Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

William Thompson demolished this argument some time ago, writing, "The claim that defense reanalysis of electronic data could, under any circumstances, amount to “evidence tampering” is absurd given that defense experts work only with a copy of the original data. By analogy, if the police disclosed digital photos of the crime scene, it would hardly be “data tampering” for a defense expert to manipulate the digital images in an effort to enhance them or bring specific details into focus.Nor should the government be able to dictate the software and “analysis parameters” used by a defense expert to examine the government’s digital data. The use of proper analysis parameters might well become an issue if and when the defense decided to offer into evidence the results of its analysis of the electronic data. But to deny access to digital data on grounds that the defense might analyze it improperly eviscerates the right to discovery."

It's not a matter of evidence tampering. It might be a matter of bringing up 'evidence' which is not actually the same evidence was examined and discussed at the hearing (the incidente probatorio).

 

[Machiavelli]

Why shouldn't the defence have access to everything they want/need? If the case against the perpetrator is strong and correct, there should be no reason to not disclose anything.

I thought your argument was that the defence didn't ask within the permitted timeframe, not that they needed a special entitlement.

I said the basic point is that the defence didn't ask. It is just a fact there is no defence instance about them. Not just within the normal time frame: they didn't request them over all the trial time, they did not request them not even later, not at the preliminary hearing of 2008 (the MIcheli trial), not even in the appeal submissions ("reasons for appeal"), not even in later separete instances to the Supreme Court, not even at the Perugian appeal trial.

But if you read up what I wrote, I pointed out that as for my personal opinion - this means I am not based on a legal point, since I don't know a precedent - but just based on my opinion, there is also the fact that the raw data files are a source file and not a trial document. Therefore, in fact, there might also be a question of equal opportunities between parties, which also entails the possibility that someone tampers with the evidence. Since - bear in mind this principle - unnder the Italian procedure the defence has a right to lie. They would have a theoretical right to tamper with raw data and evidence in order to obtain and present charts that no one else has the opportunity to verify.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Regarding the italicized statement, the ECtHR does not rule on facts or Contract State trials as an ultimate appeal court; it does, however, state opinions on the truth or falsity of alleged facts in developing the chain of logic it employs to determine whether or not an individual's rights under the EConHR have been violated. It does not overturn trials, but rules on whether or not trials have been fair in accordance with EConHR.

(...)

The alleged fact must be anyway a judicial finding. Not just a claim from a person, meaning something that was merely stated by one person - like for example Knox's claim that she was hit - and which the person himself/herself didn't take care of even submitting to a legal procedure for its verification. The same goes for a concept such as "coercion", which was not even a factual claim of some kind in the trial.

 

[Dan O.]

The Fair of the Deads is a very lively city fest & market day in Perugia. It's a typical thing of Perugia. It's basically a market day in Perugia, since the middle age, with games costumes and competitions. There are Perugian cakes typical for that occasion such as the "stinchetti" and "fave dei morti". It's definitely a lively week in that city.

Wouldn't it be nice if just once they would send us a Machiavelli that doesn't resort to lies.

http://www.deliciousitaly.com/umbria-itineraries/fiera-dei-morti

 

[Numbers]

Equality of Arms

It's just my own speculation, but what I think, my personal opinion about raw data files (note: I wrote 'raw data', not EDFs) in the incidente probatorio, is that those would be considered "sources" and not "documents". I mean that it is not an issue of altruistic values but of parity of arms in an adversarial scheme.
As for my understanding, the raw data in question are a type of vectorial image files, with an array of numeric data values attached. That means: if there are data sources, from which you may produce a document, for example an image file about a magnified detail, a picture, that a machine with diferent settings may render as a chart with a different form that was not looked at at the incidente probatorio, like say a magnified image with more stretched peaks or so, this means the defence party may be able to produe in court some 'evidence' documents which the prosecution and the other parties don't have, didn't have a chance to examine, or didn't agree would be examined. This would be obviously something against the spirit of the incidente probatorio.

