarky and said, "no", (because of your snark) you wouldn't know which I was answering to.... the question about my knowledge, or the question about a US judge's ability to try this case.

So, I'll risk editorializing. (Which, by the way, is a bit of a cheap shot to claim. But then, I'm feeling a little sensitive today.)

I do not know 100%, but I don't think a US judge would in effect retry the case. That is not what extradition is about anyway. But that's a different question as to whether or not the *state department* can ask for trial documents.

Should I editorialize just to annoy you a little more?

The country receiving the extradition request really can do whatever it likes, and can put any conditions on to extradition that it likes. The treaty provides a vehicle to make it possible - it's a framework. Any country can still extradite even without a treaty, really..... it's just that they normally wouldn't.

I can quote examples of Canada/US extraditions where Canada put all sorts of conditions, and requests for information before eventually extraditing, but you'd accuse me of editorializing!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Trouble is, if I just got snarky and said, "no", (because of your snark) you wouldn't know which I was answering to.... the question about my knowledge, or the question about a US judge's ability to try this case.

So, I'll risk editorializing. (Which, by the way, is a bit of a cheap shot to claim. But then, I'm feeling a little sensitive today.)

I do not know 100%, but I don't think a US judge would in effect retry the case. That is not what extradition is about anyway. But that's a different question as to whether or not the *state department* can ask for trial documents.

Should I editorialize just to annoy you a little more?

The country receiving the extradition request really can do whatever it likes, and can put any conditions on to extradition that it likes. The treaty provides a vehicle to make it possible - it's a framework. Any country can still extradite even without a treaty, really..... it's just that they normally wouldn't.

I can quote examples of Canada/US extraditions where Canada put all sorts of conditions, and requests for information before eventually extraditing, but you'd accuse me of editorializing!

Snark? Who me, never.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Au contraire, it is central to the current appeal. Have you read the summary of AK's appeal? If not, you should. If it is the case that in Italy one must do more than point out that proper protocol were not followed then that is an issue that doesn't go away until they right the wrong.

I don't recall the collection, transport or testing protocol being the issue. The big breakthroughs were the glove not fitting and the Det. Fuhrman being caught lying about using the term ******.

I don't understand what you mean in the highlighted sentence.

I recall Barry Sheck in a “Perry Mason” moment proving Mr Fung’s testimony was at best wrong, I could be wrong it was a long time ago.

Really? Just the CSI collection should be enough, but we can add a long list: the frying of three computers, the losing of the hair and blood from F's window, the leaving behind an identified piece of MK's clothes worn the murder night, neglecting to mention the negative TMB test on the footprints, exacting the statements from Amanda with providing counsel or recording the interrogations, making her buckle and tell the what they knew to be correct when in fact it wasn't, destroying the only DNA evidence against Raf, forgetting to mention super witness Curatolo had a pending heroin dealing charge outstanding and much more.

I struggle with the discussion outside the court process vs what has become available via the internet in YouTube clips etc. For me it comes down to what was raised in the original trial and Florence appeal, do you recall if either defence teams raise these issues in court?

Well, lousy analogies. Police releasing details of an investigation isn't or shouldn't be politics. Generally police keep details secret in order to conduct a professional investigation.

Not really, police use leaks during investigations.

This will most likely be decided by the executive not by the courts. All of the things being discussed will be made clear to the State Department to the extent they don't know already. I personally don't believe the 5th or any Constitutional aspect will be brought to bear.

I agree, a federal judge and Department of Justice hands are tied by the scope of US\Italy extradition treaty. If it happens, the Department of State will make a political decisions based on say, a natural grassroots campaign that creates a ground swell of US public opinion against extradition.

 

[Bill Williams]

Snark? Who me, never.

Careful, I'm beginning to like you.

AFAIK the role of a court in the US would be to rule on the legality *in theory* of the extradition request.

But at the end of the day, the concept is a political issue not a legal.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree, a federal judge and Department of Justice hands are tied by the scope of US\Italy extradition treaty. If it happens, the Department of State will make a political decisions based on say, a natural grassroots campaign that creates a ground swell of US public opinion against extradition.

.......... or, dare I say, the justice of extradition in this case. You and I have just minutes ago cross swords over the issue of Stefanoni's admissions, re: routes of contamination.

If "State" became aware of that, I would hope that this alone would become a bar to extradition - Italy had (in this case) put up an unjust obstacle to a defendant's rights, not allowing full evaluation of someone like Stefanoni's credibility/honesty.

At that point, some lawyer in the State Department is going to highlight that part of Massei's report with a yellow-marker and pass it up to the Secretary.

 

[Desert Fox]

Sarah Pearce speaking about what it is like in prison
http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/dateline/sarah-pearce-life-after-prison-302334531572

 

[Dan O.]

