Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Bill, she didn't lose the clasp, she stored it in such a manner as to render the test she claims to have performed on it unrepeatable. Merely losing it would have been less egregious.

That makes me feel a little bit better..... does either Nencini or Massei make any reference to this? Or is this not part of the predetermined osmosis?

 

[Numbers]

That makes me feel a little bit better..... does either Nencini or Massei make any reference to this? Or is this not part of the predetermined osmosis?

anglolawyer wrote:

I have been reading Nencini. I am at the part where he lists the numerous defence requests for further enquiry and testing and dismisses them all. I found this interesting:

Quote:
With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;

That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
___________
The DEFENSE CONSULTANTS were responsible for the improper storage of the bra clasps because they did not object to Stefanoni's storage method.

That is how I interpret the quote from Nencini. This "logic" makes sense in a show trial. In a real trial under western democratic values, not so much sense there.

 

[anglolawyer]

AngloLawyer wrote:

Numbers, do you have a link for this please?
______________

Source: http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

{Source also identified in posts #5301 & 5302 (Main Report & Appendix, respectively)}

Thanks

Specifically, she stored the bra clasps in an aqueous environment (inside a kind of test-tube) apparently at room temperature, which necessarily resulted in the degradation of the DNA allegedly on the clasps.

There is a photograph on IIP showing that previously to the storage in the wet environment, the clasps had been stored more properly, not in the presence of liquid.

Degradation means: breaking up the DNA strands into little chemical pieces no longer suitable for profiling.

It is very well-known that storage of DNA in an aqueous environment at room temperature leads to its degradation.

ETA: Apparently she did lose other evidence, including, as RW points out: the fibers or hair found in Meredith's hand and on her body.

Thanks again

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer wrote:

I have been reading Nencini. I am at the part where he lists the numerous defence requests for further enquiry and testing and dismisses them all. I found this interesting:

Quote:
With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;

That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
___________
The DEFENSE CONSULTANTS were responsible for the improper storage of the bra clasps because they did not object to Stefanoni's storage method.

That is how I interpret the quote from Nencini. This "logic" makes sense in a show trial. In a real trial under western democratic values, not so much sense there.

No, I think what the defence consultants made no objection to was the independent experts decision not to undertake any repeat testing on the clasp due to its condition. There is no suggestion that Stefanoni's responsibility for destroying that evidence is shared with anybody else. The point Nencini is making is that it is a bit rum that the defence should suddenly want further testing on the clasp having previously concurred in the view that re-testing was not possible. The text of the defence application to Nencini would be worth seeing to find out whether this seeming anomaly is addressed in it.

 

[anglolawyer]

That makes me feel a little bit better..... does either Nencini or Massei make any reference to this? Or is this not part of the predetermined osmosis?

Massei knew nothing about it. Nencini's reference is quoted in the post above this one.

 

[Numbers]

No, I think what the defence consultants made no objection to was the independent experts decision not to undertake any repeat testing on the clasp due to its condition. There is no suggestion that Stefanoni's responsibility for destroying that evidence is shared with anybody else. The point Nencini is making is that it is a bit rum that the defence should suddenly want further testing on the clasp having previously concurred in the view that re-testing was not possible. The text of the defence application to Nencini would be worth seeing to find out whether this seeming anomaly is addressed in it.

Re-reading the (convoluted) subject sentence a few more times, I think you are correct. So Nencini is a bit less bizarre than I thought. If indeed the defense asked for retesting, it may have been a proforma move to preserve some right to object or appeal.

 

[anglolawyer]

Re-reading the (convoluted) subject sentence a few more times, I think you are correct. So Nencini is a bit less bizarre than I thought. If indeed the defense asked for retesting, it may have been a proforma move to preserve some right to object or appeal.

