Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

In continuation thread 6 Machiavelli wrote, "For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Bongiorno's asking for the raw data in 2013 means it was not released before then. This refusal to release key data indicates that discovery did not happen as it should, whether Biogiorno used the word "discovery" or not when she addressed the court. All of Nencini's comments on DNA should be seen through the lens that he doesn't know why raw data are important.

Unless it's badly translated, Nencini's motivation records his task was simply to determine whether Knox and Sollecito pre-planned the murder or just got carried away with a sex game that got out of hand. In that context, it's difficult to see why the EDFs matter. In fact, it's not easy to see whether the defence teams properly grasped what the appeal was about. As I say, it may be the motivation is poorly translated but, in it, Nencini records his task as follows (as I posted recently):

First, it is appropriate to recall the scope of the Supreme Court decision that was submitted to this district Court, which has already been mentioned in the descriptive part of the history of the case. The Supreme Court ruling requested of this Court a thorough reassessment of the evidence, on the basis of the following passage expressing the limits of this reexamination: “(omissis) Using the broadest faculty of evaluation, the remanded judge will have to remedy the flaws in argumentation by conducting a uniform and global analysis of the evidence, through which it will have to be ascertained whether the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment. 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”. *(Page 73, Supreme Court sentence)

That seems to me, as it has to others, to tell Nencini 'look, there were three perps, one of them Guede. Fact. Nobody broke in. Fact. So unless she let them in, it had to be somebody with a key and the only key holder was Knox. Fact. And it was either an erotic sex game that got out of hand or a premeditated murder. Don't get the wrong idea: we don't care enough about that to want to test the 'semen stain' though. Just find them guilty take it from there."

 

[Numbers]

In continuation thread 6 Machiavelli wrote, "For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Bongiorno's asking for the raw data in 2013 means it was not released before then. This refusal to release key data indicates that discovery did not happen as it should, whether Biogiorno used the word "discovery" or not when she addressed the court. All of Nencini's comments on DNA should be seen through the lens that he doesn't know why raw data are important.

Or through the lens that he is conducting an arbitrary and unfair trial.
The ECHR would view the denial of discovery as an important indication of unfairness, a violation of ECHR Article 6. Especially in light of the CSC direction in quashing Hellmann and ordering the Nencini trial that the Defense must prove contamination and specifiy where the contamination occurred.

 

[Numbers]

Unless it's badly translated, Nencini's motivation records his task was simply to determine whether Knox and Sollecito pre-planned the murder or just got carried away with a sex game that got out of hand. In that context, it's difficult to see why the EDFs matter. In fact, it's not easy to see whether the defence teams properly grasped what the appeal was about. As I say, it may be the motivation is poorly translated but, in it, Nencini records his task as follows (as I posted recently):



That seems to me, as it has to others, to tell Nencini 'look, there were three perps, one of them Guede. Fact. Nobody broke in. Fact. So unless she let them in, it had to be somebody with a key and the only key holder was Knox. Fact. And it was either an erotic sex game that got out of hand or a premeditated murder. Don't get the wrong idea: we don't care enough about that to want to test the 'semen stain' though. Just find them guilty take it from there."

How would the ECHR view the directed verdict of guilty? Does this mean that Nencini's court was not an independent, impartial tribunal as called for in the EConHR?

 

[Diocletus]

In continuation thread 6 Machiavelli wrote, "For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Bongiorno's asking for the raw data in 2013 means it was not released before then. This refusal to release key data indicates that discovery did not happen as it should, whether Biogiorno used the word "discovery" or not when she addressed the court. All of Nencini's comments on DNA should be seen through the lens that he doesn't know why raw data are important.

No wonder Nencini didn't address these requests in his opinion: the refusal to release data to the defense is indefensible.

 

[anglolawyer]

How would the ECHR view the directed verdict of guilty? Does this mean that Nencini's court was not an independent, impartial tribunal as called for in the EConHR?

It maybe just stops short of being a directed verdict but certain key facts are directed and make it harder not to convict the two innocent parties. The finding of multiple perps was established in Rudy's fast track trial (in which neither he nor the PM was contesting it) and, by osmosis, has become binding in this one. I think that is fundamentally unfair and would be amazed if it survived scrutiny in the ECHR.

 

[Dan O.]

