Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

In the past there has been much discussion of the issue of Stefanoni's credentials. It would be nice to get this answered once and for all so that it could be out there. It would seem like an easy thing to look up - but my initial google searches don't provide the answer.

Machiavelli you did not respond to my more recent comment in our exchange about Stefanoni yesterday. The reasons for her storing the bra clasp, and the assured destruction of that evidence by her method, without the order for destruction as you say is required, is an enigma at best. This discussion of her qualifications, with the high training and role that your described only amplifies the reasons to question her abilities. If she is a holder of a doctorate in some biological or other science, one would think she would know how to properly store evidence that she is charged with collecting and analyzing. Again, surely the skill and knowledge to store the bra clasp are way way less than required to do DNA analysis.

Yes I dropped it. Also forgot it. It's impossible to follow all threads. I also recall now Strozzi's post and others on the very same point. It requires time especially when it comes out that people stick to one point just because of their mindset. It takes time to point out when the difference is a difference between approaches and mindsets, and also contexts and systems about a point.
There is something in what you and Strozzi said that sounds like rigid, very far from the reality of things, on this particular point. The focus on "why" she "stored" an item, is actually put in a way... just far from the reality of the system, out of context. Further answers to "precise" intentions about storing the item don't exist, for how the system work. And don't belong neither to the law nor to the mind of the scientist (Stefanoni) wo does the job.
There is no enigma, art. 360 of procedure code (unrepeatable test) works like that, and people working with items work like that.
I don't know how to explain really... it's a matter of praxis and law. The art. 360 provides the test to be unrepeatable. This seems codified. However, at the sam time the procedure is also ambiguous, an the law is always interpreted, as always happen; it is ambiguous for example if you consider that says a "testing" is unrepeateble, but does not specify when the test on an item is "over" (who decides if there are other swabs to be taken? something more to see?). In practice items are often destroyed after tests, no procedure provides for them to be stored, but the procedure does not dictate to destroy them.
Strozzi questions whether the storage was a pre storage waiting for the item to be properly destroyed. Yet this is a question that is impossible to answer, because the reality is mora ambiguous. There is no category such a "provisional storage awaiting destruction". There is also no mandate to store the item in order to preserve it.
So when was the test under art. 360 thought to be "accomplished"? I don't know, but I just bt that when Stefanoni or other laboratory technicians stored the item in a tube, none of those question was decided. In that moment, the DNA profile extracted was not even known. I think nobody had decided about the immediate fate of object. The item was in a limbo, nobody decided yet whether they had intentions to perform other tests in the following days or to throw it away. But there was no intention to take care of it in order to preserve it through time, store it in a refrigerator etc. There is no specific "reason" for this storage, I think this is a default limbo position where a huge number of things happen to go, and unfortunatly huge numbers of things of every kind in the Italian system remain in such position, I mean also things of large size part of the everyday life of Italians.

 

[Machiavelli]

Time of stress/death is the same time. Whether she was killed instantly, makes no difference. The terror of finding Rudy uninvited in her apartment will have ceased digestion.

Yes, I agree, and also the finding of Rudy in a situation like having sex or taking drugs together with Amanda Knox in her own house, defacating in the toilet, or multiple people attempting to involve her in a sex party, are things that may produce stress or anyway affect one's digestion.

You are suggesting all discussion is ceased because 6 30pm to 9pm is outside the parameters relating to a full stomach, but I made the logical suggestion that she ate at 7 30pm, attending to the pizza at this time.

But 1) the suggestion is not that logical, because about by that time they had already finished the second entry, an apple pie, and they were looking pictures together on the computer; and 2) also, even in the event that we decide to stretch the testimonies to this point, we will have a 90 minutes delay time, which is already a statistically extreme value, and if accepted, itself it would allow to consider also other values close to that; ie. such as 100 minutes or even more (the farthest the percentile you picke, the more "disperse" figures become that means the more variable they become).

I would like to remind you that you have conceded the dna may be unsound,

I never conceded anything like that. Your interpretation is maybe that the DNA, in order to be "sound", needs to fit some peculiar standards of certainty and certifications, something I don't believe; but in my view the DNA is a piece of evidence like the others. It exists indeed as a piece of evidence, but other pieces of evidence exist too, it does not require to be more sound than other pieces in order to exist, and in my opinion it would be unnecessary as a piece of evidence, I would convict even without DNA if I were a judge on this case.

 

[Machiavelli]

And yet her work in the Kercher case was so sloppy and bad that even an educated layperson can be made to see and understand this. Curious.

Definitely not. Actually, and curiously, I recall even lawyer Giulia Bongiorno called Stefanoni "highly competent".