Yes. We need to see the application or a transcript of any associated oral argument. Maybe they wanted to test the cloth part of the clasp. I would be odd if what they wanted was a re-test of the hooks when what they should have been seeking were the negative controls, EDFs etc (btw. I saw no reference to these items in the list of things the defence teams wanted at the outset of the
Nencini hearings).

 

[Numbers]

Yes. We need to see the application or a transcript of any associated oral argument. Maybe they wanted to test the cloth part of the clasp. I would be odd if what they wanted was a re-test of the hooks when what they should have been seeking were the negative controls, EDFs etc (btw. I saw no reference to these items in the list of things the defence teams wanted at the outset of the
Nencini hearings).

The DNA on the cloth part of the cloth-clasp assembly would likely be as degraded as the DNA on the clasp. One could try to get profiles from either, but this would no longer be trustworthy evidence because of the degradation.

Not that the evidence obtained before the improper storage was entirely trustworthy: the chain of control (possession) was compromised because the clasp-bra fabric was unaccounted for - missing - for 46 days after the discovery of the murder, IIRC. And the collection method - handling by several individuals with dirty gloves, dropping the item back on the floor - seemed intended to promote contamination.

If the defense was following the ABA guidance or similar guidance, they indeed should have been requesting the EDFs for all profiles, for the negative and positive controls, and for all the suppressed DNA tests. The EDFs are the best evidence of the test results and test conditions. For example, on a paper graph, LCN-level contamination with peaks of amplitudes of 50 RFU or lower may be hidden in the "noise" line of a strong profile with peaks of amplitudes of 500 or 1000 RFU as a result of scaling. However, all the data will be clearly observable with the EDF, since the scaling can be adjusted (zoomed) to observe the noise line. Other data that should have been requested, ideally, would include all quantifications, lab contamination records, lab contamination control procedures, lab quality control/assurance procedures, lab test protocols (including for the idiosyncratic LCN methods used), and lab equipment maintenance protocols and records.

Of course, an honest forensic lab would offer all these data without being requested, since these data are standard discovery AFAIK in, for example, the US. And in Italy, the prosecution is constitutionally obligated to supply all exculpatory information to the defense, IIUC.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Obtaining the EDFs is routine in the U.S.

Numbers,

Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Krane both made attempts to obtain the EDFs. The defense requests were turned aside no later than 2010. Forensic consulting corporation in the U.S. have standard discovery forms on their websites that include reference to these files. What information do you have about discovery in Italy?

 

[Diocletus]

No, I think what the defence consultants made no objection to was the independent experts decision not to undertake any repeat testing on the clasp due to its condition. There is no suggestion that Stefanoni's responsibility for destroying that evidence is shared with anybody else. The point Nencini is making is that it is a bit rum that the defence should suddenly want further testing on the clasp having previously concurred in the view that re-testing was not possible. The text of the defence application to Nencini would be worth seeing to find out whether this seeming anomaly is addressed in it.

Right. They wouldn't have requested that. That tells us that Nencini is making up a strawman.

 

[Diocletus]

I can think of two pieces of evidence right off the top of my head: the incorrectly stored bra clasp hooks and the towels Guede used to mop up blood and which might have turned out to have his blood on them along with the victim's (it's a nice touch, of which I was reminded while reading Nencini, that the question whether he cut his fingers was settled on the testimony, or reports, of three friends who saw him the next day and didn't notice them, rather than by reference to those towels or a DNA analysis of the hand print on the pillow).

I love the Rudy hand cuts. They are proof of a much bigger concept: the Italian "race" (per Machiavelli) have incredible powers of observation, without parallel elsewhere in the world. Thus, although the German cops noted Rudy's hand cuts and took pictures of them and helpfully sent them down to the Italian cops, we must take note that these pictures originated in Germany. No one in Italy noticed these cuts, and so they don't exist.

Same as the glass under the window: if Italian cops stand around smoking ciggies and yucking it up, and they don't notice that they are trodding on some bits of glass, we can be sure it doesn't exist.

