Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

There are many possible substances, all common to the area of the cottage and within the cottage: rust (iron oxide) in water, iron and/or other metal ions from the local soil, residue of plant material. The soil of the province Umber, in which Perugia lies, is famous for containing umber, the color of which is due to the iron and manganese oxides within it.

It is the legal responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate by a scientifically valid method - for example, by a confirmatory antibody test that would react with antigens in blood - that the luminol footprints are blood. The defense does not have a legal responsibility to identify the exact substance that is triggering the luminol chemiluminescence (CL). The defense only needs to show that the CL is not probative - that is, that it has one or more innocent explanations.

Even this over-states the defence's burden IMO. Merely pointing to the fact the prosecution has not proved it's blood is enough. Or should be.

 

[Kauffer]

Burden of proof

There are many possible substances, all common to the area of the cottage and within the cottage: rust (iron oxide) in water, iron and/or other metal ions from the local soil, residue of plant material. The soil of the province Umber, in which Perugia lies, is famous for containing umber, the color of which is due to the iron and manganese oxides within it.

It is the legal responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate by a scientifically valid method - for example, by a confirmatory antibody test that would react with antigens in blood - that the luminol footprints are blood. The defense does not have a legal responsibility to identify the exact substance that is triggering the luminol chemiluminescence (CL). The defense only needs to show that the CL is not probative - that is, that it has one or more innocent explanations.

This is right on the money - the burden of proof is with the prosecution - with this as in all matters. A confirmatory test is proof of blood; nothing else is proof of blood. Therefore there is NO proof of blood. Thus the luminol evidence is "manifestly superfluous" and "irrelevant" as per Article 190 Itallian CCP. The prosecution has come to court without proof and with it's own witness testifying in support of the defence.

 

[Numbers]

Thank you for your informative posts on ECHR cases.

I have found the ECHR Provisional List of Hearings for the Grand Chamber ECHR hearing schedule . There are of course alternative routes see here Application flow chart.

Apparently as of 2010 approximately 95% of applications to the ECHR were rejected as stated in the introduction of the ECHR Admissibility guide.

Even if the slander application passes the admissibility phase of the process, I doubt that it will be heard prior to the 3rd level hearing mainly because the ECHR doesn’t get involved until all legal remedies have been exhausted in a member state. Of course I could be wrong but the slander case is part of the wider case that is still not completed.

The calunnia conviction of Amanda Knox was finalized by the CSC; they approved that part of Hellmann's verdict, while annulling the acquittal part. It is aggravated calunnia which will be before the CSC for review in its March appeal hearing.

The timing of the ECtHR is unclear; they have truly many cases on their docket. There is no reason to have any certain belief that they will time their actions to the course of the CSC activity, either before or after.

There are a number of previously decided ECtHR cases in which an individual in his or her first interrogation with police makes a statement or confession without benefit of a lawyer present, and later the person is convicted based in whole in part on this statement or confession. I have posted information on several such cases. The ECtHR found the respondent state in violation of the person's rights to a fair trial (ECHR Article 6) in all such cases I have examined to date.

ETA: It should be pointed out that the Grand Chamber hearings are only a small part of the ECtHR hearings. Most of the hearings are judged by Committees of three judges or Chambers of seven judges. The Grand Chamber hearings with seventeen judges are typically only for cases of an unusual or controversial nature. If there is sufficient case law established that is relevant to a case, the Grand Chamber is unlikely to be employed for the hearing. Note that Chamber hearings may be appealed to the Grand Chamber by either side within three months of a Chamber judgement, but Grand Chamber hearings are final.

 

[andreajo]

You don't need to present on the place of a murder in order to be guilty.

I have been thinking for some time that you and I must have different ideas about what it means to be guilty. I fear that my lack of imagination keeps me chained to the notion that Amanda and Raffaele would need to have been physically present at Meredith's murder and to have actually participated in it in order to be guilty.

It is sufficient if your conscious behaviour is element in the chain of causes.

This is very convenient mumbo jumbo. You can turn any behavior into "an element in the chain of causes" given a little rhetorical skill and a gullible audience.

 

[Numbers]

Even this over-states the defence's burden IMO. Merely pointing to the fact the prosecution has not proved it's blood is enough. Or should be.

Yes. If it's not blood, it's not probative. And in particular it is not Meredith Kercher's blood. Could there be any other probative finding? That is, not MK blood is identical to not probative. And as Stefanoni testified, the negative TMB test showed the alleged Amanda Knox luminol prints to not be made in blood.

