Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Thanks for bringing attention to the uncalled alleles! This e-gram makes very clear why "Doctor" Stefanoni would not release the EDFs - there is a lot of DNA evidence and/or contamination hiding in the electronic data files that she dares not reveal.

Exactly, those edfs will never be seen, Machiavelli expects they'll be destroyed as soon as the ISC rules, proving in this instance that the crime is worse than the cover-up.

To my eye, roughly estimating, the heights of the uncalled allele peaks in the 177 e-gram are about 100 RFU - well above the often used 50 RFU limit for noise.

Yes, and note from the electropherogram I (belatedly--had to edit it in because I forgot to link it initially) posted for the knife blade that most those alleles didn't even clear 50 RFUs, one is about 18 RFUs!

Lab Tech "Doctor" Stefanoni used her own never-validated LCN DNA method for the knife blade to call alleles when it suited the prosecution's purpose, and it would not be surprising if there were low levels of contamination DNA detectable in many of the EDFs.

Yep, and if we could get our hands on those edfs along with reference profiles for Stefanoni, the forensic technicians, the others at the discovery like Filomena and her boys as well as the postales then we could prove it. However Nencini refused to allow the edfs to be seen due to the bogus argument (or half truth) that the edfs couldn't prove contamination for an individual sample, however it could prove endemic contamination which is a huge danger doing low template work in a lab not suited for it and using procedures which weren't even followed correctly for high template work.

Bascially with low template work you're looking for contamination level DNA, thus you shouldn't be surprised to find it if you don't follow the protocols.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe, but that's no real help if there's no single easiest way in.

Also, there many burglars who chose to climb as high as a 3rd and 4 th floor or more. Nencini himself recognizes that this climb is Rudy's habitual MO. But bizarrely uses this as evidence that he actually didn't do it

No, they are not so many. They exist, but they are not many. In fact almost all burglaries from windows occur from a balcony or from an equivalent surface at the same level of the window where the burglar stands comfortably. And those burglars who are more expert at climbing, they are also more expert at choosing targets, they don't target students apartments but wealthy villas instead. But these are not the main points. The point is that anyway, burglars do not chose a more difficult way she they have an easier one. It is not impossible that someone does so in theory, but it usually doesn't happen, this is a logical indicator and you can't get around this.
Now, this in fact is just one, among a series of indicators which at there all at the same time.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, they are not so many. They exist, but they are not many. In fact almost all burglaries from windows occur from a balcony or from an equivalent surface at the same level of the window where the burglar stands comfortably. And those burglars who are more expert at climbing, they are also more expert at choosing targets, they don't target students apartments but wealthy villas instead. But these are not the main points. The point is that anyway, burglars do not chose a more difficult way she they have an easier one. It is not impossible that someone does so in theory, but it usually doesn't happen, this is a logical indicator and you can't get around this.
Now, this in fact is just one, among a series of indicators which at there all at the same time.

LOL!

Machiavelli, you talk about this as if it is an honourable, classically trained profession. I'll bet you advised Judge Nencini on how to view Rugy Guede, burglar extrordinaire!

I'm still giggling about what the fellow said in response to this:

"Why is it that a stupid burglar is not allowed to choose a stupid route into a building? Why does anyone with half-a-brain assume that looking at the break-in 'logically' has anything to do with ANY burglary."

I was stumped for an answer. Maybe Machiavelli can help!​

You have been singularly unhelpful. You promised to provide a link to the statistic which prove the random comments you've been making. Yet, all there is, is more random comments plucked out of thin air.

Hoots!

 

[Anode]

What a mélange of guilter crap. I see the universe in a grain of sand. The lamp is the whole case in microcosm. Let's look at each of your points:

• You did not hear the defensive theory because the defence does not have to explain away non-existent evidence.
• It was for the prosecution to test the lamp if it was considered to be of 'undoubted significance' (Nencini). You are suggesting that in a case in which the prosecution was intensely interested in finding forensic evidence of their presence in the room they nevertheless did not bother to consider this item of 'undoubted significance'? Are you expecting to be taken seriously?
• It makes sense that Battistelli in the 15 minutes or so he had before the real cops showed up wanted to view the scene in the darkened room in a way that interfered least. We know from Altieri (who had no reason to lie) that Battisteli (1) lifted the quilt to look at the victim and (2) lied about doing so. We therefore have a curious liar with the means and opportunity. That seems manifestly not idiotic at all.

How exactly does it show this? To me, it just shows an unplugged lamp lying on its side. Was the lamp damaged by having the door smashed against it? No. Is it likely the stagers plugged the lamp in, stretched the wire across the doorway, stepped across the wire but forgot the lamp they were stepping over when locking the door and throwing away the keys (Mignini's theory) leaving this incriminating item behind? Is it likely, if they did, that Amanda would not come up with something better than professed incomprehension? What was the lamp for again? To spotlight their DNA and prints wasn't it? Meredith had a working lamp, so they could use that.