Want proof of the converse? How about the knife scratch: no one in the world can find it, except Stefanoni. But, she's Italian and she looked at the knife under special Roman light, so we can be sure that it's there. You think the Germans would have found this scratch, even with their fancy Leica lenses? No way.

Italians are so observant, that I don't know why we don't have them serve as referees in all professional sports matches.

 

[Diocletus]

AngloLawyer wrote:

Numbers, do you have a link for this please?
______________

Source: http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

{Source also identified in posts #5301 & 5302 (Main Report & Appendix, respectively)}

It occurs to me that Italy has either misinterpreted the ECHR, or enacted a law that only prohibits part of what is prohibited by the ECHR. Italy's "new" law is an exclusionary rule that seems to apply to the statements of "accused persons" only, which is not the extent of what the ECHR applies to: the ECHR applies to the statements of "suspects" in addition to "accused persons". On the other hand, the ECHR law in this regard is not an exclusionary law, it simply provides that if you use the statement of a suspect denied counsel to convict the person, then you have violated the person's human rights.

 

[anglolawyer]

I love the Rudy hand cuts. They are proof of a much bigger concept: the Italian "race" (per Machiavelli) have incredible powers of observation, without parallel elsewhere in the world. Thus, although the German cops noted Rudy's hand cuts and took pictures of them and helpfully sent them down to the Italian cops, we must take note that these pictures originated in Germany. No one in Italy noticed these cuts, and so they don't exist.

Same as the glass under the window: if Italian cops stand around smoking ciggies and yucking it up, and they don't notice that they are trodding on some bits of glass, we can be sure it doesn't exist.

Want proof of the converse? How about the knife scratch: no one in the world can find it, except Stefanoni. But, she's Italian and she looked at the knife under special Roman light, so we can be sure that it's there. You think the Germans would have found this scratch, even with their fancy Leica lenses? No way.

Italians are so observant, that I don't know why we don't have them serve as referees in all professional sports matches.

Quite. Perhaps my memory is playing tricks but isn't it Rudy's story that he got the cuts fending of the guy he caught assaulting Meredith? If that were the case, it would make the evidence of the hyper-observant friends irrelevant. If that wasn't Rudy's story then how did he say he came by them? Contrast the enormous interest taken in the possibility that Amanda had an injury from which she might have bled into the sink etc.

I am totally confused by the Italian approach to combining circumstantial evidence. It seems to be permitted to forget parts of it when not convenient then remember them later when necessary. This is a far cry from the high-minded task Nencini set himself of constructing an organic, inclusive totality from all the logical elements, or whatever bollocks he was speaking when expressing his objective.

For instance, we know there were multiple attackers because, among other reasons, she was a karate orange belt and her father said she would definitely have resisted and the absence of signs of such a life and death struggle, specifically defensive wounds*, supports the idea that she was restrained while being assaulted. In that case, we would not expect to find the attackers nursing wounds of their own, right? But when we come to 'mixed blood' or 'mixed DNA' in the bathroom (from the large areas swabbed by Stefanoni as though she were the cleaning lady) it seems pro-guilt types are determined to believe Amanda picked up an injury which bled, a nose bleed or a bitten tongue, which proves there was a violent struggle in which the victim was able to lash out.

* It is not true there are always defensive injuries. I have posted before from a reputable forensic source that victims frequently do not display defensive wounds, especially when taken by surprise.

 

[Diocletus]

Quite. Perhaps my memory is playing tricks but isn't it Rudy's story that he got the cuts fending of the guy he caught assaulting Meredith? If that were the case, it would make the evidence of the hyper-observant friends irrelevant. If that wasn't Rudy's story then how did he say he came by them? Contrast the enormous interest taken in the possibility that Amanda had an injury from which she might have bled into the sink etc.