As a hypothetical, if it were, say, cat blood or cow blood, it would also not be probative.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes. If it's not blood, it's not probative. And in particular it is not Meredith Kercher's blood. Could there be any other probative finding? That is, not MK blood is identical to not probative. And as Stefanoni testified, the negative TMB test showed the alleged Amanda Knox luminol prints to not be made in blood.

As a hypothetical, if it were, say, cat blood or cow blood, it would also not be probative.

Agreed.

 

[Numbers]

The calunnia conviction of Amanda Knox was finalized by the CSC; they approved that part of Hellmann's verdict, while annulling the acquittal part. It is aggravated calunnia which will be before the CSC for review in its March appeal hearing.

The timing of the ECtHR is unclear; they have truly many cases on their docket. There is no reason to have any certain belief that they will time their actions to the course of the CSC activity, either before or after.

There are a number of previously decided ECtHR cases in which an individual in his or her first interrogation with police makes a statement or confession without benefit of a lawyer present, and later the person is convicted based in whole in part on this statement or confession. I have posted information on several such cases. The ECtHR found the respondent state in violation of the person's rights to a fair trial (ECHR Article 6) in all such cases I have examined to date.

ETA: It should be pointed out that the Grand Chamber hearings are only a small part of the ECtHR hearings. Most of the hearings are judged by Committees of three judges or Chambers of seven judges. The Grand Chamber hearings with seventeen judges are typically only for cases of an unusual or controversial nature. If there is sufficient case law established that is relevant to a case, the Grand Chamber is unlikely to be employed for the hearing. Note that Chamber hearings may be appealed to the Grand Chamber by either side within three months of a Chamber judgement, but Grand Chamber hearings are final.

Additional info on ECtHR procedure:

The Committee hearings are for the cases with the most relevant case-law, and otherwise considered routine or repetitive. Cases appearing to require more deliberation are sent to a Chamber for hearing. Appeals from a Chamber judgement are heard by a panel of five judges, transfer to a Grand Chamber is not automatic. However, sometimes a Chamber of judges will decide that a case should be relinquished to a Grand Chamber hearing because of its complexity, controversy, or other significance.

ETA: It should be noted that in the judgments, the ECtHR reviews first the case in relation to the respondent state's applicable constitutional provisions and laws, second with respect to any other legal basis such as international human rights treaties other than the ECHR, and third in relation to the ECHR (often called the "Convention" or the "Law" in their written judgments). Note that the ECtHR relies on a literal interpretation of all written jurisprudence (de jure, not de facto). It also states that its view of human rights based on the Convention is that they must be practical not merely theoretical. IMO, that means that a state cannot erect legalistic or bureaucratic barriers to prevent individuals from enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

How do the pro - guilt posters here explain and excuse the following?:



Patrizia Stefanoni produces the RTIGF Report of her “technical analysis” on June 3rd 2008

- Omitted from the report is the luminol prints all tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine.

Doesn't seem that serious, especially if you consider that luminol prints were analyzed at the presence of Prof. Potenza and SALs were accessible throughout the investigation, and if you consider that TMB test is irrelevant. Also, you should consider that Stefanoni pointed out that they made a "series of other tests" on luminol stains at the beginning of her 2008 testimony.

- Knife samples A-B-C are recorded as being assessed with real time PCR….they weren’t

.

They are just recorded as tested in a table, without any specification. But this is still irrelevant since they were tested at the presence of defence experts and magistrate. Prof. Potenza was there and could see and record exacly what was done.

- No mention of the ‘Qubit Fluorometer’ being used and sample 36B failed to register for quantification

.

This is a repetition of the above point. Prof. Potenza was there and he knew everything, the investigation judge was there, defence experts were summoned, the defences did not object. The omission of QBit fluorimeter from documentation cannot serve any malicious purpose, since we know the fluorimeter is less performative than the other techniques, and the defence expert of Sollecito knew the fluorineter was being employed.

- Samples marked as ‘cat blood’ were positive for human DNA[/

I don't see how you can see anything criminal I'm this. The samples were also positive to cat antibodies. They were taken from a bed sheet of a human, but yet the presence of human DNA is not certain. There was a testimony that there was a wounded cat. Now, these are questionable aspects of the investigation maybe, but I can't see something like a criminal intent.

Under suspicion of which offence(s) could Ms Stefanoni have been arrested for in Italian law? What censure does her professional body permit or perhaps insist on, for such conduct?

Under suspicion of no offence. There is no elements for suspicion.
The above ones look like just complaints about documental imprecision or incompleteness, or (as for the cat) a criticism about investigation choices.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are many possible substances, all common to the area of the cottage and within the cottage: rust (iron oxide) in water, iron and/or other metal ions from the local soil, residue of plant material. The soil of the province Umber, in which Perugia lies, is famous for containing umber, the color of which is due to the iron and manganese oxides within it.