The line numbers correspond to the batch number in:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...n-lab-data-violation-defendants-human-rights/

1.a Blood from downstairs (bed, etc.) and MK reference were DNA quantified (Run 543) & analyzed 5 Nov. 2007.
1.b MK rape-kit and some outside blood were DNA quantified (Run 544) & analyzed 6 Nov. 2007.
1.c AK, RS, & PL reference, down & upstairs light switches, etc. were DNA quantified (QF1) and analyzed 6 Nov. 2007.

What I see from those first three results is an unexpected delay before they started processing anything. The AK, RS & PL reference samples could not have been acquired prior to the 6th so the turnaround time is less than 24 hours. Yet there is a 3 day delay before the first results were processed.

The actual samples are simply being processed in the order in which they were collected. Samples were not collected upstairs for several hours. Nothing unusual in the processing order. Except we have Stephanoni on the phone on the 3rd demanding that the semen be processed immediately. A different case perhaps and the lab was too busy to get started on the Kercher case?

Could the downstairs blood DNA profiles have shown an unknown male sub-Saharan African?

DNA testing can reveal the genetic origin but the specific loci used in these tests are designed to separate individuals. Loci specific to origin would be poorly suited for that task. While there would still be some cooralation, I am not certain that race can be determined from the DNA profiling kit being used.

 

[Machiavelli]

Conti and Vechiotti, of course, would be the recipients of the raw data but there is no reason to suppose the defence consultants (the ones who initiated the request) would be barred from interacting with it or, if not that, being present when C-V did. The picture that emerges is clear enough to the fair-minded observer, Mach. This request was made on 5th April 2011 and the independent experts next convened on 30th May 2011 (in the absence of the parties' consultants). In the mean time there were the exchanges between Hellman and Stefanoni which Candace Dempsey reported and which someone helpfully quoted above. Stefanoni objected to providing the raw data (note that she did not voice any objection on 5th April) because it was an unusual request, and because the data might be interfered with, both obviously bogus reasons.

Oh really you think that handing them over to the judge appointed experts would be like handing them over to the defence. It is an interesting idea about which I have urged some knowledgeable pro-knoxes pr to elaborate. You think that there would be no reason why the defence experts should not interact with C&V and that they would share their data with them as a natural matter of facts.
Your imagination draws a picture that sounds rather curious from the legal point of view.
In fact, any interaction with the experts should take place in a formal framework at the presence of parties experts and magistrates or through a judge. If there is a purpose or a mandate to share information with parties experts, like examine raw data together, a session should be planned for that and parties be summoned.

My understanding of C-V saying they had what they needed is simply their way of saying Stefanoni's work was incapable of proving any material fact in the proceedings and nothing the EDFs could conceivably contain could alter that view.

My understanding . Maybe you should have written " my only understanding". Actually I agree in part with you: I too think that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't think the raw data would be relevant to their purpose, which was to write a report that alleges contamination based on alleged lack of negative controls, violations of standards, lack of laboratory precautions; in other words the purpose for which they were bribed, to attack the bra clad and knife DNA findings.

But what you don't seem to take in account, and what I think should be deduced from C&V conclusion that "nothing contained in the raw data could alter this view", is that this implies that raw data are not interesting. They can be considered safely non-interesting by a judge ay a certain stage.
You cannot escape this conclusion.
If you justify Conti and Vecchiotti when they declare or imply that raw data won't change their conclusion, you also explain why the defence didn't seek them, and you also imply that they may be considered non-interesting by anyone else.
Maybe some people with a specific agenda like defence lawyers or some American expert activists would decide to consider the issue of raw data as an argument for campaign or for submitting nullity instances, or may wish they could have raw data in order to find out if there is something in them they could use for a campaign. But besides the people with these purposes, other people will see raw data as a non-issue in the trial, namely just a defensive ploy to attempt to violate a principle of non-review of judicial findings on the part of the defence at a late stage of the proceedings. While the same defence and even judge appointed experts have implied through their conduct that those files may be considered irrelevant to the process of decision making.
They were irrelevant for Conti and Vecchiotti. They can well be irrelevant to anyone else.