I am totally confused by the Italian approach to combining circumstantial evidence. It seems to be permitted to forget parts of it when not convenient then remember them later when necessary. This is a far cry from the high-minded task Nencini set himself of constructing an organic, inclusive totality from all the logical elements, or whatever bollocks he was speaking when expressing his objective.

For instance, we know there were multiple attackers because, among other reasons, she was a karate orange belt and her father said she would definitely have resisted and the absence of signs of such a life and death struggle, specifically defensive wounds*, supports the idea that she was restrained while being assaulted. In that case, we would not expect to find the attackers nursing wounds of their own, right? But when we come to 'mixed blood' or 'mixed DNA' in the bathroom (from the large areas swabbed by Stefanoni as though she were the cleaning lady) it seems pro-guilt types are determined to believe Amanda picked up an injury which bled, a nose bleed or a bitten tongue, which proves there was a violent struggle in which the victim was able to lash out.

Well, yes . . . Rudy did say that his hand was cut in his struggle with the "real murderer." But he's a liar, so cross that possibility off your list.

BTW: I read the other day that the defense in the Yara case is now claiming that there must have been multiple attackers because . . . you guessed it . . . a single attacker could not have overpowered, killed and transported the 13 year old girl.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, yes . . . Rudy did say that his hand was cut in his struggle with the "real murderer." But he's a liar, so cross that possibility off your list.

BTW: I read the other day that the defense in the Yara case is now claiming that there must have been multiple attackers because . . . you guessed it . . . a single attacker could not have overpowered, killed and transported the 13 year old girl.

On your first paragraph, thanks for confirming my understanding. Yes, we know Rudy is a liar but he's hardly going to lie about those cuts. How does he know whether the three friends saw them or not? His modus operandi is to weave into his story as much detail as possible to account in an innocent way for the evidence he knows or suspects the cops will or might find.

You are probably being ironic as usual but there is a serious point here about the way Nencini (or it may be Micheli actually) seizes on something that fits their preferred theory, even though it's weak and unsatisfactory, but disregards something more powerful. As usual, it's pretty easy to figure out why things must be this way. Here, once again, is Nencini's statement of his mission, as handed down by the ISC:

The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan [33] to kill to a change in the plan whose initial aim was only to involve the young English woman in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild *group *erotic *game *that *violently *took *another *course, *getting *out *of *control”.

In the ISC's pornographic fantasy, Guede and Sollecito are roped in to Amanda's wild group erotic game (in which we must not test putative semen stains, oh no) and Guede, particularly, is the humane one who tries to help her by mopping up blood and only wishes he had called for help. Aw, shucks. This image is kind of shattered if those knife cuts are his, because they prove he repeatedly and desperately plunged the knife into her neck, which doesn't leave much room for Amanda to have taunted her with the fabled kitchen knife she unpremeditatedly brought over from Raf's to cook a fish dinner (per Machiavelli who will now deny ever suggesting such thing).

 

[Bill Williams]

anglolawyer wrote:

I have been reading Nencini. I am at the part where he lists the numerous defence requests for further enquiry and testing and dismisses them all. I found this interesting:

Quote:
With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;

That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
___________
The DEFENSE CONSULTANTS were responsible for the improper storage of the bra clasps because they did not object to Stefanoni's storage method.

That is how I interpret the quote from Nencini. This "logic" makes sense in a show trial. In a real trial under western democratic values, not so much sense there.

Classic double bind.

If the defence does object, then Stefanoni has a cause for a further defamation action. If the defence does not object, then they are the ones responsible for it's destruction.

Where do I get a non-accountable job like Stefanoni's?

 

[Bill Williams]

That makes me feel a little bit better..... does either Nencini or Massei make any reference to this? Or is this not part of the predetermined osmosis?

Massei knew nothing about it. Nencini's reference is quoted in the post above this one.

Was the bra-clasp all rusted-out and untestable by the time of the 2009 Massei trial?

In any event, Massei did not let independent testing of anything.... he just believed Stefanoni on her say-so anyway.