It is the legal responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate by a scientifically valid method - for example, by a confirmatory antibody test that would react with antigens in blood - that the luminol footprints are blood. The defense does not have a legal responsibility to identify the exact substance that is triggering the luminol chemiluminescence (CL). The defense only needs to show that the CL is not probative - that is, that it has one or more innocent explanations.

This is right on the money - the burden of proof is with the prosecution - with this as in all matters. A confirmatory test is proof of blood; nothing else is proof of blood. Therefore there is NO proof of blood. Thus the luminol evidence is "manifestly superfluous" and "irrelevant" as per Article 190 Itallian CCP. The prosecution has come to court without proof and with it's own witness testifying in support of the defence.

Look at how many times Nencini, in his motivations report, uses the phrase "presumed blood" to describe a piece of evidence which he considers vital to this case. (And this is before considering that the luminol-glow in one of the Scientific Police's own photos, shows the glow on one of the technician's booties, and on a ruler!)

I take it that this is literally true, that Nencini only uses the phrase "presumed blood", because there had only been a "presumptive" test used on that piece of evidence.....

Presumed blood is the term used to describe:

- in Filomena's bedroom, small trace of presumed blood was found on the outer edge of the window, adjacent to the latch keeper.
- Exhibit 59, a white bra spotted with presumed-blood.
- the sweatshirt soaked with presumed blood
- the bathmat affected by traces of presumed blood
- presumed blood on the small bathroom lightswitch
- presumed blood from the washbasin in the small bathroom
- presumed blood from the edges of the bidet in the small bathroom
- Exhibit 139, presumed blood from the toilet seat​

Etcetera for another 5 instances in his report where it is, perhaps, safe to assume that what the luminol found was, indeed, blood.

The Nencini extends his reasoning (ie. "What is it if not blood?") to other things....

- Exhibit no. 183. This is a sample of presumed blood, the shape of which is compatible with that of a shoeprint, [which was] highlighted using the luminol technique, and found on the floor of the corridor, located between the rooms [sic] of the victim, and [pointing] in the direction of the latter’s room. The laboratory analyses gave the following results: “… Analysis of trace A relating to Exhibit no. 183 enabled the determination of a genetic profile derived from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood), belonging to at least two individuals, both of female gender.​

Nencini, if nothing else, shows himself as inferior to Judge Massei in describing this.... Judge Massei always makes it clear that it is Meredith's blood with Amanda's "biological material" mixed in. (And perhaps the reason why Massei is careful in stating things this way, is that the police never found a source for bleeding for Amanda.)

But Nencini leaves the door open for those who have claimed "mixed blood" all these years, when there is, in fact, no such thing; demonstrated or proven.

However, there are another 5 mentions in Nencini of "presumed blood", including a trace claimed to be found, presumed blood, in Filomena's room, containing traces of Meredith's and Amanda's biological material.

My view is that since Filomena was allowed into her own room following the murder, and once before the grisly discovery..... why is any of this forensicly interesting to the case against Knox an/or Sollecito?

When in court even the convicting judge is forced to use the term "presumed blood", because of the lack of a confirmatory test?

 

[tsig]

tsig,

Iron from rusty water; manganese or iron from soil; or manganese from plant matter. Or possibly residue from a cleaning solution. If it were from Meredith's blood then why were the majority of the spots negative for her DNA?
Luminol detects the possibility of blood. Some jurisdictions don't even let luminol evidence into the courtroom if that is all that the prosecution has. Why didn't the FP use an antibody-based confirmatory test?

Someone else was bleeding?

Why were any positive for her DNA?

 

[tsig]

Who cares? We know it wasn't blood.

Anyone who is truly searching for the truth.

We know there was blood in the house so it seems logical that it was blood.

 

[tsig]

Good grief! You can actually see, if you bother to look, that the hall radiator is leaking rusty water on to the hall floor!

One of the many non blood substances that luminol readily reacts with is there in the hall!

Can you see it? Can you?

It's no wonder the stuff lit up like a Christmas tree!

Makes you wonder why police use luminol at all if contamination is that easy and defense attorneys must get people acquitted all the time because of the unreliability of luminol.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are right about all this. Of course Ms Knox is not going to be hauled back to Italy regardless of what Cassation says in March. Applications for extradition are not made by Cassation. It is a matter for governments (unlike, the European Arrest warrant). The Italian government will not be so stupid.