I am not saying that it should be impossible to hand over raw data files. But if this happens, this should at best happen within the same incidente probatorio procedure, on explicit request and with all experts and investigating judge taking note of it. The principle is that the steps defining what is evidence and documents is something that the parties need to decide together, meaning within taking part to the same decision-making process (the incidente probatorio). The nature of evidence examination is somehow decided in that venue. The incidente probatorio is basically like a court hearing where a witness is cross-examined, the resulting evidence is the documentation that the parties produced together at the presence of the investigating judge. You may not bring witnesses home and question them on yowr own, then bring into court some result from your solitary questioning, and to this two years later only when you realize your trial is going bad. It is not impossible, though, to re-examine parts of the evidence even on a later stage, if the judge deems there are reasons to do so. And it is not impossible, by the law, even to go back and request to access or obtain parts of information from the previous evidence examination process that had been previously discarded. However, this is not granted. There must be a request and a convincing reason. And there was not a clear enough request from the defence in this case, in my opinion. There is no such instance in the trial papers.

Congratulations, you are beginning to move a bit closer to the adversarial position.

The EDFs should offered for examination by both prosecution and defense; it is not the nature of an adversarial proceeding for one side to examine the evidence and not the other. You give some understanding of this in the paragraphs I have highlighted.

Now because the DNA profiles whether in chart form or in EDF form (which latter must be displayed on a computer screen or printed out, perhaps in several different scales) are generally complex to understand, even for experts, the evidence must indeed be studied over some time. So in that sense, the evidence (and it is really copies of the evidence; the original is kept secure in the court evidence room or similar facility) is taken home or to one's lab or office for study. Again, this applies to both prosecution and defense.

Furthermore, there are (as I am aware of such procedures; I have worked with lawyers on some technical issues in the US on a few occasions) no surprises by either side. The prosecution and the defense explain in writing to each other what they will present, and there is time for each side to study the other's position. And this can happen during the trial, not just at the very beginning AFAIK; of course, the judge must agree to the introduction of evidence.

The situation in the current case is that the prosecution, through Stefanoni and the forensic police had access to the information in the EDFs, but the defense was never given access to copies (CDs) of the EDFs and the information they contain. The digital records on the EDFs constitute the best evidence of the DNA profiles and the test machine run conditions. Because of such issues as scaling and even filtering that are possible in plotting the results, the paper charts are actually secondary evidence.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings everyone,
On this day that Meredith was murdered so savagely 7 years ago,
I wonder of something once again:

For all of you who believe that Meredith died,
per Rudy Guede's story, at around 9:20 to 9:30,
why don't you believe that a white guy was also involved?

Rudy has always said a white guy was there,
surely he must have seen evidence of this to fit it into his story.

Rudy says that Meredith screamed out loud around this time,
he must have thought people might have heard the scream.
Most of you believe this.

Rudy said that he drank from the juice bottle,
he knew there was evidence of this.

He said a white guy was there, he musty known of some evidence.
That blonde hair found in Meredith Kercher's grasp, and also 1 found upon examination of her genitalia, is most likely from a white male. I now believe it was a pubic hair from a white male found in her dying grasp. Is this why ILE lost those blonde hair samples that Barbie Nadeau quotes Dr. Stefanoni as stating they are when she collected them? Is this why ILE will not release the seminal fluid results?

It's odd that both hair or fiber,
(if you still think they are)
samples are lost, and not much is ever made of them it seems.

ILE seems to have done a good job of getting the public to overlook this evidence,
in my humble opinion. Just like they did with the cats blood scenario.

Rudy mentions the noises downstairs.
Heck, with all the discussion we've had over the last few weeks,
surely you too must wonder how it came to be that Meredith's blood was found downstairs, or what caused those bloody lines on the floor + who left them behind Giacomo's locked bedroom door, or why there are straight lines of blood on Stefano's bed comforter, right?

Don't you wonder why Rudy has always mentioned a white guy being there?
He did so even when in a German prison, waaay before he claimed that Amanda + Meredith argued and she stole Meredith's $$$.

Rudy knows something about that white guy.
I'd betcha it was his bro Hekuran Kokomani.

Barbie Nadeau writes a few times in her book Angel Face that Hekuran Kokomani, in his 30's, was a police informant.
Heck, when he appeared in Court, he wore a hoody, a baseball cap and sunglasses.

Who knows if it was even him? If it was Kokomani though, what was he hiding from? Hardcore criminals recognizing him as an undercover informant? Or was he worried maybe that any witnesses might recognize him as also being there that night of Meredith's murder, maybe someone saw him loitering around, or had possibly seen there in the morning, maybe driving and parking his old Peugeot in the driveway garden area?

