Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Except nobody has the data.

When did Vecchiotti and Conti declare or write in trial papers that Stefanoni refused to give them EDFs?

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway, I wish you would stop with this silly nonsense. As you yourself admit, the raw data was requested and Massei ordered the prosecution to produce. This proves that the request was not late, all of your excuses notwithstanding.

So such data that were not requested, not during the investigation while the incidente probatorio was open, not during the preliminary hearing stage, not during the trial stage until the moment of that confuse oral request about raw data that was made by only one lawer in an unclear fashion at the end of the 2009 trial, and never forwarded again (in any submission, not even in the defence submissions to the Supreme Court nor in the Perugian appeal).

Massei order the raw data to be produced and Comodi intentionally violated the order.

What is wrong here is accountability. The prosecution obviously knew it could pick and choose which court order it would obey/violate, knowing there was going to be no meaningful consequences.

And why not? Their instincts/knowledge of what the court would or would not do is borne out in Massei's 2010 motivations report. Even though Judge Massei disbelieved the prosecution on at least 13 key points (motive, relationship between Meredith/Amanda, etc.) in finding the pair guilty, Judge Massei uncritically simply believed Mignini/Comodi/Stefanoni on nothing more than their say-so anyway on other points.

 

[carbonjam72]

ECHR vs Perugia standards of 'non-monetary' compensation

To get a better understanding of the procedures followed by the ECtHR and Council of Ministers (CoM) of the Council of Europe, examine the flow chart at:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Case_processing_ENG.pdf

The CoM is in charge of Execution of the ECtHR judgment; it is the body that looks to ensuring payment of compensation, general legal reform measures, and specific measures to restore, as best as possible, the individual to his/her condition before the state's violation of human rights.

I noticed the numbers of compensation for non-monetary damages. ECHR awarded something like 5,000-,10,000 euros to the family members, for the murdered mother and daughter.

But the Kercher civil claims in Perugia were something like 1 mil euros per family member, for their loss of Meredith, or something like 4-5 million euros per defendant (Rudy, Amanda & Raf).

It seems strange there is such a vast difference in the perception of 'non-menetary' damages between the ECHR and the Italian judiciary in this case.

(Similarly, the award in an earlier ECHR case cited here, for spending many years in prison as an innocent person, was also in the range of 10,000 euros IIRC).

Also, regarding legal fees: if ECHR rules in favor of Amanda (and at some point perhaps, Raf), will they also be reimbursed for their legal fees, (which are enormous)? And what level of compensation will be given to Amanda (and perhaps at some point Raf) for the 4 years in prison they will have spent because of the Mignini menace?

Will the ECHR specifically criticize Mignini, and press Italy to investigate and take action against Mignini as the primary author of this violation of Amanda (and Raf's) human rights (as they did against the public ministers in the case cited)?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Osiris and .fsa files in discovery motions

Here is a link to a standard discovery request. It comes from Forensic Bioinformatics, the company that Dan Krane founded.

"6. Data files: Please provide copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing the testing and analyzing the data in this case. These files should include all data necessary to, (i) independently reanalyze the raw data and (ii) reconstruct the analysis performed in this case. For analyses performed with GeneScan®, Genotyper®, and/or GeneMapper®, these materials should include:

(6.1) All collection files (such as injection lists and log files for an ABI 310 analysis).
(6.2) All GeneScan® files, including sample files and project files.
(6.3) All Genotyper® files, including templates/macros (see Request 5).
(6.4) All GeneMapper® files, including sample files (.fsa files) and project files (.ser files).
(6.5) If the data you are providing includes files from another case that are not pertinent to the instant case (e.g., sample files from another case included in the same run folder), then please identify those non-pertinent samples by name and laboratory code."

The .fsa files are in a proprietary format but can be read with certain other software. "OSIRIS is a public domain quality assurance software package that facilitates the assessment of multiplex short tandem repeat (STR) DNA profiles based on laboratory-specific protocols. OSIRIS evaluates the raw electrophoresis data contained in .fsa or .hid files using an independently derived mathematically-based sizing algorithm. OSIRIS currently supports ABI capillary analytical platforms and numerous commercially available marker kits including all CODIS-compliant kits as well as those favored by biomedical laboratories." (highlighting mine) link

 

[anglolawyer]

When did Vecchiotti and Conti declare or write in trial papers that Stefanoni refused to give them EDFs?