So you think it's enough to have a video, while it's unnecessary to know anything about documentation and questionings in order to explain how Sollecito's DNA happened to travel on the metal hook and stick there as well as how Meredith's DNA managed to make it to Sollecito's kitchen knife, and show how this event is probable. I guess it would be worthless if I asked Gill where he could see Sollecoto's DNA in the video, or on how many spots on the floor he is aware such DNA was found (without having read the documentation) or how did he found out that the knife transportation box was "connected to Meredith Kercher" always from the video of course.
You write a lot of quotes, but in your thousands lines you are unable to point at a single realistic scenario for how the DNA of Sollecito happened to travel on the bra clasp or how Meredith's DNA could stick in a groove in Sollecito's kitchen knife. The only thing any expert needs to do to have a judge listen, is to explain how these contamination occurred and show what source and what event made them be probable. Even a little kid understands you are unable to do so, and Prof. Gill is unable to offer an explanation as well.
I remind you that you spectacularly violated your axiom #1, by assuming that the presence of some DNA material in a finding should be taken as an indication of the timing of when the deposit of the whole material occurred.
Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

You bring up this point, why don't you answer it. How exactly did Solecito's DNA get on the bra clasp? Can you even prove when it occured?

--(S&G 1964)

 

[Machiavelli]

Vecchiotti was one of the independent forensics people required by judge Hellmann. She was neutral and unrelated to any side so why wouldn't any expert using her as a source be neutral?

But this is a myth of the innocentisti. Vecchiotti and Conti are not "independent" experts, they are judge appointed experts. Only the judge is independent. The judge is supposed to be neutral but only until he judges. After he judges he takes a side, from that moment he is considering biased. But Hellmann Zanetti not only have taken a side, they have also been completely discredited. The SC destroyed them completely, challenged Vecchiotti's "intellectual honesty" and basically pointed her making up document content, and all of Hellmann's trial conduct and decisions were annulled (except part of the calunnia finding). Then we had also external source claiming that the defence was having contacts with Vecchiotti and Conti before the publishing of their report (through experts Hampikiam and Budowle). Btw Vecchiotti has a dubious reputation herself also due to other cases.
How can this expert be anyhow considers "neutral"? This is really unduly naive.

 

[Kaosium]

Ah! I see you’re editorialising both defence team’s strategies, fair enough. I guess the both defence teams have been hampered by having to follow the protocols and rules of operating in an Italian court.

Do you know whether there is a mechanism for a US federal judge to effectively re-try this case in the context of the US\Italy extradition treaty; I mean can they ask for court documents etc?

It’s a simple question, yes or no would suffice; for now.

Article X starts on page 7, I cannot get that part to paste cleanly so I can't post it. This one paragraph however was easy enough to fix and strikes me as a good preface:

Articles 10-13 set out procedures which are similar to those found in other modern United States extradition treaties. In particular, Article 10 clarifies the form and content of the documentation required to demonstrate to a United States court probable cause to believe that the crime for which extradition is sought was committed and that the person sought committed it.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you think it's enough to have a video, while it's unnecessary to know anything about documentation and questionings in order to explain how Sollecito's DNA happened to travel on the metal hook and stick there as well as how Meredith's DNA managed to make it to Sollecito's kitchen knife, and show how this event is probable. I guess it would be worthless if I asked Gill where he could see Sollecoto's DNA in the video, or on how many spots on the floor he is aware such DNA was found (without having read the documentation) or how did he found out that the knife transportation box was "connected to Meredith Kercher" always from the video of course.
You write a lot of quotes, but in your thousands lines you are unable to point at a single realistic scenario for how the DNA of Sollecito happened to travel on the bra clasp or how Meredith's DNA could stick in a groove in Sollecito's kitchen knife. The only thing any expert needs to do to have a judge listen, is to explain how these contamination occurred and show what source and what event made them be probable. Even a little kid understands you are unable to do so, and Prof. Gill is unable to offer an explanation as well.
I remind you that you spectacularly violated your axiom #1, by assuming that the presence of some DNA material in a finding should be taken as an indication of the timing of when the deposit of the whole material occurred.
Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

You bring up this point, why don't you answer it. How exactly did Solecito's DNA get on the bra clasp? Can you even prove when it occured?

--(S&G 1964)

The question is:

Not that Vecchiotti ended up with a bias; but how she got there. Once again, Machiavelli is evaluating Vecchiotti on the conclusion she drew.

Right now, Vecchiotti is an "enemy" and a criminal as far as Machiavelli is concerned, because of the conclusion she came to.

I'd still like to know if Machiavelli thinks Wladimiro De Nunzio similarly a criminal.