Given the threat made in the fall of 2011 by folk such as Rocci Girlanda to investigate the Perugian bunch, and given the suspicion that the March 2013 ISC reversal of acquittals and the Jan 2014 re-conviction are heavily influenced by that......

..... it follows with this line of reasoning that there would still be many with influence on the political side of things who would not want this formally transferred to another jurisdiction - another country - for scrutiny.

Would Italy really want this whole mess back in the US media, with the intro, "A decade's-long Italian prosecution of an American student, who was twice convicted, but once acquitted is back in the news....." especially with all the Foxy Knoxy myth-making simply a relic of the past?

 

[Bill Williams]

Good grief! You can actually see, if you bother to look, that the hall radiator is leaking rusty water on to the hall floor!

One of the many non blood substances that luminol readily reacts with is there in the hall!

Can you see it? Can you?

It's no wonder the stuff lit up like a Christmas tree!

Makes you wonder why police use luminol at all if contamination is that easy and defense attorneys must get people acquitted all the time because of the unreliability of luminol.

It only makes you wonder if you are one of the ones who think it as sufficient that ONLY luminol would be used. From what I've read, luminol is a way of isolating the spots which should be further tested with a confirmatory test, so that the confirmatory test is not used all over the place, in places with no luminol hits.

It's not a matter of contamination. Luminol simply narrows the field. You might think that the luminol hits are "obviously blood", but what, then, do you make of the places where a confimatory test WAS used? And..... it was confirmed as "not blood"?

Makes you wonder why the confirmatory tests are needed if you can simply put people away for 25/28 years on nothing but luminol.

 

[Bill Williams]

tsig,

Iron from rusty water; manganese or iron from soil; or manganese from plant matter. Or possibly residue from a cleaning solution. If it were from Meredith's blood then why were the majority of the spots negative for her DNA?

Luminol detects the possibility of blood. Some jurisdictions don't even let luminol evidence into the courtroom if that is all that the prosecution has. Why didn't the FP use an antibody-based confirmatory test?

Someone else was bleeding?

Why were any positive for her DNA?

This is where you need to read Judge Massei's report. Judge Massei says that it was only Meredith's blood and only Knox's "biological material". Massei says this because he accepts that Knox was not bleeding.

Massei then hypothesizes that Knox's DNA came from skin cells sloughed-off in the act of cleaning Meredith's blood off of herself. And that these were chiefly found in the small bathroom with Meredith and Amanda shared!

Massei's attempt to answer your question simply raises two more questions.

- if Amanda was covered in Meredith's blood, why did her clothes not have Meredith's blood on them?
- If Amanda was covered in Meredith's blood, why is there not one single forensic item showing Knox in Meredith's room?​

One needs also to review the Scientific Police's own video showing their collection technique in the small bathroom. It raises the question, really, of why it is at all forensicly suspicious that Knox's DNA is in her own bathroom.

 

[Kauffer]

Disclosure

Doesn't seem that serious, especially if you consider that luminol prints were analyzed at the presence of Prof. Potenza and SALs were accessible throughout the investigation, and if you consider that TMB test is irrelevant. Also, you should consider that Stefanoni pointed out that they made a "series of other tests" on luminol stains at the beginning of her 2008 testimony.

.

They are just recorded as tested in a table, without any specification. But this is still irrelevant since they were tested at the presence of defence experts and magistrate. Prof. Potenza was there and could see and record exacly what was done.

.

This is a repetition of the above point. Prof. Potenza was there and he knew everything, the investigation judge was there, defence experts were summoned, the defences did not object. The omission of QBit fluorimeter from documentation cannot serve any malicious purpose, since we know the fluorimeter is less performative than the other techniques, and the defence expert of Sollecito knew the fluorineter was being employed.

- Samples marked as ‘cat blood’ were positive for human DNA[/

I don't see how you can see anything criminal I'm this. The samples were also positive to cat antibodies. They were taken from a bed sheet of a human, but yet the presence of human DNA is not certain. There was a testimony that there was a wounded cat. Now, these are questionable aspects of the investigation maybe, but I can't see something like a criminal intent.




Under suspicion of no offence. There is no elements for suspicion.
The above ones look like just complaints about documental imprecision or incompleteness, or (as for the cat) a criticism about investigation choices.

So just to be clear - are you saying that there is no question of non-disclosure here because the items omitted by Stefanoni from her report were known to the defence by other means - that Potenza knew about them, could inform the defence attorneys and that Stefanoni was able to be comprehensively cross examined on these points immediately she began her testimony?

