Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

But, I think instead there isn't any litany of errors. There is a kind of litany of claims and complaints, but this is a defense experts and her job is to list all the holes and imperfections, possibly to emphasize them and twist the to cast the worse possible light.
In fact those claims are subjected to verification and even those that are true might be of no importance as to the final decision, since this is a judgement on the defendants' guilt, not on the forensic qualities. Claims subjected to verifications and assessment, for example, is complaints kik that the fluorimeter is not the instrument recorded in testimony and technical report; a complaint of "late discovery" or lack of documentation on this doesn't have substantial merits, since the fluorineter was used in an incidente probatorio and so the defence expert was aware about exactly all operations performed, took part to the documentation and signed it and could have documented it himself.

Yes, it is the defendants guilt that must be verified, not the evidence used to prove their guilt.

 

[Numbers]

But, I think instead there isn't any litany of errors. There is a kind of litany of claims and complaints, but this is a defense experts and her job is to list all the holes and imperfections, possibly to emphasize them and twist the to cast the worse possible light.
In fact those claims are subjected to verification and even those that are true might be of no importance as to the final decision, since this is a judgement on the defendants' guilt, not on the forensic qualities. Claims subjected to verifications and assessment, for example, is complaints kik that the fluorimeter is not the instrument recorded in testimony and technical report; a complaint of "late discovery" or lack of documentation on this doesn't have substantial merits, since the fluorineter was used in an incidente probatorio and so the defence expert was aware about exactly all operations performed, took part to the documentation and signed it and could have documented it himself.

And in Italy, who will investigate such claims of forensic errors and unreliabilities made by the defense in court?

And Mach, aren't you going to tell us that the defense really didn't make a formal written complaint on the right form for the right day and weather conditions, so there is no chance that these claims should be investigated or taken as an indication of a problem with the case by the ECtHR?

 

[Numbers]

If she bought something and it was the first thing sold that day then the till roll will say what it was.

Do you think Frank had a tape recorder running during that interview?

Do you think Frank Sfarzo is a credible and neutral source?

anglo,
IIRC, the testimony of Mr. Quintavalle was that she looked around and bought nothing. Thus no record on the register roll. (But then no new bleach or other cleaning product, at least from his store.)

Mach,
YES.

 

[Numbers]

But, I think instead there isn't any litany of errors. There is a kind of litany of claims and complaints, but this is a defense experts and her job is to list all the holes and imperfections, possibly to emphasize them and twist the to cast the worse possible light.
In fact those claims are subjected to verification and even those that are true might be of no importance as to the final decision, since this is a judgement on the defendants' guilt, not on the forensic qualities. Claims subjected to verifications and assessment, for example, is complaints kik that the fluorimeter is not the instrument recorded in testimony and technical report; a complaint of "late discovery" or lack of documentation on this doesn't have substantial merits, since the fluorineter was used in an incidente probatorio and so the defence expert was aware about exactly all operations performed, took part to the documentation and signed it and could have documented it himself.[/QUOTE]

The Qubit was used only on certain days, were the defense consultants present each day that Stefanoni and her lab ran DNA quantification and then profiling? There is a table I prepared which presents a short list of the days and the equipment used, according to the data available at IIP. This table is a photo here at ISF. (one test date is a typo I need to correct by replacing the photo)

ETA If the forensic DNA data were not full of errors, holes, and contamination, then the electronic data files would have been presented to the court as best evidence. Withholding of these files is a certain sign that there are irregularities that must be hidden from the defense and from public view. The analogy is if a tax collector would come to a store to see the register receipts (roll) and other records to verify VAT or sales tax. The store proprietor refuses to show this information, but shares a secondary ledger that itself shows irregularities. And the guilter position, and that of Stefanoni, is that the tax collector should believe the faulty ledger and not be allowed to inspect the contemporaneous register receipts (or automated toll record roll).

ETA2 Photo images at: AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-01 001-copy 2.jpg and AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-02 001_copy03.jpg

 

[anglolawyer]

anglo,
IIRC, the testimony of Mr. Quintavalle was that she looked around and bought nothing. Thus no record on the register roll. (But then no new bleach or other cleaning product, at least from his store.)