Look guys + gals,
I've been a police informant before, mentioned it here on the old JREF.
Obviously, I had a handler, a cop whom I was "helping".
I could give you her name, describe her in detail, and I could also go look up her real telephone #, but why should I? Heck, she might still be doing undercover work for all I know.

If Rudy was a police informant, he had a handler.
If Kokomanii was a police informant, he had 1 also.
I'd wager that Kokomani was an informer a lot longer than RG was.
He was over 10 years older that Guede, been around the scene probably much longer.
I'd betcha younger Rudy was a protégé, so to say.

And I'd betcha that the lawyers break-in was done with 2 people, 1 of whom was more experienced, who also made sure that the alarm, though not turned on that night, was not gonna report the break-in whatsoever. Years ago I'd read that it was possible that the lawyers break-in was not your average burglary, in fact the perps were looking for something.


I am not wedded to the lone guy assailant theory.

There are too many things that do not add up,
and I'd bectha that I'm a lot more street-wise that most of ya,
a little more rougher around the edges, you might say.


Rudy did not attack and kill Meredith when she 1st came home.
And 20 to 30 minutes before she died is a looong time. Time must have been soooo slow as this happened.
What did he do, restrain her all this time? By himself?

He also did not leave right away,
not for some 30 more minutes, we all seem to agree.
So what really happened afterwards?
he went downstairs, right?

I've read the R. Hendry reconstruction,
and I know about the PM Mignini assertion,
that it was a 3 on 1 scenario,

where 2 new luvers who met at a classical music concert a week ago decided to invite a stranger to let him rape this girls roommate while she stabs her to death and her new boyfriend helps restrains her.

I'd like to read of a scenario where there are 2 only assailants,
and it includes all of the downstairs evidence, ok?

I am of the belief that Rudy had a bro with him the night Meredith was murdered.
He has always said so, a white guy was there.
Why don't most believe that to be true?

Because ILE lost those probable blonde pubic hairs?
And ILE will not release the test results of the seminal fluid found near around Meredith Kercher?
Or release any other evidence that might point to someone also white, someone that was not Amanda or Raffaele?


Heya Machiavelli,
can you ask ILE to re-run those 13 un-attribuated fingerprints again,
maybe by now ILE has expanded their database + they will come up with a positive id on them...
Thanks,
RW

 

[Machiavelli]

The raw data were never requested

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."

The simple fact is the raw data were not requested, the only instance of request was that ambiguous statement by Dalla Vedova at the end of the 2009 trial, which he faild to explain or to word properly, and judges and prosecution apparently didn't understand. There is no other instance in the trial papers, which draws a very different picture from what Chris Mellas describes: the "multiple occasions" story is a lie.

And again, I need to point out the incorrect wording: data may be requested by the defence, it is not be requested through the defence. The party who makes the request is the defence and it is represented solely by the defence attorneys who are acknowledged to that purpose by the judge at the beginning of the hearing, and the defence attorneys only represent the defendant and no other subject.
No other subject may request anything, not through someone else neither.
Private conversations between citizens and/or with defence attorneys mean nothing, they are not part of the trial, they don't exist as trial events.

The defence - the real ones - didn't make any serious efort to seek to obtain raw data - in the proceedings, the real ones - hence in my opinion it is evident that they were not interested in them.
That they didn't do any serious attempt to seek them is obvious from the trial papers, there is no actual request, they had the opportunity to make very clear instance and very early ones and they never did so, at various stages of the proceedings, as I have pointed out many times.

 

[Numbers]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that when I look at records-by-country at the ECHR I only consider the most recent 4-5 years, I assume it makes no sense to consider figures including a 50-year period.

It indeed necessary to compile the data over a long period of time to gain enough data for statistical significance; that is why the ECtHR compiled data from 1959 - 2013. Otherwise, some countries like Norway would only have 0, 1, 2, or 3 cases judged by the ECtHR in a year.

The yearly data are useful for establishing trends. Also, ECtHR has in the last few years started to link some related (same types of violation) cases together, where there is enough similarity. Apparently this gives them an increase in efficiency, which is much required because of the large number of pending cases to be reviewed for admissibility, and then the selected (admissible) ones on the merits of the alleged violations of rights by each Contracting State.

 

[Numbers]

I said the basic point is that the defence didn't ask. It is just a fact there is no defence instance about them. Not just within the normal time frame: they didn't request them over all the trial time, they did not request them not even later, not at the preliminary hearing of 2008 (the MIcheli trial), not even in the appeal submissions ("reasons for appeal"), not even in later separete instances to the Supreme Court, not even at the Perugian appeal trial.