 

[anglolawyer]

Was the bra-clasp all rusted-out and untestable by the time of the 2009 Massei trial?

Very likely but nobody will have known since neither defence testing nor independent testing took place in that trial, as you say below.

In any event, Massei did not let independent testing of anything.... he just believed Stefanoni on her say-so anyway.

Worth remembering whenever the unrepeatability of teasing comes up that, as Machiavelli has kindly told us, Italian law requires that the samples involved in all unrepeatable tests be destroyed. The fact that was a revelation to us should not let us forget it is something that was likely known to those involved in ensuring that crucial tests in the case could not be repeated.

While I am on Nencini's sophistry, let's look at his reason for refusing audio-metric testing to see whether the scream could really be heard (i.e. tests that could be undertaken but had not been undertaken before and which thus did not suffer from the same handicap as the bra clasp):

3) In relation to the request for an audiometric examination in order to verify the veracity or not of the testimony given in Court by witnesses Capezzali, Dramis and Monacchia, the technical assessment requested, without questioning the reliability of the witnesses statements, is not required for the evaluations that this Court will have to make as to the reliability of such statements, which must therefore be evaluated in correlation with the other circumstantial evidence;

Isn't that just a long way of saying 'no'. You can stare at it as long as you like but, if you are weighed down by an outmoded and inapt sense of fairness or justice, I assure you, you will not understand it.

 

[Bill Williams]

3) In relation to the request for an audiometric examination in order to verify the veracity or not of the testimony given in Court by witnesses Capezzali, Dramis and Monacchia, the technical assessment requested, without questioning the reliability of the witnesses statements, is not required for the evaluations that this Court will have to make as to the reliability of such statements, which must therefore be evaluated in correlation with the other circumstantial evidence;

Isn't that just a long way of saying 'no'. You can stare at it as long as you like but, if you are weighed down by an outmoded and inapt sense of fairness or justice, I assure you, you will not understand it.

Ok..... tea leaves-reading time.....

Is not Nencini saying that to request some statements about the screams made by Capezzali, Dramis and Monacchia, that one must **first** question their veracity?

Don't get me wrong, I am not sure why one needs to explicitly question their veracity, before the court will order audiometric testing..... isn't the request for testing an implicit doubting of their veracity?

C'mon, A.L., there is at least the thinnest sliver of a shadow of "an argument" Nencini is making there!!!! Somewhere in Italian law, acc. to Nencini, he's implying that the defence has to accuse them explicitly of being liars before ordering the testing.....

Ok, ok, I'm reaching here. But reading Nencini does that.

 

[anglolawyer]

Ok..... tea leaves-reading time.....

Is not Nencini saying that to request some statements about the screams made by Capezzali, Dramis and Monacchia, that one must **first** question their veracity?

Don't get me wrong, I am not sure why one needs to explicitly question their veracity, before the court will order audiometric testing..... isn't the request for testing an implicit doubting of their veracity?

C'mon, A.L., there is at least the thinnest sliver of a shadow of "an argument" Nencini is making there!!!! Somewhere in Italian law, acc. to Nencini, he's implying that the defence has to accuse them explicitly of being liars before ordering the testing.....

Ok, ok, I'm reaching here. But reading Nencini does that.

Oh you may very well be right. If you are it highlights another problem with their system - everybody is treading on egg shells trying not to accuse anybody else of lying. That is not a terribly good idea when deciding a murder charge. You really want everybody to be free to speak their mind without fear of adverse consequences. Surely, though, the defences only have to query their reliability, not their credibility, which would not entail an assault on their character. Whatever the case may be, if Nencini is saying what you suggest he might be then it stills seems a crappy reason for refusing a test which could dispose once for all of evidence which the ISC and Nencini both consider highly material.

We need to know more about this. Was such testing ever requested before? Maybe they are caught by the 'shucks, it's too late' rule. As Mach only recently told us, rules are everything