In their report they quote a memorandum recording a request for the EDFs made by themselves and the defence consultants during one of the lab sessions. Stefanoni was in attendance. I have posted this here before.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it was interpreted as everything that the prosecution wanted the defense to have. Stefanoni withheld well over 100 profiles and all elecronic evidence.

Who makes this statement has a burden to prove that the alleged '100 profiles' (a Halkides - Zupancic invention of 2014) exist.
Then should explain why the defence didn't make any claim about their alleged suppression during the trial, and why they didn't file a denouncement complaint if/when they believed their client was victim of a crime.
In order to have a proof about the existence and suppression of data, the defence should have taken part to the incidents probatorio.
If they were waking up only years later and they have a suspicion ex post about crimes committed years before, the first step - not just for the defence but for anyone who claims to have found evidence of a crime, his citizen's duty - would be to file a denouncement complain report about this suspicion.
None of those steps are done.
There is no serious interest about these alleged data. The 'defence interest' for data is a lie.

You don't know what you're talking about. But you argument does prove that the probatorio incidente procedure is useless with respect to electronic data, and that such data should be provided as supplement to the paper data, particularly when it has been specifically requested by the defense and the judge has ordered the prosecution to produce it.

The incidents probatorio is very useful when the defence intends to use it, it allowed for example the defence to obtain raw data from Vecchiotti and fro Berti & Barni, just by being there when the test were done and requesting them. Of course the expert needs to be there and take part to it.
The raw data was not specifically required and not specifically ordered by the judge to produce it. Not even Hellmann in 2011 ever ordered Stefanoni to produce it.

Um, they asked for the case to be dismissed for failure to produce the data that Massei had ordered produced, and the prosecution refused to turn over.

They only made a claim of 'late discovery' and, based on this, they requested the annulment of trial papers. There is a big difference between asking to access the merit of evidence and rising procedure arguments. The defence only intended to use the topic of data disclosure as an argument, was never actually interested in the data.

Oh, I see, the prosecution violated the order because of their ignorance. I knew there had to be some reason.

Violation means something else.

 

[carbonjam72]

But this is not much information. Virtually every petition to the ECHR says that.



There is no point in keeping the submission secret, unless she fears about its weakness or falsehood. It may look weak or false if made public. The petition might be abusive (contain false claims) and some lawyer or person in the public may point it out, or might just be weak, not contain things that her PR and supporters public expect, or contain claims that the public would find weak.
On the other hand no way the Supreme Court will change Knox's verdict. There is 0.01% probability that they may do a change on Sollecito's verdict, but they won't change Nencini's verdict on Knox. This is certain from now, They are not going to be interesed in the ECHR at all (which btw is ruling about another charge, on which the Cassazione has ruled already and is now final). The SC deals with unfinished proceedings, the ECHR only deals with final decisions; the calunnia conviction is already final, the Cassazione won't change it, there can't be an interest for what the ECHR does.

Does the fact that Amanda and Raf had a joint defense not mean that their verdicts cannot be separated? How can Raf's verdict be changed, without also changing Amanda's?

If Nencini is correct in his finding of what actually happened, the pattern of facts, then wouldn't changing the pattern of facts, or finding Raf less accountable under the same pattern of facts, necessarily require a new trial to correct the mistake(s)? I thought ISC could only confirm or reject lower court rulings, not alter the results?

And why is Raf in a slightly better position than Amanda with cassation? Did Nencini 'find the truth' of the crime of 'what actually happened', or not?

 

[Kauffer]

Edfs

When did Vecchiotti and Conti declare or write in trial papers that Stefanoni refused to give them EDFs?

It's here:

Vecchiotti: I asked Dr. Stefanoni twice for the electropherograms taking for granted that she would have included them.
Prosecutor: That she would have included the electropherograms for the negative controls?
Vecchiotti: No that she would have… that in the electropherograms there would be the samples, there would be the negative controls, because why shouldn’t they be there?
Prosecutor: Yes but when did you notice that they weren’t there…
Conti S: We asked for them again.
Prosecutor: Because then you’d have noticed that they weren’t there, right?
Vecchiotti: It’s obvious but it’s her responsibility to attach them, because why do they need to be asked for? It shouldn’t be necessary to ask for them.
Prosecutor: You’re the expert Doctor.
Vecchiotti: Look they don’t need to be requested in that case, they should be produced by the those who have them.
Prosecutor: Is this also an international rule, universally recognized?
Vecchiotti: That the negative controls are included, yes.
Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…
Conti S: They were requested twice.
Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…
Conti s: In fact we asked for them twice.