 

[Numbers]

What I see from those first three results is an unexpected delay before they started processing anything. The AK, RS & PL reference samples could not have been acquired prior to the 6th so the turnaround time is less than 24 hours. Yet there is a 3 day delay before the first results were processed.
The actual samples are simply being processed in the order in which they were collected. Samples were not collected upstairs for several hours. Nothing unusual in the processing order. Except we have Stephanoni on the phone on the 3rd demanding that the semen be processed immediately. A different case perhaps and the lab was too busy to get started on the Kercher case?


DNA testing can reveal the genetic origin but the specific loci used in these tests are designed to separate individuals. Loci specific to origin would be poorly suited for that task. While there would still be some cooralation, I am not certain that race can be determined from the DNA profiling kit being used.

You make some interesting points that I have highlighted.
I wonder about the delay (3 days?) in testing the rape kit and the first samples - apparently they started sampling downstairs (why? no body there).

As a beginner conspiracy theorist, I wonder if somehow the forensic lab could get the dates a little wrong on when Batch 1 was DNA quantified and profiled.

After all, the Defense does not have the EDFs to examine for time stamps.

And the semen sample to be examined - we don't really know what case she could be referring to. And the police must maintain certain priorities we don't know about.

I started a bit of lit research on the question of population group ("race" may be viewed as an obsolete term) and forensic STR loci in terms of probabilities ("probable" not "determined"). There are publications. But I'm hoping that those on the forum with expertise can tell me if my idea is unrealistic or wildly unrealistic.

 

[Diocletus]

What I see from those first three results is an unexpected delay before they started processing anything. The AK, RS & PL reference samples could not have been acquired prior to the 6th so the turnaround time is less than 24 hours. Yet there is a 3 day delay before the first results were processed.

The actual samples are simply being processed in the order in which they were collected. Samples were not collected upstairs for several hours. Nothing unusual in the processing order. Except we have Stephanoni on the phone on the 3rd demanding that the semen be processed immediately. A different case perhaps and the lab was too busy to get started on the Kercher case?

DNA testing can reveal the genetic origin but the specific loci used in these tests are designed to separate individuals. Loci specific to origin would be poorly suited for that task. While there would still be some cooralation, I am not certain that race can be determined from the DNA profiling kit being used.

The delay wasn't unexpected. Stefanoni was on site until the 5th, and then left and took her samples to Rome. Obviously, by this time, she had a lot of samples at her disposal, but the ones that she decided to focus on were: i) downstairs/outside, and ii) body samples (fingernails/swabs).

Your second paragraph raises an interesting possibility--that Stefanoni had someone deliver samples to the lab prior to the 5th, and they were tested immediately. If this is the case, then no information whatsoever was produced or disclosed about this testing. In theory, this could have been the point at which the pillow semen sample was tested. In fact, there are a couple of irregularities with the initial batch of data that suggests that something screwy could have gone on.

The "suspect" samples taken and analyzed on the 6th were part of a mini-batch that was rushed through on that day. You can see on the chart that she had finished the initial set of profiling, moved on to other cases, and then rushed through the mini batch on the 6th.

 

[Dan O.]

I started a bit of lit research on the question of population group ("race" may be viewed as an obsolete term) and forensic STR loci in terms of probabilities ("probable" not "determined"). There are publications. But I'm hoping that those on the forum with expertise can tell me if my idea is unrealistic or wildly unrealistic.

Search for the named loci. You should find documentation for the distribution of each allele.

 

[Diocletus]

In fact, any interaction with the experts should take place in a formal framework at the presence of parties experts and magistrates or through a judge. If there is a purpose or a mandate to share information with parties experts, like examine raw data together, a session should be planned for that and parties be summoned.

Well, all of that . . . or they could just deposit the data into the court file like they did with everything else.

 

[anglolawyer]

Conti and Vechiotti, of course, would be the recipients of the raw data but there is no reason to suppose the defence consultants (the ones who initiated the request) would be barred from interacting with it or, if not that, being present when C-V did. The picture that emerges is clear enough to the fair-minded observer, Mach. This request was made on 5th April 2011 and the independent experts next convened on 30th May 2011 (in the absence of the parties' consultants). In the mean time there were the exchanges between Hellman and Stefanoni which Candace Dempsey reported and which someone helpfully quoted above. Stefanoni objected to providing the raw data (note that she did not voice any objection on 5th April) because it was an unusual request, and because the data might be interfered with, both obviously bogus reasons.