Mach,
YES.

I am aware that Frank Sfarzo is a figure of some controversy. For the most part, though, his reports are of actual court hearings and are thus of a public event seen by many others besides him. Any lies or mis-reporting would be readily falsifiable and, such has been the scrutiny focused on this case, I would expect there to be a comprehensive list somewhere on one of the loony sites thereof but, to the best of my knowledge, there is none such.

There was a time when Frank was regarded as a reasonable source by the PMF people, as I discovered when I relied on one of his reports, published at dot org or dot net and received there without any criticism, in an exchange with Mach's buddy, Harry Rag, only to find his excoriating criticism of the clowns had resulted in loss of accreditation.

His exchange with Quintavalle looks perfectly credible to me. I regard it as much more likely that Quintavalle lied or convinced himself of the truth of some fantasy (in return for money) than that he actually saw Amanda on the morning of 02 Nov and accurately retrieved the memory a year later.

 

[toto]

I was reading this bit of courtroom testimony from CAM (Ana Marina Chiriboga) on the pro guilt wiki and google translate. Am I right in saying that Chiriboga is saying that Quintavalle was saying he wasn't 100% sure that Amanda was in the store that morning?

GCM:

Di interviste televisive che ci furono da parte anche del Quintavalle lei ha notizia? Se lo ricorda che fu visto in televisione e parlò in televisione?


CAM:

Non c’ero, perché mi ha raccontato lui che sono arrivati dopo che noi siamo andati via, perché dato che usciamo all’una, una e un quarto dal negozio. Lui ha detto che sono arrivati dopo alle interviste, così, parlando.


GCM:

Sì, le interviste sì. Ma, in occasione di queste interviste che riguardavano la presenza di Raffaele Sollecito o di Amanda Knox, ipotizziamo, nel negozio, le disse: “Ma vi ricordate anche voi, le avete viste?”, cioè se ne ha parlato in qualche modo.


CAM:

Sì, sì, lui ha detto che... ecco, parlavamo così, si conosceva, ma...


GCM:

Parlavano così, si conoscevano va bene, ma le disse in particolare che la mattina del 2 novembre aveva visto nel negozio arrivare Amanda Knox?


CAM:

Le prime volte ha detto forse, non voleva assicurare il cento per cento, ma...


GCM:

Le prime volte dice che non era sicuro al cento per cento, le volte successive? Ne ha parlato ancora?
CAM:

No, non ne abbiamo parlato più. Così, parlava, ma...


GCM:

Scusi, poi le volevo anche chiedere... cioè, lei a un certo punto chiede a Raffaele Sollecito di acquistare della candeggina?​

GCM:

Of television interviews that were also part of Quintavalle you have news? Do you remember who was seen on television and spoke on television?


CAM:

I was not there, because I told him that arrived after we went away, because as we go out at one, one and a quarter from the store. He said he arrived after the interviews, as well, talking.


GCM:

Yes, yes the interviews. But, during these interviews that concerned the presence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, we assume, in the store, he said: "But you remember you too, you've seen?", That he spoke in some way.


CAM:

Yes, yes, he said that ... here, we talked like that, you know, but ...


GCM:

They spoke well, you know that's fine, but he said in particular that on the morning of November 2, had seen in the shop get Amanda Knox?


CAM:

The first few times he said, perhaps, did not want to ensure one hundred percent, but ...


GCM:

The first few times he says he was not sure one hundred percent, the next time? He talked about yet?
CAM:

No, we talked about it more. So he spoke, but ...


GCM:

Excuse me, then I also wanted to ask ... I mean, she at one point asks Raffaele Sollecito to buy bleach?​

 

[Diocletus]

But, I think instead there isn't any litany of errors. There is a kind of litany of claims and complaints, but this is a defense experts and her job is to list all the holes and imperfections, possibly to emphasize them and twist the to cast the worse possible light.
In fact those claims are subjected to verification and even those that are true might be of no importance as to the final decision, since this is a judgement on the defendants' guilt, not on the forensic qualities. Claims subjected to verifications and assessment, for example, is complaints kik that the fluorimeter is not the instrument recorded in testimony and technical report; a complaint of "late discovery" or lack of documentation on this doesn't have substantial merits, since the fluorineter was used in an incidente probatorio and so the defence expert was aware about exactly all operations performed, took part to the documentation and signed it and could have documented it himself.