September 6, 2011

Stefanoni admits she didn’t provide the raw data to the independent experts. p253

Dalla Vedova: The raw data, several times our consultant asked us to request for them to be submitted and we did so, can you tell us in a few words what this raw data is and if this data is available today in the case files?
Stefanoni: So, the raw data is not available in the case files, because they were never, let’s say, handed over. I can explain what they are…

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

multiple requests for the electronic were refused, time and again

I wrote to Dr. Jason Gilder, who at the time worked for Dan Krane's company, Forensic Bioinformatics, about the lack of discovery. On 3/29/2010 Jason wrote back via email, "Dan requested the electronic data on multiple occasions. Greg Hampikian and Libby Johnson requested the electronic data from the defense attorneys. However, it was not disclosed." I responded, "Just so I am 110% clear on this. It was the prosecution that did not disclose? I cannot imagine that the defense would not disclose." Jason wrote back, "You are correct."

The lack of disclosure was discussed in the open letter put forward by Johnson and Hampikian and signed by seven other professionals in November of 2009, before the end of the first trial. In addition, Dr. Pascali also asked for data, as discussed by Bongiorno during the trial and in the 2010 appeal.

 

[Dan O.]

This Machiavelli is very funny. He is telling us what the citizen's duty is and yet in this thread he is aparently the only citizen of Italy. Does anybody have any allusion that he will be attempting to confirm these allegations of official corruption so he can perform his duty? Or will he follow in the footsteps of past Machiavelli and bury his head in the sand on the presumption that if he pretends not to see the facts they won't come back and bite him.

 

[Diocletus]

Who makes this statement has a burden to prove that the alleged '100 profiles' (a Halkides - Zupancic invention of 2014) exist.

There is a whole detailed explanation of this online. You might not like it, but there it is. If you disagree, then your burden is to say why.

Then should explain why the defence didn't make any claim about their alleged suppression during the trial,

This is very simple: the profiles were suppressed and therefore the defense didn't know about them. It's very clear that Stefanoni didn't include some profiles in her report, because she didn't deem them helpful to the prosecution, and in fact, they are likely very harmful to Stefanoni's results.

and why they didn't file a denouncement complaint I they believed their client was victim of a crime.

There is no reason for them to do this. They have raised the issue within the pending case and do not need to file a collateral action in order to obtain the information that they need to adequately defend themselves in the first case.

In order to have a proof about the existence and suppression of data, the defence should have taken part to the incidents probatorio.

This would have been useless. You, yourself, just said that Stefanoni never even looks at the EDF information, so obviously that information is not a part of what is reviewed at the evidence destruction event you are referencing.

The incidents probatorio is very useful when the defence intends to use it, it allowed for example the defence to obtain raw data from Vecchiotti and fro Berti & Barni, just by being there when the test were done and requesting them. Of course the expert needs to be there and take part to it. The raw data was not specifically required and not specifically ordered by the judge to produce it. Not even Hellmann in 2011 ever ordered Stefanoni to produce it.

Stop being ridiculous. I believe that even in Italy there is a technology to copy computer data on to a disk. EDF information can be requested at any time. In fact, the data was requested in the proceedings before Judge Massei. He granted the request, thus proving that it was timely and proper. The prosecution violated the order. Judge Massei then lost his balls to enforce his own order.

They only made a claim of 'late discovery' and, based on this, they requested the annulment of trial papers. There is a big difference between asking to access the merit of evidence and rising procedure arguments. The defence only intended to use the topic of data disclosure as an argument, was never actually interested in the data.

First of all, you have no idea why the defense wanted it so stop making things up out of thin air. Second, the defense can have the information for any reason it wants. Third, even if the defense wanted it to set up a procedural defense, that would be a perfectly legitimate purpose. Finally, as you can obviously see from Dr. Halkides post, the defense had consulting experts who were asking for this data, and appear to know how to use it unlike Stefanoni who just reads the Cliffs notes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does the fact that Amanda and Raf had a joint defense not mean that their verdicts cannot be separated? How can Raf's verdict be changed, without also changing Amanda's?

