Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Really? Then how did Novelli get the data?

What evidence is there that Novelli did get access to the edfs? I thought that was just speculation from his claiming he reviewed a batch or something and found no evidence of contamination. I figured he just looked at some of Stefanoni's electropherograms and made his determination from that.

 

[Kaosium]

One thing to factor into your account is the certain fact that while the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence at the cop shop, they were illegally gaining access to his apartment and interfering with his computer, as we now know from his consultant's report on the Mac Book pro.

What is this based off? I know some of his last access data was overwritten on the 6th while he was in police custody, but where did you find evidence the police were mucking around on his computer the night of the fifth?

 

[tsig]

Stefanoni never "hid" any male contributor. She gave charts to the defence in 2008, exactly when she was requested, and there were all the peaks and alleles that of the profile she had extracted together with Prof. Potenza and the other parties in the incidents probatorio.

Moreover, there are no 2 or 4 male contributors. There are some experts who make this claim ex-post, it's a theory, what you have is single drop in alleles not profiles.

Then, there is another little problem. Here people like you and Halkides and Charlie Wilkes go on repeating that Stefanoni refused to send the raw data to C&V. But something my train of questions intends to highlight, is: what is your evidence that Stefanoni refused to provide data to C&V? In fact there is no evidence of this; the evidence is Conti & Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they had requested, and Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni's cooperation more than once. There is no mention about denial of requests in the C&V report. There is no mention of lack of raw data. There is no mention of lack of raw data or of requests and denials of raw data or lack of cooperation at all in the court testimonies of Vecchiotti and Conti.
So there is no element to say that Stefanoni denied data to C&V. It's baseless.
It's not something you csn find in the trial papers. There is not even a direct question by defence experts to obtain raw data for themselves in the papers (raw data in Tagliabracci's words was for the judge appoints experts to examine, not for the defence).

So, the question is, how is it that these pro-Knox supporters say the know that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't obtain raw data?

Who told them this?

Where did they get this information from?

I keep wondering why the defense isn't using the refusal to give them data, I mean the withholding of exculpatory evidence is one of those things that get verdicts overturned yet, other than some posters on the net, it doesn't seem to be a big item.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to the CSC judicial logic, since Guede was convicted in a fast-track trial and Knox and Sollecito were named as conspirators with him in that trial, and some time (4 years?) was taken off his sentence because he was supposedly the junior partner to Knox, and since the CSC itself confirmed (finalized) that verdict, Knox and Sollecito must be found guilty in their own adversarial trial. Otherwise a "judicial fact" would be contradicted.

Does the interpretation I offer agree with your reading of the case?

It is not true that some time was taken off because of his being a junior partner. All three defendants got the same time, albeit at different instances: Guede got 24 years at his appeal, because of generic mitigation, which are automatically reduced to 16 because of the fast track option. Knox and Sollecito got generic mitigation and reduction to 24 years immediately, at their first instance trial. Thus, they had a more favorable treatment than Guede. The 24 years is for murder; Sollecito and Knox got 1 more year for staging, and Knox alone got 3.5 additional years for calunnia.

 

[Diocletus]

What evidence is there that Novelli did get access to the edfs? I thought that was just speculation from his claiming he reviewed a batch or something and found no evidence of contamination. I figured he just looked at some of Stefanoni's electropherograms and made his determination from that.

Machiavelli is always jabbering on about how Novelli reviewed the "105 profiles" or whatever that the lab processed during the "6-day gap". You know, the ones that the Italians are using in lieu of the real controls (which they continue to hide) to prove no contamination. I think Nencini was taken in by this ruse as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

What evidence is there that Novelli did get access to the edfs? I thought that was just speculation from his claiming he reviewed a batch or something and found no evidence of contamination. I figured he just looked at some of Stefanoni's electropherograms and made his determination from that.

He said he examined the original files directly on the computer at the Polizia Scientifica laboratory in Rome, together with Stefanoni. He wrote a report about this.

 

[Numbers]

I keep wondering why the defense isn't using the refusal to give them data, I mean the withholding of exculpatory evidence is one of those things that get verdicts overturned yet, other than some posters on the net, it doesn't seem to be a big item.

You have a good point. Could they have presented this argument to the Nencini court? And have they presented it to the CSC in their current appeals?

Do you know whether or not they have included such arguments in their appeals?