Oh really you think that handing them over to the judge appointed experts would be like handing them over to the defence. It is an interesting idea about which I have urged some knowledgeable pro-knoxes pr to elaborate. You think that there would be no reason why the defence experts should not interact with C&V and that they would share their data with them as a natural matter of facts.
Your imagination draws a picture that sounds rather curious from the legal point of view.

It would if that's what I thought but it isn't. What I think is that if the EDFs had been provided, the defence consultants would have been allowed to ask the independent experts to conduct specific tasks with respect to it and to circulate the results.

In fact, any interaction with the experts should take place in a formal framework at the presence of parties experts and magistrates or through a judge. If there is a purpose or a mandate to share information with parties experts, like examine raw data together, a session should be planned for that and parties be summoned.

I understand this.

My understanding . Maybe you should have written " my only understanding". Actually I agree in part with you: I too think that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't think the raw data would be relevant to their purpose, which was to write a report that alleges contamination based on alleged lack of negative controls, violations of standards, lack of laboratory precautions; in other words the purpose for which they were bribed, to attack the bra clad and knife DNA findings.

Yes, but you are biased. What you never do is engage with the detail of the C-V report and tell us how its conclusions are wrong, or the product of bad science. You have no more than ad hominem and untestable conspiracy theorising on which to base your views.

But what you don't seem to take in account, and what I think should be deduced from C&V conclusion that "nothing contained in the raw data could alter this view", is that this implies that raw data are not interesting. They can be considered safely non-interesting by a judge ay a certain stage.
You cannot escape this conclusion.

In a sense, I agree. Stefanoni's work has been so badly trashed there can be nothing in the EDFs that could rehabilitate it. However, the problem is that Italian justice has fastened on a minor quibble (failure to tests 36I) blown it out of proportion and then performed an illogical leap thusly: since C-V did not test 36I they are bad scientists, from which it follows Stefanoni is a good scientist. Er, no.

If you justify Conti and Vecchiotti when they declare or imply that raw data won't change their conclusion, you also explain why the defence didn't seek them, and you also imply that they may be considered non-interesting by anyone else.

No I don't.

Maybe some people with a specific agenda like defence lawyers or some American expert activists would decide to consider the issue of raw data as an argument for campaign or for submitting nullity instances, or may wish they could have raw data in order to find out if there is something in them they could use for a campaign. But besides the people with these purposes, other people will see raw data as a non-issue in the trial, namely just a defend ploy to attempt to violate a principle of non-review of judicial findings on the part of the defence at a late stage of the proceedings. While the same defence and even judge appointed experts have implied through their conduct that those files may be considered irrelevant to the process of decision making.
They were irrelevant for Conti and Vecchiotti. They can well be irrelevant to anyone else.

Only people with insufficient knowledge of:

1. this case
2. science in general
3. law and justice in general

will think along the lines I have highlighted from your text.

 

[Numbers]

The delay wasn't unexpected. Stefanoni was on site until the 5th, and then left and took her samples to Rome. Obviously, by this time, she had a lot of samples at her disposal, but the ones that she decided to focus on were: i) downstairs/outside, and ii) body samples (fingernails/swabs).

Your second paragraph raises an interesting possibility--that Stefanoni had someone deliver samples to the lab prior to the 5th, and they were tested immediately. If this is the case, then no information whatsoever was produced or disclosed about this testing. In theory, this could have been the point at which the pillow semen sample was tested. In fact, there are a couple of irregularities with the initial batch of data that suggests that something screwy could have gone on.
The "suspect" samples taken and analyzed on the 6th were part of a mini-batch that was rushed through on that day. You can see on the chart that she had finished the initial set of profiling, moved on to other cases, and then rushed through the mini batch on the 6th.

As a beginner conspiracy theorist, I think the order of samples chosen is meaningful. I think that conscientious competent police would notice and rush the testing of the rape kit and the pillow semen stain. But the blood trail downstairs could suggest to such police that the murder/rapist was a resident of the downstairs apartment. So it would make sense to test those downstairs samples quickly as well. But apparently the downstairs profiles - and have any been released to the defense? - did not support the theory that a downstairs resident was responsible. This is in large part because the downstairs boys came back from Marche and had strong alibis.