 

[acbytesla]

Definitely not. Actually, and curiously, I recall even lawyer Giulia Bongiorno called Stefanoni "highly competent".

Either your memory is faulty or Bongiorno misspoke. More importantly than what some lawyer said about Stefanoni is what her peers in the scientific community have said about Stefanoni's work. Face it Machiavelli. Stefanoni, is one of three things. Corrupt, a highly incompetent boob, or both.

 

[Numbers]

In order to clarify some points of Italian law - which I believe have been somewhat confused by statements of some of the posters, below are some relevant articles from the Constitution of the Italian Republic.

Note please:
Defendants are NOT GUILTY until a sentence is FINAL (Finalized by CSC)
GUILT CAN NOT be established on the statements of those who have voluntarily avoided cross-examination by the defense (for example, Rudy Guede, who avoided cross-exam)
The defense has the right to produce ALL evidence in its favor.
Formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversarial hearings (means judges shouldn't be inventing evidence or speculating beyond the evidence, in my interpretation).
International standards of law apply (such as the ECHR).

Constitution of the Italian Republic
{some excerpts relevant to defendants' rights; sentence numbering and emphasis added}

Copied from the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic
Published originally by:
Parliamentary Information, Archives and Publications Office of the Senate Service for Official Reports and Communication

Art. 2
1. The Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, both as an individual and in the social groups where human personality is expressed.
2. The Republic expects that the fundamental duties of political, economic and social solidarity be fulfilled.

Art. 10
1. The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law.
2. The legal status of foreigners is regulated by law in conformity with international provisions and treaties.
3. A foreigner who, in his home country, is denied the actual exercise of the democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Italian constitution shall be entitled to the right of asylum under the conditions established by law.
4. A foreigner may not be extradited for a political offence

Art. 13
1. Personal liberty is inviolable.
2. No one may be detained, inspected, or searched nor otherwise subjected to any restriction of personal liberty except by order of the Judiciary stating a reason and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by the law.
3. In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and urgency as shall conclusively be defined by the law, the police may take provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to the Judiciary for validation and which, in default of such validation in the following 48 hours, shall be revoked and considered null and void.
4. Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to restriction of personal liberty shall be punished.
5. The law shall establish the maximum duration of preventive detention.


Art. 24
1. Anyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights under civil and administrative law.
2. Defense is an inviolable right at every stage and instance of legal proceedings.
3. The poor are entitled by law to proper means for action or defense in all courts.
4. The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial errors.


Art. 27
1. Criminal responsibility is personal.
2. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.
3. Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
4. Death penalty is prohibited (1).

Art. 111
1. Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2. All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3. The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4. In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
5. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
6. The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.
7. In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8. The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9. The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
10. All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
11. Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
12.Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

 

[carbonjam72]

Actually, it's grand chamber. The grand chamber is the highest configuration of the ecthr. In bouyid, a lower panel of the court held basically that the cops are allowed to slap witnesses, and there was a lot of criticism of the decision from human right groups. The grand chamber granted review of that decision, argument to occur this month, and it seems likely that they will say that the cops are not allowed to slap interogees. Even perugian cops.

Thanks DC. Do you have any thoughts on the ISC? Do you have any read on the judge assigned to hear AK/RS appeal?

I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I can see the judges having had their fun and letting them go. On the other, the judge has confirmed a high profile evidence free case in the past.

I'm stumped. Sad part though, is which ever way it goes, it won't be because of evidence, truth or justice. Just what they feel like doing.

 

[Machiavelli]

huh??

The fact is that Meredith's meal had not moved out of her stomach and she was well past the time for gastric emptying if Sophie and Robyn were correct. But they probably weren't right.(...)

But you can't delete testimonies like that. This is not a harmless operation in statistic and in logical consequence. How does it happen that two or three witnesses all tell the same false story? Is it probable they get it wrong, and both in the same way? Those witnesses told a consistent story, in which events and timings follow each other, they fit an order. They watched photos and talked about the previous party for a while after dinner. They made an apple pie after a pizza and ate it together, then they went to look at photos together.
It is improbable that all this is wrong. If you chose to believe that they were wrong to such extent, then you are already making some extreme assumption.
You can't escape making improbable assumptions.
And yet, after that, even after you decide to twist and dismiss the testimonies to such extent, still you will find yourself with some extreme value, since 19:30 means more than 90 minutes earlier than she arrived home.

 

[Machiavelli]

Either your memory is faulty or Bongiorno misspoke. More importantly than what some lawyer said about Stefanoni is what her peers in the scientific community have said about Stefanoni's work. Face it Machiavelli. Stefanoni, is one of three things. Corrupt, a highly incompetent boob, or both.

I see nothing except unfounded and void rhetoric in such rants.

 

[Desert Fox]

Definitely not. Actually, and curiously, I recall even lawyer Giulia Bongiorno called Stefanoni "highly competent".

Are you denying that she violated multiple procedures set forth in my forensic's text book?

 

[js202]

Definitely not. Actually, and curiously, I recall even lawyer Giulia Bongiorno called Stefanoni "highly competent".

Yes, I've observed how the system in Italy - with calumnia charges flying around like badminton shuttlecocks - might persuade Bongiorno to toss around such blandishments, right before she gutted Stefanoni's methodology like a carp.

I might similarly refer to you as "fair-minded, highly logical and reasonable" with the leverage that utmost irony affords indicating my true feelings.

 

[Samson]

Yes, I agree, and also the finding of Rudy in a situation like having sex or taking drugs together with Amanda Knox in her own house, defacating in the toilet, or multiple people attempting to involve her in a sex party, are things that may produce stress or anyway affect one's digestion.



But 1) the suggestion is not that logical, because about by that time they had already finished the second entry, an apple pie, and they were looking pictures together on the computer; and 2) also, even in the event that we decide to stretch the testimonies to this point, we will have a 90 minutes delay time, which is already a statistically extreme value, and if accepted, itself it would allow to consider also other values close to that; ie. such as 100 minutes or even more (the farthest the percentile you picke, the more "disperse" figures become that means the more variable they become).




I never conceded anything like that. Your interpretation is maybe that the DNA, in order to be "sound", needs to fit some peculiar standards of certainty and certifications, something I don't believe; but in my view the DNA is a piece of evidence like the others. It exists indeed as a piece of evidence, but other pieces of evidence exist too, it does not require to be more sound than other pieces in order to exist, and in my opinion it would be unnecessary as a piece of evidence, I would convict even without DNA if I were a judge on this case.

This argument in the bolded part is not sustainable, but just to be clear, and this is important and I would appreciate a response, are you suggesting there is a gross procedural error in the autopsy? If that is the suggestion then we should discuss this. If there was not, you are proposing that Meredith was a unique human being.
Some time ago we discussed longevity. If the longest a human being has ever lived is 114 years, and I am 113 years old, when am I likely to die?
If the longest delay in digestion is 105 minutes, and on minute 104 it has not begun, when will it begin?
The answer is I should not plan for a 115th birthday, and I should expect digestion to begin forthwith.
What we are in fact dealing with is a situation where we need only accept Lalli executed the autopsy correctly to totally abandon the multi perp theory.
This discussion will escalate dramatically soon in the media, if Marriot is worth paying.

By the way, arguing for an earlier meal time is useful for the defence. To suggest otherwise is illogical and unscientific, so I will use your version of the testimony to further the case for innocence. Thankyou.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, I've observed how the system in Italy - with calumnia charges flying around like badminton shuttlecocks - might persuade Bongiorno to toss around such blandishments, right before she gutted Stefanoni's methodology like a carp.

I might similarly refer to you as "fair-minded, highly logical and reasonable" with the leverage that utmost irony affords indicating my true feelings.

Actually there is a trick that works. . . .Never do any describing but you, as the defense attorney, get a standard book on forensics admitted into court. You then ask her to read from the book on proper procedures. Then you ask her if she followed those during parts where you know she did not. Either she admits to screwing the pooch or lying under oath.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I agree, and also the finding of Rudy in a situation like having sex or taking drugs together with Amanda Knox in her own house, defacating in the toilet, or multiple people attempting to involve her in a sex party, are things that may produce stress or anyway affect one's digestion.

You see, that is half your problem. This is nonsense. There is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, ZIP evidence of Meredith taking drugs, Amanda, taking ANY drugs (other than alcohol or cannabis...which is unlikely to stress Meredith out since she smoked and drank frequently) Also there is no proof that multiple people attempted to engage Meredith in a sex party. (not that this is likely to stress her out either) But notice that no one really believes that it was sex party gone awry, or they would have tested the putative semen stain and at least one judge would have given the sex party theory some merit. (they didn't). At least your consistent Machiavelli, you are 100 percent willing to smear Knox with same old nonsense, regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of truth to lead you down this path.

I'd be ashamed if I was you.

 

[Samson]

Either your memory is faulty or Bongiorno misspoke. More importantly than what some lawyer said about Stefanoni is what her peers in the scientific community have said about Stefanoni's work. Face it Machiavelli. Stefanoni, is one of three things. Corrupt, a highly incompetent boob, or both.

There is clearly an unwritten code by which things operate any where near the Italian judiciary, and people unaware of its nuances get prosecuted.In most instances freedom of speech results in the greatest good for the greatest number, but Italy is an abject disgrace.

 

[kwill]

Yes I dropped it. Also forgot it. It's impossible to follow all threads.

Quite. Probably it felt something like this to Amanda Knox, the night she was asked to explain herself over and over for hours by rotating teams of police officers. At least you have enough English to form full sentences, along with the comfort of your home and no need to worry that making a mistake will cause hundreds of ghouls to dedicate their lives to making you look like a vicious murderer.

It gets even more confusing when you're inventing stories about how it's possible that Amanda Knox was having sex and doing hard drugs with Rudy when Meredith walked in the door, thus stopping her digestion.

The more you feel the need to invent, the harder it is to follow all the threads. I can totally see that.

 

[Machiavelli]

This argument in the bolded part is not sustainable, but just to be clear, and this is important and I would appreciate a response, are you suggesting there is a gross procedural error in the autopsy? If that is the suggestion then we should discuss this. If there was not, you are proposing that Meredith was a unique human being.
Some time ago we discussed longevity. If the longest a human being has ever lived is 114 years, and I am 113 years old, when am I likely to die?
If the longest delay in digestion is 105 minutes, and on minute 104 it has not begun, when will it begin?
The answer is I should not plan for a 115th birthday, and I should expect digestion to begin forthwith.

No. There is a fundamental mistake. Your reasoning is just wrong. Statistics work actually, the other way around.
I will not discuss Lalli's autopsy, albeit to say the intrinsic probability of error about assessing the duodenum content is just not zero. Because the duodenum is not a closed container and material can be naturally "missed".
But I don't consider this important. You do consider it the only important point, but I don't.
Instead, I disagree from your reasoning and I point at the fundamental mistake in interpreting statistics.
It is true that 114 years is too close to a maximum extension, kind of physical threshold that can't be crossed due to telomer exhaustion; there are no further values beyond that.
But there is no such treshold in time of stomach emptying; in fact, what happens when there is no such maximum extension treshold, what you observe is the opposite phenomenon: values become more diffuse.
This is what happens if you chose another age, not too close to the threshold : a person in Italy today has a 50% probability to reach 80 years of age; but less than 10% probability to reach 88 years of age. However, a person who already is 80 years old has probability of reaching 88 years of age a bit higher than 50% (women). The probability raises up to above 50% (for women; for men a bit less) once you consider that percentile of people alone.
So, what happens is that when you are already within that "extreme" percentile, the probability of reaching values much far from that in that percentile become greatly higher.
The extreme areas "tails" of the Gauss curve are in fact "flat", compared to the steep flanks of the curve. In those areas, values are more equall distributed.
Mistakes in the magnitude of 12 hours are reported based on miscalculation of gastric emptying.

 

[Samson]

Quite. Probably it felt something like this to Amanda Knox, the night she was asked to explain herself over and over for hours by rotating teams of police officers. At least you have enough English to form full sentences, along with the comfort of your home and no need to worry that making a mistake will cause hundreds of ghouls to dedicate their lives to making you look like a vicious murderer.

It gets even more confusing when you're inventing stories about how it's possible that Amanda Knox was having sex and doing hard drugs with Rudy when Meredith walked in the door, thus stopping her digestion.

The more you feel the need to invent, the harder it is to follow all the threads. I can totally see that.

Kwill, while you are around, I concede the statistics is complex. It seems we are engaged in a type of actuarial discussion. Any thoughts?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unverifiable information about Stefanoni

I have given crushing evidence pointing to that she is a credited Molecular Biologist and obviously has a PhD (unless you refuse to take my word that she had worked 8 years as an assistent professor at the University in Naples, or if you decide to believe that bachelor graduates are normally hired by the university of Naples as assistent professors, or that they are normally hired by the Scientific Police as chief executive biologists in their laboratory)..

You have made at least three claims, that Stefanoni has a Ph.D., that she worked at the University in Naples as an assistant professor, and that the University of Naples would not hire someone with a bachelor's degree. You have not supported any of them with verifiable citations. Moreover, you have not explained what degree Ms. Comodi meant. What is the degree that Stefanoni does not have?

 

[kwill]

The extreme areas "tails" of the Gauss curve are in fact "flat", compared to the steep flanks of the curve. In those areas, values are more equall distributed.

You are suggesting that once 9 o'clock came and went with the dinner still in the stomach, it's equally likely that she lived until 10 or 11 or midnight? Do I have that right?

Mistakes in the magnitude of 12 hours are reported based on miscalculation of gastric emptying.

Passive voice is always so much fun. Who reports these mistakes? In what context? Why bring it up at all if you're only doing it in this meaningless way?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini believes that the clasp was cut

"The garment was found to have its end part, near the small closing hooks, cut cleanly off, presumably by a sharp blade." Nencini, p. 199