The withholding of exculpatory evidence would certainly be important to the ECHR, I'm not sure how it's evaluated in the Italian courts. Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as translated by the Italian Senate reads in part:

The defendant shall have the right...to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

 

[Machiavelli]

I keep wondering why the defense isn't using the refusal to give them data, I mean the withholding of exculpatory evidence is one of those things that get verdicts overturned yet, other than some posters on the net, it doesn't seem to be a big item.

They tried to rise the instance of " late discovery", but it was not about raw data. Their instance was rejected by all judges, including Hellmann.

 

[Numbers]

It is not true that some time was taken off because of his being a junior partner. All three defendants got the same time, albeit at different instances: Guede got 24 years at his appeal, because of generic mitigation, which are automatically reduced to 16 because of the fast track option. Knox and Sollecito got generic mitigation and reduction to 24 years immediately, at their first instance trial. Thus, they had a more favorable treatment than Guede. The 24 years is for murder; Sollecito and Knox got 1 more year for staging, and Knox alone got 3.5 additional years for calunnia.

Perhaps this is the source of my confusion. The original sentence requested for Guede was 30 years - please correct me if this is not true.
Then on appeal this was reduced first to 24 years, due to "generic mitigation." Please explain this term "generic mitigation" - what are the details?
I understand that the fast-track trial itself gives a reduction in sentence - is the new sentence always 2/3 of the sentence otherwise imposed?

 

[Kaosium]

He said he examined the original files directly on the computer at the Polizia Scientifica laboratory in Rome, together with Stefanoni. He wrote a report about this.

That doesn't necessarily mean he did anything more that what could be found by reviewing electropherograms. Has the Novelli Report been translated?

 

[Kaosium]

Perhaps this is the source of my confusion. The original sentence requested for Guede was 30 years - please correct me if this is not true.
Then on appeal this was reduced first to 24 years, due to "generic mitigation." Please explain this term "generic mitigation" - what are the details?
I understand that the fast-track trial itself gives a reduction in sentence - is the new sentence always 2/3 of the sentence otherwise imposed?

His sentence was thirty years and received a mitigation of six years for three basic factors. Off the top of my head I think they were: one that they claimed he was not the sole perpetrator, two that he had no record going into it and three that he showed 'remorse.'

That makes his sentence 24 years, then the fast track mitigation is applied which automatically reduces it by a third, giving him a final sentence of 16 years, which could be reduced further on the basis of being good in jail and other factors like blanket reductions in sentences to relieve Italy's jail crowding dilemma and so forth.

 

[Numbers]

His sentence was thirty years and received a mitigation of six years for three basic factors. Off the top of my head I think they were: one that they claimed he was not the sole perpetrator, two that he had no record going into it and three that he showed 'remorse.'

That makes his sentence 24 years, then the fast track mitigation is applied which automatically reduces it by a third, giving him a final sentence of 16 years, which could be reduced further on the basis of being good in jail and other factors like blanket reductions in sentences to relieve Italy's jail crowding dilemma and so forth.

I remembered this part and not the others. Obviously implicating others, when true or not, was to his advantage.

But I also remember that Amanda Knox was assigned the role of chief criminal, with Raffaele Sollecito and with Rudy Guede as a minor accomplice; this may have been the approximate wording in motivation report for Guede.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I too think that there's something potentially VERY fishy about the whole situation with the downstairs evidence.

I watched the translation of Guede's conversation with Giacomo and something bothers me. Guede goes through a long story about smoking pot with the downstairs boys. He says the girls were there and then he slept overnight on the sofa because he was too messed up to walk home. But then he makes a statement, he says "So, I've only ever been there twice." I think he even says it again. It struck me as interesting that his explanation is so detailed about the one time he was there. What about the second time?

 

[Kauffer]

Guede's sentence

Perhaps this is the source of my confusion. The original sentence requested for Guede was 30 years - please correct me if this is not true.
Then on appeal this was reduced first to 24 years, due to "generic mitigation." Please explain this term "generic mitigation" - what are the details?
I understand that the fast-track trial itself gives a reduction in sentence - is the new sentence always 2/3 of the sentence otherwise imposed?

Guede originally got life reduced to 30 years under the fast track procedure (effectively, the assumption is that life is notionally deemed to be 45 years although there is a higher penalty of life plus isolation which would be reduced to life - so Guede's original sentence was not the the highest he could have got even under fast-track).

On appeal, as you point out he got a reduction from life to 24 years - a very significant reduction - this was then reduced to 16 years with the standard one third discount. One of the mitigating factors cited was, laughably, that he had in some fanciful way, indicated who the perpetrators of the crime were!!!