Separately, can you cite one case either in Italy (you claim to know about the Italian legal environment), or elsewhere, where it has been known to the court that a luminol positive reaction has been followed by a TMB negative reaction and yet a conviction has been based in part or in whole on fact finding (in Italy) where the conclusion is a finding of blood in the samples or by jury verdict in common law systems?

Additionally, can you cite one academic paper or alternatively expert testimony where by experimentation or by some other reference, a bona fide, relevantly qualified scientist has stated that it is safe to conclude blood presence from a luminol positive/TMB negative test?

Furthermore, can you cite any study, forensic handbook or other literature which supports your contention that a TMB or some other equivalent second field test is an unnecessary test when the samples concerned are not submitted for confirmatory testing?

Do you agree that it is routine practice at crime scenes to follow up a luminol positive test with a second presumptive field test (TMB O Tolidine etc) and then only to proceed to confirmatory testing where the second test is positive for blood?

In what circumstances would you accept that a luminol positive reaction is not proof of blood?

 

[Kauffer]

Evidence

This is where you need to read Judge Massei's report. Judge Massei says that it was only Meredith's blood and only Knox's "biological material". Massei says this because he accepts that Knox was not bleeding.

Massei then hypothesizes that Knox's DNA came from skin cells sloughed-off in the act of cleaning Meredith's blood off of herself. And that these were chiefly found in the small bathroom with Meredith and Amanda shared!

Massei's attempt to answer your question simply raises two more questions.

- if Amanda was covered in Meredith's blood, why did her clothes not have Meredith's blood on them?
- If Amanda was covered in Meredith's blood, why is there not one single forensic item showing Knox in Meredith's room?​

One needs also to review the Scientific Police's own video showing their collection technique in the small bathroom. It raises the question, really, of why it is at all forensicly suspicious that Knox's DNA is in her own bathroom.

This is known as Locard's exchange principle. A perpetrator will leave evidence of him or herself at a crime scene and take evidence from the scene away with them. Not only was there no trace of Ms Knox in Ms Kercher's room - the only crime scene where the murder took place - but there was no incriminating trace found on Ms Knox's clothes and footwear. There is absolutely nothing to connect her to Meredith Kercher's bedroom, the murder or, for the night of November 1st, definitively, to the cottage. There are no samples of Ms Knox at the cottage that could not have been left, normally, at some other time.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anyone who is truly searching for the truth.

We know there was blood in the house so it seems logical that it was blood.

tsig, please try to keep up. We already knocked that one off several pages ago. Read up Galati on petitio principii. That's the logical error when you use your conclusion as a premise. It seems as though only pro-acquittal judges are not allowed to do this while the likes of Nencini (who adopts your reasoning) get a free pass.

• There was a lot of blood nearby
• Blood (among other things) causes luminol to react
• The luminol gave a reaction which could have been blood
• Therefore the luminol reacted with blood

is not a valid argument even if it did not miss out elements like the negative TMB, lies about TMB etc etc

 

[Diocletus]

Prof. Potenza was there and he knew everything, the investigation judge was there, defence experts were summoned, the defences did not object. The omission of QBit fluorimeter from documentation cannot serve any malicious purpose, since we know the fluorimeter is less performative than the other techniques, and the defence expert of Sollecito knew the fluorineter was being employed.

No. No one knew about the Flourometer use because it wasn't done during an incidente probatorio. Just like the re-runs of the knife and bra clasp--they were done after the incidente probatorio and were unknown to the defendants.

Samples marked as ‘cat blood’ were positive for human DNA. I don't see how you can see anything criminal I'm this. The samples were also positive to cat antibodies. They were taken from a bed sheet of a human, but yet the presence of human DNA is not certain.

There is no record of any antibody test, it's not even mentioned in the SALs. Also, contrary to your erroneous statement, the DNA is definitely human because it was detected by a human-specific process (RT-qPCR). Moreover, there are suppressed profiles derived from some of these spots.

Now, these are questionable aspects of the investigation maybe, but I can't see something like a criminal intent. Under suspicion of no offence. There is no elements for suspicion. The above ones look like just complaints about documental imprecision or incompleteness, or (as for the cat) a criticism about investigation choices.

When the prosecution deliberately hides exculpatory evidence, and then lies about it, most people consider that a crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

substrate controls would have helped

Someone else was bleeding?

Why were any positive for her DNA?

tsig,

Guede had cuts on his hands, so he might have been bleeding that night. How about providing a narrative that explains how the luminol-positive areas were formed in someone else's blood? Where are the wounds on Amanda or Raffaele? Maybe the FP should have done substrate controls nearby the luminol-positive areas. If DNA showed up there as well, then the association between the stains and the DNA looks spurious.