But if you read up what I wrote, I pointed out that as for my personal opinion - this means I am not based on a legal point, since I don't know a precedent - but just based on my opinion, there is also the fact that the raw data files are a source file and not a trial document. Therefore, in fact, there might also be a question of equal opportunities between parties, which also entails the possibility that someone tampers with the evidence. Since - bear in mind this principle - unnder the Italian procedure the defence has a right to lie. They would have a theoretical right to tamper with raw data and evidence in order to obtain and present charts that no one else has the opportunity to verify.

But the prosecution would have its own copy and the court would securely maintain the original electronic data files.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I said the basic point is that the defence didn't ask. It is just a fact there is no defence instance about them. Not just within the normal time frame: they didn't request them over all the trial time, they did not request them not even later, not at the preliminary hearing of 2008 (the MIcheli trial), not even in the appeal submissions ("reasons for appeal"), not even in later separete instances to the Supreme Court, not even at the Perugian appeal trial.

But if you read up what I wrote, I pointed out that as for my personal opinion - this means I am not based on a legal point, since I don't know a precedent - but just based on my opinion, there is also the fact that the raw data files are a source file and not a trial document. Therefore, in fact, there might also be a question of equal opportunities between parties, which also entails the possibility that someone tampers with the evidence. Since - bear in mind this principle - unnder the Italian procedure the defence has a right to lie. They would have a theoretical right to tamper with raw data and evidence in order to obtain and present charts that no one else has the opportunity to verify.

Well this doesn't make sense because they wouldn't get the one and only copy of the raw data, they would get a copy. It's just like any other evidence they get a copy of -- they can alter it, but it would certainly be provable that it had been altered.

But I thought of something in my life which is similar to what you are stating about these data files. I produce reports in Excel for financial meetings. I use the data from our database to produce the figures which I then import into Excel to make a report. I always just produce the report, but not the raw data out of our database. I've never imagined anyone has wanted the raw data, nor has anyone ever asked for it. I do have it though, if anyone wanted it.

you say the defense has never asked for this data. Is it possible there has been a misunderstanding of exactly what it is they have wanted to obtain?

 

[Numbers]

The alleged fact must be anyway a judicial finding. Not just a claim from a person, meaning something that was merely stated by one person - like for example Knox's claim that she was hit - and which the person himself/herself didn't take care of even submitting to a legal procedure for its verification. The same goes for a concept such as "coercion", which was not even a factual claim of some kind in the trial.

If I understand correctly, she put her claim of mistreatment during the interrogation into writing and presented it to the authorities.

The "facts" do not need to be a judicial finding. Generally the ECtHR works from written records, preferably official records. It has sometimes concluded violations based on the lack of official records. For example, an individual files a complaint of abuse by police. There are no records of a response to the complaint. The individual applies to the ECtHR, relying on Article 3. The ECtHR concludes that a violation of Article 3, procedural, has occurred: failure to conduct an effective investigation. The ECtHR concludes however, that it cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of Article 3, substantive, has occurred because of the lack of evidence. I am referring here to recent cases actually judged:

The European Court of Human Rights delivered today its Chamber judgments in the cases of
Etxebarria Caballero v. Spain (application no. 74016/12) and Ataun Rojo v. Spain (no. 3344/13).


ECtHR is also authorized to conduct investigations, according to ECHR Article 38.

 

[Machiavelli]

Congratulations, you are beginning to move a bit closer to the adversarial position.

The EDFs should offered for examination by both prosecution and defense; it is not the nature of an adversarial proceeding for one side to examine the evidence and not the other. You give some understanding of this in the paragraphs I have highlighted.

Now because the DNA profiles whether in chart form or in EDF form (which latter must be displayed on a computer screen or printed out, perhaps in several different scales) are generally complex to understand, even for experts, the evidence must indeed be studied over some time. So in that sense, the evidence (and it is really copies of the evidence; the original is kept secure in the court evidence room or similar facility) is taken home or to one's lab or office for study. Again, this applies to both prosecution and defense.

Furthermore, there are (as I am aware of such procedures; I have worked with lawyers on some technical issues in the US on a few occasions) no surprises by either side. The prosecution and the defense explain in writing to each other what they will present, and there is time for each side to study the other's position. And this can happen during the trial, not just at the very beginning AFAIK; of course, the judge must agree to the introduction of evidence.