?

Technically, no. Not necessarily all positions need to be changed if one changes. Even if the overall scenario changes, the change may be irrelevant as for the responsibility of one specific perpetrator.
Moreover it's not so true that the defences followed a joint line in the Knox Sollecito trial. I see a visible separation between the defence claims.

 

[Diocletus]

Will the ECHR specifically criticize Mignini, and press Italy to investigate and take action against Mignini as the primary author of this violation of Amanda (and Raf's) human rights (as they did against the public ministers in the case cited)?

No. The defendant in the ECHR proceeding will be the state of Italy. So, Italy will be the embarrassed party at the end of the day. They should have thought of this before the Italian supreme court doubled down on stupid.

 

[Machiavelli]

In their report they quote a memorandum recording a request for the EDFs made by themselves and the defence consultants during one of the lab sessions. Stefanoni was in attendance. I have posted this here before.

According to their report there is no refusal nor failure to fulfill requests on the part of Stefanoni. In their cross questionings they even state the contrary, they praise the complete collaboration and point out they obtained all what they requested.

 

[Numbers]

Questions:
1) Was Meredith's body when discovered still wearing her jacket and top, but pulled up? Could this have restricted her arm movements?
2) Image you showed the other day had Meredith's fingers curled. Could the curl be postmortem? Contraction of ligaments or such?
3) Could the blood on her hand be the result of splatter? Didn't she have spots of blood on her chest as well?
4) When I first saw that pix, I thought the hair could be her own - that she wasn't restrained except maybe by the knife and hair-pull, and that she had reached and caught one of her own hairs. Is there a reliable estimate of the length of the hair(s)?
5) Where the heck are the footprints etc. of the alleged 2nd perp? (Unless the ILE suppressed some MK bedroom evidence besides the purported semen on the pillow.)

RW,

ETAs:
For (2) - ligaments or such: should be: ligaments, muscles and tendons, or such
Add (6) - What is the reflectance of an individual hair, and how does the reflectance (scatter) vary with hair color and hair treatment? I did some prelimin. lit search, found somebody's MS thesis. Reflectance may be similar for blond and light brown hair, less for dark brown, least for "true" black. (Surprising result?) Can the reflective appearance of brown hair under the lighting conditions and angle in the pix make the hair look blond or what one thinks is blond (without a blond comparison hair)?
Add (7) - How did the alleged 2nd perp. enter the apt? By a climb up the grating and through the open broken window? Did Guede let him in through the balcony or somehow, the locked door?

 

[Bill Williams]

This Machiavelli is very funny. He is telling us what the citizen's duty is and yet in this thread he is aparently the only citizen of Italy. Does anybody have any allusion that he will be attempting to confirm these allegations of official corruption so he can perform his duty? Or will he follow in the footsteps of past Machiavelli and bury his head in the sand on the presumption that if he pretends not to see the facts they won't come back and bite him.

One only needs to read Machiavelli's last 7 to 10 posts here, and the responses to finally "get" that he's here to provide a Pro-guilt spin one everything, even if he has to outright lie - or "forget" that refutation to his regurgitated claim was posted a long time ago.

And as one poster said a while ago, all Machiavelli does is re-boot and start again.

He's accused me of arguing through innuendo and allegation. Good on him.

Take one last peek at his own "the basic case", and see for yourself who shines in the "accusation by innuendo" department. All he has is unnamed witnesses who claim to have seen parties perhaps having lunch together....

...... therefore, according to Machiavelli, President of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, is a criminal.

Why on earth argue with him about what Stefanoni released via disclosure.... or more importantly did not release?Six weeks from now he'll simply reboot....

He's now opened the door to this being seen judicially as a differing case against Knox as against Sollecito, with a "0.01% chance the ISC will amend the case against Sollecito."

For me this is virtual acknowledgment of what we have known right from Nov 6, 2007. The PLE, and now the ISC, is out to get Knox at all costs, and Sollecito is collateral damage. If Sollecito plays ball - as per Nencini's own after-trial remarks - it will go easy on him.

This is not about the evidence, witness the 6 years of rebooting, as if things have not been adequately refuted? Right through the ISC Italy is hellbent to get Knox, and does not care how much they embarrass themselves in the process.

Within Italy, this is an internecine judicial war. Machiavelli maps out part of it.... with his views about De Nunzio. Why aren't we talking about that?