Doubtful. Potenza's report does not mention a Flourometer at all. Moreover, the Real Time run records (run nos. 544, 546) that should correspond with the quantification of the knife blade are suppressed. Further, there was no reason to use the Flourometer as the Real Time machine wasn't broken (as evidenced by the missing run nos.), and the Flourometer was of insufficient sensitivity to be useful and for that matter wasn't even specific to human DNA.

I think that the quantification of 36b was not conducted in front of the defense consultants, and the alleged Flourometer testing was run later to cover up for the fact that the true quantification of 36b was about 10 picograms. I can be proved wrong only by production of the missing Real Time runs projected to correspond to 36b.

 

[Diocletus]

Steve Moore said that as soon as the authorities realised they had screwed up (on or soon after 06 Nov - or even before per Diocletus) they just started making **** up. This succinctly sums it up and all of us here can set out the very long list of bogus evidence cobbled together by these liars and frauds.

Yeah, the exercise in fantasy started when the downstairs guys alibied out of the case.

 

[js202]

Yeah, the exercise in fantasy started when the downstairs guys alibied out of the case.

Just to be clear, your belief is that they are all silently complicit with ILE and the prosecution in remaining mum about the peculiarities of the "cat's blood" found in their flat?

 

[Diocletus]

Just to be clear, your belief is that they are all silently complicit with ILE and the prosecution in remaining mum about the peculiarities of the "cat's blood" found in their flat?

They really weren't if you read their testimony. They basically took on faith that the lab had found cat blood, and then basically said they didn't know WTF was going on.

 

[Bill Williams]

If she bought something and it was the first thing sold that day then the till roll will say what it was.

Do you think Frank had a tape recorder running during that interview?

Do you think Frank Sfarzo is a credible and neutral source?

Yes, like many on the Pro-Guilt lobby side of things are neutral and credible. However, "neutral" is overrated. once one is exposed to the data surrounding this case, it is hard to remain neutral.

What would constitute "neutral" in this?

The most recent detailed look into this case is perhaps Michael Winterbottom's film, "The Face of an Angel." This is taken from the book written by another "neutral" source, Barbie Latza Nadeau. In this film, one of Machiavelli's caricatures of Ms. Nadeau actually comes true - she is an "approximate reporter".

And the early days of the tabloid-press excess, particularly as represented by Nick Pisa, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau, AND Frank Sfarzo is a major sub-theme of the film. Given that Barbie Nadeau is one of the consultants guiding Winterbottom's editorial choices, Frank Sfarzo comes out looking fairly "neutral" and credible.....

...... from the point of view of an English filmmaker digging into the events of Nov 2007 from a fairly neutral stance himself.... if not one initially skewed to the Pro-guilt lobby side of things given the original content of Nadeau's book. Frank Sfarzo comes across looking like the Oracle at Delphi in unearthing what is really real in Perugia in Nov 2007. Winterbottom's bias now is: if you want to know about the mechanics of the crime - read Perugia Shock.

(We can now expect an avalanche of character assassination against Michael Winterbottom!)

It is the height of "something"*** for someone like Machiavelli to assess anyone's neutrality in this case, given the extreme bias towards the Pro-guilt PR lobby he exhibits.

"***" asterisks inserted to get past the mods!

 

[js202]

They really weren't if you read their testimony. They basically took on faith that the lab had found cat blood, and then basically said they didn't know WTF was going on.

Yes, but I'm wondering if, having been raised in the ways of the Mignini's of the world, these guys made an explicit choice to hear no evil, see no evil, etc...

 

[sept79]

Aah, but this is no ordinary case. If it is possible to believe Curatolo just happened to be looking down at his paper when they left the piazza and not looking up again until they returned then one can easily see that Chiroboga may have had a coughing fit that prevented her taking note of the otherwise striking damsel.