The situation in the current case is that the prosecution, through Stefanoni and the forensic police had access to the information in the EDFs, but the defense was never given access to copies (CDs) of the EDFs and the information they contain. The digital records on the EDFs constitute the best evidence of the DNA profiles and the test machine run conditions. Because of such issues as scaling and even filtering that are possible in plotting the results, the paper charts are actually secondary evidence.

Your error from my point of view is in the last paragraph. It is not true that Stefanoni had access to the raw data whilst the defence didn't: actually, prof. Potenza (the defence consultant for Sollecito) had full access to the raw data if he wanted to examine them during the incidente probatorio. The fact is the charts and files presented by Stefanoni in court were produced by all parties experts, including the Kercher's experts and the Knox experts, all taking part together at the same incidente probatorio session. Such working session was virtually open for month, until June 2008, during which Stefanoni had offered full access to the laboratory archives to all experts, in the event they wanted to examine parts of the evidence. However, what happened is that no expert came. With only one exception: prof. Vinci, the expert who demanded to access the fingerprint analysis laboratory where some items were stored in order to examine the pillowcase. He was promptly granted access and Stefanoni took part to his examination.
Nobody requested to access DNA data files on computers, or anything else, over this whole period.
Moreover, there was no defence request even later, at the preliminary hearing stage: at that point, Bongiorno complained the she wanted to have some specific information, namely first she wanted the charts in electronic image form, than the peak heights. Then she asked for further metadata which included the peaks areas. Bongiorno never requested the raw data; actually, she implied that raw data files were unnecessary ("charts with values would be good").
These are tha trial paper records.

Based on this precedent, would a request of raw data so late at the end of 2009 trial sound convincing to a judge? I think it's unlikely that a judge would consider such request as well grounded, unles the defence brings up a convincing explanation for why they need this peculiar piece of information right now, why now and not before. Which is something the defence didn't do, didn't even attempt to do. The 2009 "request" was unclear, ambiguous, not understandable; it was late, not explained (Dalla Vedova failed to explain the existence of raw data) and not motivated by any rationale. Just like they didn't make such request previously, they didn't make further requests subsequently. There is simply no instance of request, even less a convincing explanation for it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Based on this precedent, would a request of raw data so late at the end of 2009 trial sound convincing to a judge? I think it's unlikely that a judge would consider such request as well grounded, unles the defence brings up a convincing explanation for why they need this peculiar piece of information right now, why now and not before. Which is something the defence didn't do, didn't even attempt to do. The 2009 "request" was unclear, ambiguous, not understandable; it was late, not explained (Dalla Vedova failed to explain the existence of raw data) and not motivated by any rationale. Just like they didn't make such request previously, they didn't make further requests subsequently. There is simply no instance of request, even less a convincing explanation for it.

So did the request happen, but it wasn't convincing or did they never request it? this is contradictory.

ETA: We are pretty much back to Diocletus' list of reasons here.

No, his arguments are:

1. They weren't allowed to request the EDFs, but instead had to stop by the lab to pick them up
2. If the were allowed to request the EDFs, then they didn't do it
3. If they did request the EDFs, then it was too late
4. If they did request the EDFs on time, then they got them
5. If they didn't get the EDFs, it was just an accident
6. It the EDFs accidentally weren't given to them, it doesn't matter because they didn't need them
7. If they did need the EDFs, it doesn't matter because the prosecution should be allowed to use secret evidence to convict the defendant

 

[Machiavelli]

If I understand correctly, she put her claim of mistreatment during the interrogation into writing and presented it to the authorities.

The alleged hitting at the back of the head is not the kind of mistreatment that you can complain about by just writing about it. For such kind of offences, the law requires that the victim expresses his/her will to start a legal action and investigation about it, in a formal act called "querela", which requires a lawyer. If a person is under custody (such as Knox was) the lawyer is required to push a legal action whenever there is an abuse, if it is in the will of the person offended.

 

[griffinmill]

The simple fact is the raw data were not requested, the only instance of request was that ambiguous statement by Dalla Vedova at the end of the 2009 trial, which he faild to explain or to word properly, and judges and prosecution apparently didn't understand. There is no other instance in the trial papers, which draws a very different picture from what Chris Mellas describes: the "multiple occasions" story is a lie.