So why was Amanda Knox suspected? What would the Italian police think:

American, young, female, sexually active, no lawyer, a resident of the upstairs apartment, in Perugia at the right time, alibi supported by boyfriend (so therefore he could be a conspirator with her), willing to speak to police, helped discover the body, works part time at a bar owned by a man of sub-Saharan African (Congolese) ancestry.

Did the police know anything about the murderer/rapist being of sub-Saharan African ancestry before interrogating Amanda and Raffaele? Is that why they purposely misunderstood the Patrick Lumumba - Amanda Knox phone messages? Is that why one of them was quoted in the media as saying, "She told us what we already knew," or words to that effect?

 

[Desert Fox]

There are 4 Rep sample numbers, 17, 18, 19, 20, labeled "outside tissue" that were DNA analyzed in Batch 1 (profiled 5 Nov; quantified Run 543) and attributed to "lady #1", "man #3", "lady #2", and "lady #2", respectively. These tissues (paper towels?) had considerable DNA detected (range 44 to 930 pg/uL) compared to many of the other samples, and the tests were conducted with the EZ1 blood card.

Who were these unknown bleeding(?) ladies and gent? Were profiles supplied to the defense? Could they perhaps be MK and Guede, but somehow the attribution was not correct?

We will likely never notice but humans bleeding and using a tissue to control the bleeding and then discarding the tissue is probably relatively common. There have been times in my life where I have had a fair number of nose bleeds.

 

[Machiavelli]

To user of computers, such as the technical experts, the idea of using CDs to copy and store data from the test equipment computer to be observed at a later time and different place would be as obvious as the use of a pen or pencil and paper to write. Your seeming lack of understanding that this is common everyday technology is either feigned or indicates an incredible ignorance of everyday 21st (or even late-20th) century technology.

And yes, the data would only be copied, stored, and transported by CD, DVD, or similar technology (such as USB memory stick); uploading to the internet would not be likely, nor would direct transmission by cable to another computer be as practicable.

Of course, if you somehow were the famous Niccolo Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) come back to enlighten us, and had not been briefed throughly enough on modern technology, this would be understandable. {Meant as a humorous comment.}

It's not a matter of technology. Technology has nothing to do with it.
It is a matter of decisions and access to information.
You cannot access to a piece of information deposited with a court file in Italy - no matter the technological support where this is located - without submitting an official request that leaves a track and without paying a monetary fee.
A defence expert also does not access the judge-appointed experts activities but in official sessions.
The defence experts also are supposed to not know in advance what kind of data the judge-appointed experts will actually talk about and what they will attach in their report.
There isn't any request by Tagliabracci or other experts to obtain or access such files. It is a fact.
Maybe, in the mind of the pro-Knox supporters, this acess should be somehow given for granted, and thus defence experts' demand should be seen as an "equivalent" of a request of obtaining the data themselves.
But it isn't.

The judge-appointed experts are supposed to negotiate their access to information trough the judge and it is ultimately up to them, not to the defence experts, to decide what to access, to assess is important in the progress of their work, and to decide what will be part of their report, as long as this fulfills the judges' mandate.

On the other hand, a requst from a party of introducing further information from evidence already examined is a completely different story. A defence request to analyze raw-data, which wass submitted late, that is like for example years later after the incidente probatorio is closed, it should be motivated, thoroughly explained; the defence should put some convincing reason why they need that material and why they could not know it was important before that.
Such request would be like the request of asking to call back a witness who has already been heared in order to ask other questions. The judicial act is closed; in order to review or to re-open a session where evidence was formed, like a testimony or an incidente probatorio, in order to attach a further part of information, the party has a burden to prove not only that this piece of information could be important to the judgement, but also that it would have been impossible for them to ask it previously. The defence should explain why it was impossible for the defence to ask for this information before - tht is like ask those further question to a witness or requesting further files to a laboratory - why they realized it was important for them only late, what is the purpose of their request and why they couldn't do it before. They need to submit such requst with some convincing explanation.
The defences didn't attempt to do so.