I am confused now though. Is Chiriboga the cleaning lady or Quintavalle's shop assistant?

Marina Chiriboga was both Raffaele's cleaning lady and Quintavalle's shop assistant.

 

[Dan O.]

I am confused now though. Is Chiriboga the cleaning lady or Quintavalle's shop assistant?

This bit was snipped from the beginning of Frank's post above:

Marina Chiriboga didn't receive the call to the stand, she had changed address. But today they found her and they brought her to the courtroom. The beautiful Latina had been cleaning at Raffaele's place as long as her pregnancy allowed her, and she was also working at the infamous Conad store owned by the genius of memory Marco Quintavalle.

Until September 2007, she was Sollecitos' cleaning lady. After, she worked at the Conad store owned by Marco Quintavalle.

Rosa Natalia Guaman Fernandez De Calle, a woman from Ecuador who was Sollecito's cleaning lady from September to November 2007 (The last time she worked at Sollecito's apartment was on the afternoon of November 5, 2007).

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, but I'm wondering if, having been raised in the ways of the Mignini's of the world, these guys made an explicit choice to hear no evil, see no evil, etc...

I'm sure there was a bit of that, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

And in Italy, who will investigate such claims of forensic errors and unreliabilities made by the defense in court?

And Mach, aren't you going to tell us that the defense really didn't make a formal written complaint on the right form for the right day and weather conditions, so there is no chance that these claims should be investigated or taken as an indication of a problem with the case by the ECtHR?

But there aren't errors and unreliabilities, and anyway you don't "verify unreliability". Every piece of evidence has flaws and limited reliability, this is an intrinsic property of circumstantial evidence. Here there is simply no legal complaint to do. Here the defence is doing their job. But things like pointing out imperfect documentation about the fluorimeter that was used in the incidents probatorio are not likely to be of consequence.

 

[anglolawyer]

But there aren't errors and unreliabilities, and anyway you don't "verify unreliability". Every piece of evidence has flaws and limited reliability, this is an intrinsic property of circumstantial evidence. Here there is simply no legal complaint to do. Here the defence is doing their job. But things like pointing out imperfect documentation about the fluorimeter that was used in the incidents probatorio are not likely to be of consequence.

LOL - really? Just how specious are we going to get? There is no error or unreliability, alternatively if there is there always is

Have you the date of this incidente probatorio (specifically: the one where the knife samples were quantified by the qubit but Stef writer down Realtime PCR) and can you tell us who was present? Please note: this is a request for a cite.

 

[Diocletus]

But things like pointing out imperfect documentation about the fluorimeter that was used in the incidents probatorio are not likely to be of consequence.

I guess "incidents probatorio" must mean "secret testing".

 

[anglolawyer]

Marina Chiriboga was both Raffaele's cleaning lady and Quintavalle's shop assistant.

This bit was snipped from the beginning of Frank's post above:

​

Until September 2007, she was Sollecitos' cleaning lady. After, she worked at the Conad store owned by Marco Quintavalle.

Rosa Natalia Guaman Fernandez De Calle, a woman from Ecuador who was Sollecito's cleaning lady from September to November 2007 (The last time she worked at Sollecito's apartment was on the afternoon of November 5, 2007).

Thanks both. If she was only his cleaner until September then how could she say what the state of his Ace bleach supply was at the beginning of November? And if the last time she looked it was a bottle and a half and it was still a bottle and a half two months later then how come Raf's place smelled so much of bleach? What was the new cleaning lady using?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, like many on the Pro-Guilt lobby side of things are neutral and credible. However, "neutral" is overrated. once one is exposed to the data surrounding this case, it is hard to remain neutral.

What would constitute "neutral" in this?

In this particular context "neutral" might mean not to take money from the defence and pro-Knox activists.
Sforza's problem may be not just neutrality but also reliability: what would you think about a person who was arrested in every state where he stayed, who had no job and multiple police records (thing like house harassment or stealing in supermarket) and was kicked out from every house where he was a guest? And apparently translates "storage room" with "restroom".