And again, I need to point out the incorrect wording: data may be requested by the defence, it is not be requested through the defence. The party who makes the request is the defence and it is represented solely by the defence attorneys who are acknowledged to that purpose by the judge at the beginning of the hearing, and the defence attorneys only represent the defendant and no other subject.
No other subject may request anything, not through someone else neither.
Private conversations between citizens and/or with defence attorneys mean nothing, they are not part of the trial, they don't exist as trial events.

The defence - the real ones - didn't make any serious efort to seek to obtain raw data - in the proceedings, the real ones - hence in my opinion it is evident that they were not interested in them.
That they didn't do any serious attempt to seek them is obvious from the trial papers, there is no actual request, they had the opportunity to make very clear instance and very early ones and they never did so, at various stages of the proceedings, as I have pointed out many times.

I don't see anywhere that Bongiorno specifically spoke of raw data, EDF's, or alleged that the prosecution withheld data in front of Nencini during her final presentation. She brought up old arguments of collection and testing, at one point vaguely described Stefanoni's findings as "mysterious," but did not complain about issues with discovery from what I've read.

Suppression and missing data appears to be part of the strategy to try the case in the the court of public opinion, not the actual court. Most of the scientific experts I see touted here, like Krane and Hampikian, are well known defense experts. That's not say they are dishonest, but certainly their agendas can be called into question. After all, there is a lot of money to be made in that arena.

 

[Numbers]

Greetings everyone,
On this day that Meredith was murdered so savagely 7 years ago,
I wonder of something once again:

For all of you who believe that Meredith died,
per Rudy Guede's story, at around 9:20 to 9:30,
why don't you believe that a white guy was also involved?

Rudy has always said a white guy was there,
surely he must have seen evidence of this to fit it into his story.

Rudy says that Meredith screamed out loud around this time,
he must have thought people might have heard the scream.
Most of you believe this.

Rudy said that he drank from the juice bottle,
he knew there was evidence of this.

He said a white guy was there, he musty known of some evidence.
That blonde hair found in Meredith Kercher's grasp, and also 1 found upon examination of her genitalia, is most likely from a white male. I now believe it was a pubic hair from a white male found in her dying grasp. Is this why ILE lost those blonde hair samples that Barbie Nadeau quotes Dr. Stefanoni as stating they are when she collected them? Is this why ILE will not release the seminal fluid results?

It's odd that both hair or fiber,
(if you still think they are)
samples are lost, and not much is ever made of them it seems.

ILE seems to have done a good job of getting the public to overlook this evidence,
in my humble opinion. Just like they did with the cats blood scenario.

Rudy mentions the noises downstairs.
Heck, with all the discussion we've had over the last few weeks,
surely you too must wonder how it came to be that Meredith's blood was found downstairs, or what caused those bloody lines on the floor + who left them behind Giacomo's locked bedroom door, or why there are straight lines of blood on Stefano's bed comforter, right?

Don't you wonder why Rudy has always mentioned a white guy being there?
He did so even when in a German prison, waaay before he claimed that Amanda + Meredith argued and she stole Meredith's $$$.

Rudy knows something about that white guy.
I'd betcha it was his bro Hekuran Kokomani.

Barbie Nadeau writes a few times in her book Angel Face that Hekuran Kokomani, in his 30's, was a police informant.
Heck, when he appeared in Court, he wore a hoody, a baseball cap and sunglasses.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9241[/qimg]
Who knows if it was even him? If it was Kokomani though, what was he hiding from? Hardcore criminals recognizing him as an undercover informant? Or was he worried maybe that any witnesses might recognize him as also being there that night of Meredith's murder, maybe someone saw him loitering around, or had possibly seen there in the morning, maybe driving and parking his old Peugeot in the driveway garden area?

Look guys + gals,
I've been a police informant before, mentioned it here on the old JREF.
Obviously, I had a handler, a cop whom I was "helping".
I could give you her name, describe her in detail, and I could also go look up her real telephone #, but why should I? Heck, she might still be doing undercover work for all I know.

If Rudy was a police informant, he had a handler.
If Kokomanii was a police informant, he had 1 also.
I'd wager that Kokomani was an informer a lot longer than RG was.
He was over 10 years older that Guede, been around the scene probably much longer.
I'd betcha younger Rudy was a protégé, so to say.

And I'd betcha that the lawyers break-in was done with 2 people, 1 of whom was more experienced, who also made sure that the alarm, though not turned on that night, was not gonna report the break-in whatsoever. Years ago I'd read that it was possible that the lawyers break-in was not your average burglary, in fact the perps were looking for something.


I am not wedded to the lone guy assailant theory.

There are too many things that do not add up,
and I'd bectha that I'm a lot more street-wise that most of ya,
a little more rougher around the edges, you might say.


Rudy did not attack and kill Meredith when she 1st came home.
And 20 to 30 minutes before she died is a looong time. Time must have been soooo slow as this happened.
What did he do, restrain her all this time? By himself?

He also did not leave right away,
not for some 30 more minutes, we all seem to agree.
So what really happened afterwards?
he went downstairs, right?

I've read the R. Hendry reconstruction,
and I know about the PM Mignini assertion,
that it was a 3 on 1 scenario,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9240[/qimg]
where 2 new luvers who met at a classical music concert a week ago decided to invite a stranger to let him rape this girls roommate while she stabs her to death and her new boyfriend helps restrains her.

I'd like to read of a scenario where there are 2 only assailants,
and it includes all of the downstairs evidence, ok?

I am of the belief that Rudy had a bro with him the night Meredith was murdered.
He has always said so, a white guy was there.
Why don't most believe that to be true?

Because ILE lost those probable blonde pubic hairs?
And ILE will not release the test results of the seminal fluid found near around Meredith Kercher?
Or release any other evidence that might point to someone also white, someone that was not Amanda or Raffaele?


Heya Machiavelli,
can you ask ILE to re-run those 13 un-attribuated fingerprints again,
maybe by now ILE has expanded their database + they will come up with a positive id on them...
Thanks,
RW

Is/was Kokomani tall enough and athletic enough to have climbed through the open broken window before or after Guede?

Why would a second perp enter?

 

[Machiavelli]

So did the request happen, but it wasn't convincing or did they never request it? this is contradictory.

But I think it's crystal clear. It is only up to you whether you decide to call the 2009 statement by Dalla Vedova (or Ghirga, don't remember) a "request by the defences". As for me, it is not. The defences always deployed four lawyers who were working in all court event sessions since 2007 and they kept on working further years for the defendants all the time, they had plenty of opportunity to make instances of any kind, and didn't do anything towards that direction. A serious intent to obtain raw data would be shown by a very different pattern of actions, would take place in multiple venues, on multiple occasions as Halkides put it, would be much earlier and would be motivated, and would be repeated later, if not satisfied, also through instances to multiple courts, and would also be pursued by both defences not just one lawyer. The "request" by Dalla Vedova can't be called or equated to a serious attempt to obtain raw data, however you call it.

 

[griffinmill]

Greetings everyone,
On this day that Meredith was murdered so savagely 7 years ago,
I wonder of something once again:

For all of you who believe that Meredith died,
per Rudy Guede's story, at around 9:20 to 9:30,
why don't you believe that a white guy was also involved?

Rudy has always said a white guy was there,
surely he must have seen evidence of this to fit it into his story.

Rudy says that Meredith screamed out loud around this time,
he must have thought people might have heard the scream.
Most of you believe this.

Rudy said that he drank from the juice bottle,
he knew there was evidence of this.

He said a white guy was there, he musty known of some evidence.
That blonde hair found in Meredith Kercher's grasp, and also 1 found upon examination of her genitalia, is most likely from a white male. I now believe it was a pubic hair from a white male found in her dying grasp. Is this why ILE lost those blonde hair samples that Barbie Nadeau quotes Dr. Stefanoni as stating they are when she collected them? Is this why ILE will not release the seminal fluid results?

It's odd that both hair or fiber,
(if you still think they are)
samples are lost, and not much is ever made of them it seems.

ILE seems to have done a good job of getting the public to overlook this evidence,
in my humble opinion. Just like they did with the cats blood scenario.

Rudy mentions the noises downstairs.
Heck, with all the discussion we've had over the last few weeks,
surely you too must wonder how it came to be that Meredith's blood was found downstairs, or what caused those bloody lines on the floor + who left them behind Giacomo's locked bedroom door, or why there are straight lines of blood on Stefano's bed comforter, right?

Don't you wonder why Rudy has always mentioned a white guy being there?
He did so even when in a German prison, waaay before he claimed that Amanda + Meredith argued and she stole Meredith's $$$.

Rudy knows something about that white guy.
I'd betcha it was his bro Hekuran Kokomani.

Barbie Nadeau writes a few times in her book Angel Face that Hekuran Kokomani, in his 30's, was a police informant.
Heck, when he appeared in Court, he wore a hoody, a baseball cap and sunglasses.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9241[/qimg]
Who knows if it was even him? If it was Kokomani though, what was he hiding from? Hardcore criminals recognizing him as an undercover informant? Or was he worried maybe that any witnesses might recognize him as also being there that night of Meredith's murder, maybe someone saw him loitering around, or had possibly seen there in the morning, maybe driving and parking his old Peugeot in the driveway garden area?

Look guys + gals,
I've been a police informant before, mentioned it here on the old JREF.
Obviously, I had a handler, a cop whom I was "helping".
I could give you her name, describe her in detail, and I could also go look up her real telephone #, but why should I? Heck, she might still be doing undercover work for all I know.

If Rudy was a police informant, he had a handler.
If Kokomanii was a police informant, he had 1 also.
I'd wager that Kokomani was an informer a lot longer than RG was.
He was over 10 years older that Guede, been around the scene probably much longer.
I'd betcha younger Rudy was a protégé, so to say.

And I'd betcha that the lawyers break-in was done with 2 people, 1 of whom was more experienced, who also made sure that the alarm, though not turned on that night, was not gonna report the break-in whatsoever. Years ago I'd read that it was possible that the lawyers break-in was not your average burglary, in fact the perps were looking for something.


I am not wedded to the lone guy assailant theory.

There are too many things that do not add up,
and I'd bectha that I'm a lot more street-wise that most of ya,
a little more rougher around the edges, you might say.


Rudy did not attack and kill Meredith when she 1st came home.
And 20 to 30 minutes before she died is a looong time. Time must have been soooo slow as this happened.
What did he do, restrain her all this time? By himself?

He also did not leave right away,
not for some 30 more minutes, we all seem to agree.
So what really happened afterwards?
he went downstairs, right?

I've read the R. Hendry reconstruction,
and I know about the PM Mignini assertion,
that it was a 3 on 1 scenario,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9240[/qimg]
where 2 new luvers who met at a classical music concert a week ago decided to invite a stranger to let him rape this girls roommate while she stabs her to death and her new boyfriend helps restrains her.

I'd like to read of a scenario where there are 2 only assailants,
and it includes all of the downstairs evidence, ok?

I am of the belief that Rudy had a bro with him the night Meredith was murdered.
He has always said so, a white guy was there.
Why don't most believe that to be true?

Because ILE lost those probable blonde pubic hairs?
And ILE will not release the test results of the seminal fluid found near around Meredith Kercher?
Or release any other evidence that might point to someone also white, someone that was not Amanda or Raffaele?


Heya Machiavelli,
can you ask ILE to re-run those 13 un-attribuated fingerprints again,
maybe by now ILE has expanded their database + they will come up with a positive id on them...
Thanks,
RW

I think Raf was a white guy.

 

[Kaosium]

So did the request happen, but it wasn't convincing or did they never request it? this is contradictory.

ETA: We are pretty much back to Diocletus' list of reasons here.

The proper term is 'stonewalling.'

 

[Numbers]

I don't see anywhere that Bongiorno specifically spoke of raw data, EDF's, or alleged that the prosecution withheld data in front of Nencini during her final presentation. She brought up old arguments of collection and testing, at one point vaguely described Stefanoni's findings as "mysterious," but did not complain about issues with discovery from what I've read.

Suppression and missing data appears to be part of the strategy to try the case in the the court of public opinion, not the actual court. Most of the scientific experts I see touted here, like Krane and Hampikian, are well known defense experts. That's not say they are dishonest, but certainly their agendas can be called into question. After all, there is a lot of money to be made in that arena.

The sharing of the prosecution data, including EDFs for DNA evidence, is routine in the US. This is called "discovery" and also referred to as the Brady rule, after the US Supreme Court ruling Brady v. Maryland:

From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule


The Brady Rule, named for Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused-- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the undisclosed evidence was material, and the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that there would be a difference in the outcome of the trial had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor.
_____
The EDFs are potentially exculpatory because they would likely show the presence of contaminant DNA in the police forensic lab samples. It is known from quantitative data given to the defense by Stefanoni that several controls were contaminated.