Now, apparently, Guede's application for early release was turned down yesterday.

http://www.umbriadomani.it/politica...lianza-respinge-sconto-pena-21034/#more-21034

Cited at the PG Meredith Kercher wiki

 

[anglolawyer]

What is this based off? I know some of his last access data was overwritten on the 6th while he was in police custody, but where did you find evidence the police were mucking around on his computer the night of the fifth?

It's in Raffaele's computer expert's report, recently translated into English and put up at IIP and on the good wiki.

 

[Matthew Best]

I've only vaguely been following this thread recently as nothing really seems to be happening with the case itself. Reading the last few pages what I find most confusing is that Machiavelli is constantly asserting the correctness of the Italian justice system and the uprightness of their court procedures, while simultaneously asserting that the justice system is riddled with corruption, bribery and Masonic influence. Baffling.

 

[Kaosium]

I too think that there's something potentially VERY fishy about the whole situation with the downstairs evidence.

I watched the translation of Guede's conversation with Giacomo and something bothers me. Guede goes through a long story about smoking pot with the downstairs boys. He says the girls were there and then he slept overnight on the sofa because he was too messed up to walk home. But then he makes a statement, he says "So, I've only ever been there twice." I think he even says it again. It struck me as interesting that his explanation is so detailed about the one time he was there. What about the second time?

Int he early pages of Massei, Guede's two visits to the boys downstairs are detailed. One was the day they watched the Grand Prix and the other was an afterbar when he returned with them from a bar called the 'Red Zone.'

From Massei p.40 of the PMF translation

This had happened towards the middle of October. He had asked for this information from him, from Marco and from Stefano. This happened when he had gone to their place. Amanda was there with them and Rudy had noticed her.

On this occasion Meredith was there too. Rudy had asked whether Amanda was involved with a guy or not. They were together at a pub, before going home. At this time Amanda had not yet met Raffaele, so they told him she was not committed. That evening Rudy had drunk at the pub and he was somewhat free and easy in the conversation. He remembered that when they arrived home he asked if he could use the bathroom and he fell asleep on the toilet.

He also recalled another time when Rudy went to their house; this was at the end of October, on the occasion of the Grand Prix, the Sunday after the Red Zone. He had come on his own, without being invited by anyone.
He recalled that on that evening, after being at the Red Zone, he had slept in his room with Meredith; Amanda had met a certain Daniel, and had spent the night with the latter in her room upstairs, according to what Daniel had told him.

From your description it looks like that one visit he talks about during the Skype chat was the afterbar, as I recall he detailed his visit the day of the Grand Prix in his diary. Note that it's possible to figure out the exact date of these by looking up the Grand Prix schedule for October, 2007. I think that week it was a race in Brazil they were watching.

 

[Desert Fox]

Guede originally got life reduced to 30 years under the fast track procedure (effectively, the assumption is that life is notionally deemed to be 45 years although there is a higher penalty of life plus isolation which would be reduced to life - so Guede's original sentence was not the the highest he could have got even under fast-track).

On appeal, as you point out he got a reduction from life to 24 years - a very significant reduction - this was then reduced to 16 years with the standard one third discount. One of the mitigating factors cited was, laughably, that he had in some fanciful way, indicated who the perpetrators of the crime were!!!

Now, apparently, Guede's application for early release was turned down yesterday.
http://www.umbriadomani.it/politica...lianza-respinge-sconto-pena-21034/#more-21034

Cited at the PG Meredith Kercher wiki

Some sanity

 

[Kaosium]

It's in Raffaele's computer expert's report, recently translated into English and put up at IIP and on the good wiki.

Oh, that is interesting!

What time was that? There's no way this can look good being as their own records preclude Domino getting there before midnight....

 

[Kauffer]

His sentence was thirty years and received a mitigation of six years for three basic factors. Off the top of my head I think they were: one that they claimed he was not the sole perpetrator, two that he had no record going into it and three that he showed 'remorse.'

That makes his sentence 24 years, then the fast track mitigation is applied which automatically reduces it by a third, giving him a final sentence of 16 years, which could be reduced further on the basis of being good in jail and other factors like blanket reductions in sentences to relieve Italy's jail crowding dilemma and so forth.

Without wishing to split hairs, the reduction in mitigation is not actually six years is it? It's much more. The 30 year sentence is the fast track discounted sentence. So actually it is correct to argue that the effective sentence reduction in mitigation on appeal was really 21 years! That is because 30 years represents a third off a life sentence which must notionally be 45 years for the maths to make sense. The 24 year sentence then gets the third off too.