C&V apparently decided the raw data was not important to their own purpose, because this is what they implicitly declared on May 20. Bongiorno subscribed to this in the same hearing.
Thus the point remains the same: there was no defence request to access raw data, not even in the Appeal trial. Maybe Tagliabracci's request was a surreptitious attempt to obtain raw data in order to give them to Hampikian in order to seek if there was something in there they could use to make political campaign (a reason they couldn't bring up to a judge) while at the seme time dodging the due process of requesting data.
But still, nothing changes about the fact: there wasn't a defence request.
And it is also unclear why the defence felt so sure that, if Conti and Vecchiotti had the data, they would obtain them too.

 

[Desert Fox]

As a beginner conspiracy theorist, I wonder if somehow the forensic lab could get the dates a little wrong on when Batch 1 was DNA quantified and profiled.

There have been cases where law enforcement and the court system have conspired to frame innocent defendants. Not an unknown situation. Makes it a bit more palatable.

 

[Bill Williams]

My understanding . Maybe you should have written " my only understanding". Actually I agree in part with you: I too think that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't think the raw data would be relevant to their purpose, which was to write a report that alleges contamination based on alleged lack of negative controls, violations of standards, lack of laboratory precautions; in other words the purpose for which they were bribed, to attack the bra clad and knife DNA findings.

Yes, but you are biased. What you never do is engage with the detail of the C-V report and tell us how its conclusions are wrong, or the product of bad science. You have no more than ad hominem and untestable conspiracy theorising on which to base your views.

Anglolawyer - you are purposely minimizing the proof Machiavelli says he has. Shame on you.

He says he has witnesses (unnamed, of course) who in turn say they saw Conti & Vecchiotti having lunch with people associated with the defence.

He also says, "witnesses saw Vecchiotti and Conti in a chummy atitude with Dalla Vedova and Maori at at time before they issued their report".

Anglolawyer - you are at a disadvantage is assessing these claims, because "chummy attitudes" obviously play a larger role in Italian jurisprudence, than in the inferior legal system in which you are forced to toil. "Chummy attitudes" are (apparently) admissible in discussions on the veracity of people's claims in Italy - acc. to Machiavelli.

But then there is this clincher from Machiavelli, which you underappreciate - "witnesses have spotted a number Knox-Solelcito of defence lawers in the ofices of Wladimiro De Nunzio before the beginning of the appeal trial".

Witnesses - who and how many?
spotted (in the offices) - in the waiting room? Was De Nunzio in the building at the time?
a number - again, how many and which ones?
before the beginning - Machiavelli must realize that if they had been there in 1995, that this qualifies as "before the beginning".​

Anglolawyer - this is more than Machiavelli never engaging, "the detail of the C-V report and tell(ing) us how its conclusions are wrong, or the product of bad science."

Machiavelli has been telling us all along that the solution to this case is for those of us outside of Italian law to appreciate the role "chummy attitudes" play in deciding whether or not to put people away for 30 years.

 

[Diocletus]

As a beginner conspiracy theorist, I think the order of samples chosen is meaningful. I think that conscientious competent police would notice and rush the testing of the rape kit and the pillow semen stain. But the blood trail downstairs could suggest to such police that the murder/rapist was a resident of the downstairs apartment. So it would make sense to test those downstairs samples quickly as well. But apparently the downstairs profiles - and have any been released to the defense? - did not support the theory that a downstairs resident was responsible. This is in large part because the downstairs boys came back from Marche and had strong alibis.

The downstairs profiles were all suppressed.

The cops clearly suspected that someone from downstairs committed the crime. They did their first sampling there, and tested those samples first. They must have been shocked when all of the boys returned with rock solid alibis. I wonder when the last of the boys established his alibi? I'm guessing on the 4th or even the 5th. I'm guessing that with Romanelli and Mazzetti having good alibis, by process of elimination, that left Knox as the sole suspect. That's how stupid these cops were.

The question is, why was it so important to disappear the downstairs test results after the boys' involvement was excluded? Two things come to mind: 1) it would have made no sense for Knox to go down there, and 2) it could have undermined the staged break-in theory because the downstairs entry would undeniably have been a real B&E.

 

[Diocletus]

It's not a matter of technology. Technology has nothing to do with it.
It is a matter of decisions and access to information.
You cannot access to a piece of information deposited with a court file in Italy - no matter the technological support where this is located - without submitting an official request that leaves a track and without paying a monetary fee.
A defence expert also does not access the judge-appointed experts activities but in official sessions.
The defence experts also are supposed to not know in advance what kind of data the judge-appointed experts will actually talk about and what they will attach in their report.
There isn't any request by Tagliabracci or other experts to obtain or access such files. It is a fact.
Maybe, in the mind of the pro-Knox supporters, this acess should be somehow given for granted, and thus defence experts' demand should be seen as an "equivalent" of a request of obtaining the data themselves.
But it isn't.