 

[Diocletus]

According to their report there is no refusal nor failure to fulfill requests on the part of Stefanoni. In their cross questionings they even state the contrary, they praise the complete collaboration and point out they obtained all what they requested.

Nobody cares about C&V. They obviously got what they needed to trash Stefanoni eight ways from Sunday, and then they pulled their punches on the data regarding 36b and 165 (which was the full scope of their inquiry).

What matters is that the defense timely requested all of the lab's data, Comodi did not object on grounds of untimeless, and Massei the ball-less wonder granted the request thus proving that it was both timely and proper. The prosecution violated the order to produce the data, according to you, because Commodi had no clue how to do her job, but everyone knows that's not a good excuse. Massei, unfortunately, had no clue what he was doing and then failed to enforce his own order. Stefanoni, who knows perfectly well what is going on, has suppressed everything she can because the real records of her work will destroy her results.

 

[Machiavelli]

This Machiavelli is very funny. He is telling us what the citizen's duty is and yet in this thread he is aparently the only citizen of Italy. Does anybody have any allusion that he will be attempting to confirm these allegations of official corruption so he can perform his duty? Or will he follow in the footsteps of past Machiavelli and bury his head in the sand on the presumption that if he pretends not to see the facts they won't come back and bite him.

Of course I perform my duty. I am not Prof Halkides or Prof. Zupancic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The lawyers made the requests but were denied

So such data that were not requested, not during the investigation while the incidente probatorio was open, not during the preliminary hearing stage, not during the trial stage until the moment of that confuse oral request about raw data that was made by only one lawer in an unclear fashion at the end of the 2009 trial, and never forwarded again (in any submission, not even in the defence submissions to the Supreme Court nor in the Perugian appeal). This is what you have in the records.
Other ways to 'word' things are just attampt to change the trial facts, and thus to muddy the waters.

Machiavelli,

I suggest you look upthread where I just documented that the data were requested through the defense on multiple occasions. I also wrote to Chris Mellas via email: "The open letter indicates that the .fsa files were never released. These files have the electropherogram information plus information on the dates and times samples were run. Did the defense ever get them and if so when?" Chris Mellas responded on 27 February 2010, "Amanda's and Raffaele's lawyers requested them in court."

 

[Numbers]

I suspect Mach is factually right here. Stefanoni did what was normal practice and provided paper documents. The nature of the Italian legal process is very paper based. Relatively little is examined in open court. Thus we see that the paper version of the witness statements is definitive and in court all that a witness may be asked is to 'verify' the truth of his statement. In fact and I'm sure Mach will correct me if I have misinterpreted the definitive record of an interrogation / interview would not be the transcription of a recording (or indeed the recording) but the summary written by the police officer. This is why recording suspects is not routine. I wonder if this was the first case where because of the US involvement that provision of the electronic data became important. Equally it seems to be accepted that the public minister has some rights in deciding what evidence is relevant and should be provided to the court. Clearly there are limits to discovery even in the US or UK, the defence may need to make a case for the requested information and provision should not be excessively arduous.

Whilst much of what Stefanoni did may have been legally acceptable in Italy it was not in the interests of Justice. There are lots of ways to 'fiddle' paper outputs from machines to get pictures that support the case you make. You can put in filters to flatten the baseline, adjust the scale and put in a false origin. The paper output is effectively an interpretation of the results NOT the results of the test. Heights or AUC measurements will almost certainly have been done on a computer with the original data not with a ruler on the paper output. Effectively the paper graph may conceal information from the defence (even if that was not the intent), this is why access to the results of the test not the paper interpretation is important. Stefanoni if being a neutral scientist should have been looking for exculpatory evidence, in reality we know most forensic scientists look for guilt not innocence. An example of this is Stefanoni is more concerned tests may result in a false negative (disadvantaging the prosecution) than in a false positive (resulting in a possible false conviction).

Her failure to provide EDFs and other information (both about her idiosyncratic and never-validated LCN procedures, lab qc, and the suppressed profile data) may have been standard Italian judicial practice. That does not mean it was legal, according to the Italian Constitution, Article 111, or the E Convention HR, Article 6, "equality of arms" and "fair trial" provisions (the Convention is legally binding on Italy).

Article 111, clause (sentence) #5: The defendant shall have the right...to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence."