Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

So, still maybe what I said is not clear: they had all opportunities.
They just didn't want to.
They would have to do more staps and present more explanations if they wanted to ask for information about a piece of evidence that had been already examined in an adversarial hearing (called incidente probatorio), but hey had plenty of opportunity to submit their requests and explanations.

The just didn't do that. They never attempted to obtain such information through the proper steps. It was not their legal strategy to do so.

One request should be sufficient for the prosecution to give copies of the EDFs to the defense. There is nothing in the Italian Constitution or the ECHR that states the defense must beg for its rights, only to be refused again and again.

ETA: The need for the defense to keep asking for exculpatory evidence from the prosecution, and be repeatedly refused, is in fact another absolutely clear indication of an unfair trial - a violation of ECHR Article 6.1.

For the Defense to examine the EDFs (as true copies, on CDs) is the same in principle as cross-examination of a witness.

That the prosecution did not supply the defense with true copies (on CDs) of the EDFs after one or even repeated requests strongly suggests that there is information on the EDFs that is damaging to the prosecution and beneficial to the defense: that is, exculpatory to the defendants.

 

[Kaosium]

So in other words, you admit that Bongiorno, in her last address to the court, did not claim the defense didn't receive information crucial to their client's defense?

How could I? I've not seen it. I'm responding to a hypothetical where she didn't and pointing out there may be other reasons that the one you've fixated on.

One thing I do know: there's no reason to hide them if there wasn't anything interesting there and that the defense wanted them and didn't get them. Also that the misdirection, sophistry and outright lies on this subject by the prosecution's sycophants is entertaining to behold!

 

[Desert Fox]

One request should be sufficient for the prosecution to give copies of the EDFs to the defense. There is nothing in the Italian Constitution or the ECHR that states the defense must beg for its rights, only to be refused again and again.

When I call my dog, I have to yell his name over and over again. . .Nice to see that the Italian legal system works the same way.

 

[griffinmill]

Maybe she knows a show trial when she sees one?

What does that even mean? Even in a show trial an attorney would make their case. Bongiorno, on the other hand, apparently elected to ignore all the ovewhelming evidence that exonerated her client, not the least of which were data files not turned over.

That's pretty egregious. You would think she would bring that up, and she didn't. So why wouldn't she?

 

[Kaosium]

What is interesting is that even if the signatures are not due to lab contamination, they very easily could be through contamination either at the crime scene due to poor horrid handling or improper transport. There are so many ways that the signatures could have become contaminated but those who argue pro guilt cannot accept any of them.

What's even harder for the guilters is to try to argue this without just acknowledging that they should be turned over. They have to pretend the defense didn't ask (enough times or just right) or try to imply they don't matter at all and hope any neutral observers are bamboozled.

That suggests to me that they know damn well the case gets scuttled if they're ever seen, and/or that Italian authorities will never let anyone get their grubby little hands on those edfs because it would lead to one of those embarrassing debacles like the lab in Victoria (Oz) or the FBI had with Blake where they may have to revisit a number of convictions because the police lab was corrupt/incompetent.

 

[Desert Fox]

What does that even mean? Even in a show trial an attorney would make their case. Bongiorno, on the other hand, apparently elected to ignore all the ovewhelming evidence that exonerated her client, not the least of which were data files not turned over.

That's pretty egregious. You would think she would bring that up, and she didn't. So why wouldn't she?

With or without the EDF evidence, what was presented by the prosecution should not have convicted anybody.

 

[Desert Fox]

What's even harder for the guilters is to try to argue this without just acknowledging that they should be turned over. They have to pretend the defense didn't ask (enough times or just right) or try to imply they don't matter at all and hope any neutral observers are bamboozled.

That suggests to me that they know damn well the case gets scuttled if they're ever seen, and/or that Italian authorities will never let anyone get their grubby little hands on those edfs because it would lead to one of those embarrassing debacles like the lab in Victoria (Oz) or the FBI had with Blake where they may have to revisit a number of convictions because the police lab was corrupt/incompetent.

Maybe it is just me but if my lab has problems, I want to fix it instead of sweeping it under the rug.

 

[Kaosium]

What does that even mean? Even in a show trial an attorney would make their case. Bongiorno, on the other hand, apparently elected to ignore all the ovewhelming evidence that exonerated her client, not the least of which were data files not turned over.

That's pretty egregious. You would think she would bring that up, and she didn't. So why wouldn't she?

Nah, they might just 'go through the motions.'

At any rate, instead of coming up with this crap why not just support the release of the edf files? If you're sure they don't mean anything and that all those sciency-types are just being persnickety when they ask about them then why not just support the concept of full disclosure to maintain the appearance of integrity?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What does that even mean? Even in a show trial an attorney would make their case. Bongiorno, on the other hand, apparently elected to ignore all the ovewhelming evidence that exonerated her client, not the least of which were data files not turned over.

That's pretty egregious. You would think she would bring that up, and she didn't. So why wouldn't she?

Bongiorno was in a room full of people who are too stupid to care about EDFs or even understand what they are. She was responding to a prosecutor who claimed that Meredith freaked out because Guede didn't flush the toilet, and Amanda killed her in response to that. Seriously.

As for the EDFs... I'd like to know why Stefanoni hasn't spoken up, now that a luminary in the field of forensic DNA, Peter Gill, has cited her slovenly work as his central case study, in a book called "Misleading DNA Evidence." That's gotta hurt. And it damn well should hurt, for all the damage Stefanoni has done.

 

[griffinmill]

Nah, they might just 'go through the motions.'

At any rate, instead of coming up with this crap why not just support the release of the edf files? If you're sure they don't mean anything and that all those sciency-types are just being persnickety when they ask about them then why not just support the concept of full disclosure to maintain the appearance of integrity?

Gosh, you're right. I wonder why Bongiorno didn't ask for those EDF's to be released in her final statement to the court in front of Nencini?

 

[Kaosium]

Gosh, you're right. I wonder why Bongiorno didn't ask for those EDF's to be released in her final statement to the court in front of Nencini?

So do you support the release of the edfs?

 

[griffinmill]

So do you support the release of the edfs?

So do you not question that Bongiorno didn't ask for them in front of Nencini?

 

[Kaosium]

So do you not question that Bongiorno didn't ask for them in front of Nencini?

I don't care, it doesn't matter.

What I want to know is if you think the prosecution should turn over the edfs so everyone can see for themselves whether Stefanoni's work was on the up and up. If you don't think it matters because Bongiorno didn't ask at that specific point, why would you fail to support the prosecution honoring full discovery? Doesn't it bother you that there's data out there which could end forever the question of whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder?

 

[Numbers]

One request should be sufficient for the prosecution to give copies of the EDFs to the defense. There is nothing in the Italian Constitution or the ECHR that states the defense must beg for its rights, only to be refused again and again.

ETA: The need for the defense to keep asking for exculpatory evidence from the prosecution, and be repeatedly refused, is in fact another absolutely clear indication of an unfair trial - a violation of ECHR Article 6.1.

For the Defense to examine the EDFs (as true copies, on CDs) is the same in principle as cross-examination of a witness.

That the prosecution did not supply the defense with true copies (on CDs) of the EDFs after one or even repeated requests strongly suggests that there is information on the EDFs that is damaging to the prosecution and beneficial to the defense: that is, exculpatory to the defendants.

Here is an ECtHR case that has some parallels to withholding the EDFs: KUOPILA v. FINLAND (Application no. 27752/95) 27 April 2000

Non-disclosure of evidence to the defence may breach equality of arms (as well as the right to an adversarial hearing): the defence was not given an opportunity to comment on a supplementary police report.
Judgment: Violation of Article 6

 

[griffinmill]

I don't care, it doesn't matter.

What I want to know is if you think the prosecution should turn over the edfs so everyone can see for themselves whether Stefanoni's work was on the up and up. If you don't think it matters because Bongiorno didn't ask at that specific point, why would you fail to support the prosecution honoring full discovery? Doesn't it bother you that there's data out there which could end forever the question of whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder?

Move the goalposts, what I expected.

I'll just say that I think if Bongiorno thought anything you're saying was relevant, she would have brought it up. She didn't.

 

[Kaosium]

Move the goalposts, what I expected.

I'll just say that I think if Bongiorno thought anything you're saying was relevant, she would have brought it up. She didn't.

She did bring it up, just not at that specific moment.

If you think it's irrelevant, why not join the ABA and support the release of all edf files everywhere as a matter of principal? Odds are the EU will require it automatically eventually.

 

[anglolawyer]

dupe

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Mach, you are talking to a lawyer. The idea that the highlighted thing is a problem of any magnitude is simply absurd, although I don't find the idea of such a ridiculous pantomime taking place in an Italian court that far-fetched, now I come to think of it. Do you have any idea how incompetent the conduct of these proceedings appears? Nobody can ask a simple question, no one can answer in fewer than six paragraphs, experts don't confine their evidence to their area of expertise, no one shuts up and waits their turn. Mignini's incompetent examination of Amanda with the accompanying interruptions and Massei desperately trying to bring a semblance of order would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

The ECHR should have a special fast track procedure for Italian cases in which the appeal document need only say 'the case was decided in Italy' for the appeal to succeed.

What you describe as the problem with the defence having the electronic data is exactly what happened by leaving it in Stefanoni's sweaty paws. She manipulated the graphs as, again, others here can explain better than me if you have the honesty and willingness to listen.

 

[anglolawyer]

Alright, I'll post it again

Cytological analysis on cotton fragments taken from the swabs performed on 03/22/2011 was carried out, with prior notice to the parties, on 04/05/2011, at the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences — Histology and Medical Embryology Section of Sapienza University of Rome, in the presence of the parties.

On April 5, 2011, the following memorandum was drafted:

“On 4/5/2011 at 10:10 am, at the Department of Forensic Medicine of the University of Rome — La Sapienza, Forensic Genetics Laboratory, 336 Viale Regina Elena, as ordered at the hearing of 1/22/2011, testing by the Appointed Experts Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti was begun, in the presence of the following consultants for the parties:

- Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Dr. Emiliano Giardina, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil plaintiff;
– Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Dr. Valerio Onofri, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Ms. Donatella Donati, attorney for Raffaele Sollecito, acting on behalf of Mr. Luca Maori;
– Prof. Carlo Torre, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Sarah Gino, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Walter Patumi, consultant for Amanda M. Knox.

It is noted that Prof. Novelli removed himself at 10:35; subsequently, the Appointed Experts and the consultants for the parties [i CTP, presumably Consulenti Tecnici delle Parti] reported to the Histology Section of the Appointed Experts’ home Department, where the slides [vetrini] relative to the Items 36 (knife) and 165b (clasps) were prepared and examined. The Experts and the consultants examined the results with a microscope and agreed to photographically document the item labeled with the letter H (handle-blade contact edge). Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri asked that the experts proceed to request the raw data (electronic files generated by the instrument) relative to the quantization and electrophoretic analysis relating to Items 165 B (clasp) and 36 (knife). Dr. Gino, Dr. Patumi, and Prof. Torre concurred with the request. The present memorandum ends at 1:50 pm.”

Mach, please explain in no more than six thousand words why the request recorded here was not met.

 

[Samson]

Massei, Micheli, Nencini, and Matteini have no interest in selling a story and that's why their assessments make sense.

Thankyou member here Stilicho, I can't respond on PMF where you just said this, so I reply here and my understanding is
Matteini detained the three with false evidence, false statements.
Micheli made findings of fact about staging bodies and break ins with no evidence.
Massei agreed with some parts of Micheli but not others. He made an assessment that Meredith died two hours later than science proves she was dead.
Nencini was instructed to declare people involved, who could only be AK and RS, by the ISC, and because previous courts had made findings of fact that there were other offenders besides Rudy Guede.

Their assessments do not make sense, and you will be judged by your peers for making a false statement, that their assessments make sense