The judge-appointed experts are supposed to negotiate their access to information trough the judge and it is ultimately up to them, not to the defence experts, to decide what to access, to assess is important in the progress of their work, and to decide what will be part of their report, as long as this fulfills the judges' mandate.

On the other hand, a requst from a party of introducing further information from evidence already examined is a completely different story. A defence request to analyze raw-data, which wass submitted late, that is like for example years later after the incidente probatorio is closed, it should be motivated, thoroughly explained; the defence should put some convincing reason why they need that material and why they could not know it was important before that.
Such request would be like the request of asking to call back a witness who has already been heared in order to ask other questions. The judicial act is closed; in order to review or to re-open a session where evidence was formed, like a testimony or an incidente probatorio, in order to attach a further part of information, the party has a burden to prove not only that this piece of information could be important to the judgement, but also that it would have been impossible for them to ask it previously. The defence should explain why it was impossible for the defence to ask for this information before - tht is like ask those further question to a witness or requesting further files to a laboratory - why they realized it was important for them only late, what is the purpose of their request and why they couldn't do it before. They need to submit such requst with some convincing explanation.
The defences didn't attempt to do so.

C&V apparently decided the raw data was not important to their own purpose, because this is what they implicitly declared on May 20. Bongiorno subscribed to this in the same hearing.
Thus the point remains the same: there was no defence request to access raw data, not even in the Appeal trial. Maybe Tagliabracci's request was a surreptitious attempt to obtain raw data in order to give them to Hampikian in order to seek if there was something in there they could use to make political campaign (a reason they couldn't bring up to a judge) while at the seme time dodging the due process of requesting data.
But still, nothing changes about the fact: there wasn't a defence request.
And it is also unclear why the defence felt so sure that, if Conti and Vecchiotti had the data, they would obtain them too.

Really? Then how did Novelli get the data?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Yes, but you are biased. What you never do is engage with the detail of the C-V report and tell us how its conclusions are wrong, or the product of bad science. You have no more than ad hominem and untestable conspiracy theorising on which to base your views.

Look, I am perfectly ready to talk about C&V's report, but I cannot talk about so all topics. I have spent already too much timereading this forum on my cell phone this Sunday.
I also add that the things that would attract my attention, that I consider relevant or important to discuss about in the C&V report, are probably not the same things that are seen as important by pro-Knox supporters. And not only I would consider the letter of the report, I would also criticize the sources of C&V's statements, their process of collecting the information basis for their reasoning; and I would also cross the text of report with trial papers and with the testimonies of the same Conti and Vecchiotti. And also, consider jurisprudence.

In a sense, I agree. Stefanoni's work has been so badly trashed there can be nothing in the EDFs that could rehabilitate it. However, the problem is that Italian justice has fastened on a minor quibble (failure to tests 36I) blown it out of proportion and then performed an illogical leap thusly: since C-V did not test 36I they are bad scientists, from which it follows Stefanoni is a good scientist. Er, no.

The question is not about being a good or bad scientist. The problem with Vecchiotti and her not testing the 36I trace, which was duly spotted by the Supreme Court, is not with their being good or bad scientists but rather their being unfaithful expert witnesses. As by the words used by the Supreme Court to address the point, they were dishonest, not bad. They lied when they said that the decision of not testing the 36I trace was a shared with all parties experts including Novelli, since there is no signature and no agreement to that. They violated the borders of their mandate which was to perform tests they should have accomplished, they acted as judges and not as experts because they decided themselves what evidence they should seek and collect and what the field of their research would be - in violation to a judges' order - based on their own judgement about what potentuial DNA result should be judged reliable by a court, and they violated the judges' order saying whenever they foundthemselves before a new decision to take, they should consult with the judges before taking any decision (and not after).
In addition to that, ultimately they are considered unreliable experts for all what they have done, but also because they were appointed by a judge who is now considered discredited and leading a trial following an illegitimate conduct (you can't question this if you read the Supreme Court annullment).