The manifest idiocy is all on your side and that's being charitable. You have taken sides with liars and incompetents and the lamp proves it by itself.

Here's another thought: If the "stagers" brought the lamp in to do their staging, wouldn't they have turned it on? Was it still on when the police entered the room? If not then did the "stagers" remember to turn off the lamp but forget to put it back in Amanda's room? That seems unlikely...

 

[Planigale]

It's not that easy. You don't even know about all windows, neither you always have the same weather and wind conditions or noise disturb. And you won't reach any certain conclusion about what a human person would hear.
But anyway that's not what the defence requested. They only requested an audiometric test.

As said this is unclear what is meant, I agree testing the lady's hearing would not be of great use. If they meant acoustic testing I beg to differ. Acoustics is not my speciality but great deal is known of the behaviour of sound; from submarine hunting and under water surveying, geophysical surveying, modelling of sound propagation in concert halls around airports and roads together with how to change sound propagation. This site gives a bit of an over view of the profession http://www.acousticalconsulting.com/

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL!

Machiavelli, you talk about this as if it is an honourable, classically trained profession. I'll bet you advised Judge Nencini on how to view Rugy Guede, burglar extrordinaire!

I'm still giggling about what the fellow said in response to this:

​

You have been singularly unhelpful. You promised to provide a link to the statistic which prove the random comments you've been making. Yet, all there is, is more random comments plucked out of thin air.

Hoots!

In this case, it's quite clearly illogical and improper to come to the conclusion that any true burglar would necessarily have chosen the balcony door or window as a point of entry, and that therefore the broken window to Filomena's room has to be part of a staging. End of story.

But as many have already alluded to, why would there even be any need for Knox (and Sollecito) - if they indeed had been involved in the murder - to have broken the window and constructed a staged break-in in this way? The front door was notably unreliable. Why wouldn't Knox have left it that she found the front door open the following morning, and that either a) Kercher had mistakenly left the door unlocked upon her return, b) Kercher had been rushed by the intruder/killer as she returned to the cottage, or c) Kercher had been disturbed some time after arriving home by a knock/ring at the front door, had opened the door, and had therefore unwittingly let in her killer?

If Knox (and Sollecito) were indeed involved in the murder, this would have been a far, far safer way of allowing investigators to speculate on how the killer had got into the cottage. Furthermore, the bizarre "clean up" that's been proposed means that a guilty Knox (and Sollecito) would have had several hours to think clearly about things.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, they are not so many. They exist, but they are not many. In fact almost all burglaries from windows occur from a balcony or from an equivalent surface at the same level of the window where the burglar stands comfortably. And those burglars who are more expert at climbing, they are also more expert at choosing targets, they don't target students apartments but wealthy villas instead. But these are not the main points. The point is that anyway, burglars do not chose a more difficult way she they have an easier one. It is not impossible that someone does so in theory, but it usually doesn't happen, this is a logical indicator and you can't get around this.
Now, this in fact is just one, among a series of indicators which at there all at the same time.

I am going to try to be nice here. . . .

All appearances are that Rudy Guede was not an expert burglar however he was likely a good climber. The thing is that we can talk about averages and statistics but there is a lot of variation. Even if is is considered a difficult means of entry, he may have been simply being dumb or taking it as a challenge.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, Machiavelli, it's not a lie. As for the profile, do you know how to read an electropherogram? Here's a brief primer:

Look at the electropherogram for sample 177. In the first locus (D8S1179) in the top left-hand corner you see 4 'bars' (peaks) with boxes beneath them. The top numbers (11, 12, 13, 16) are the number of repeats, that's what is used to identify an allele, which is what you're trying to 'match' to someone's reference profile. The bottom numbers in the boxes (173, 215, 531, 402) are the RFU level, the relative 'strength' of the result, which also corresponds with the scale at the left where 400 (RFUs) is denoted. As you can see, there's other little blue 'bumps' at the bottom that don't have boxes, these are the ones that Stefanoni didn't want to 'call'--not unlike with the other 2-4 contributors to the bra clasp. These suggest that people other than Meredith and Amanda contributed to this sample. Now look at Meredith and Amanda's reference profiles, as you can see Meredith has 13 and 16 repeats at D8S1179, Amanda has 11 and 12. However there's also those little 'bumps' at 10, 14 and 15 (on the electropherogram for 177). The one at 14 might be stutter as it's in position (one after 13 where there's an allele) but the 10 and 15 aren't in stutter position as there's no alleles in the position one previous.

That suggests that there's at least one other contributor to that sample. However as people can share alleles (even with themselves--meaning they got the same one from both parents like Meredith at CSF1PO where she has two 'twelves' and Amanda at D7S820 where she has two 'nines') there won't necessarily be two unique alleles for each contributor, often they will be 'shared' by one or more people. From the example previous where Meredith has two 'twelves' (CSF1PO) you can see Amanda also has a 'twelve' to go along with her 'eleven.' Thus despite knowing that Meredith and Amanda contributed, there's only two alleles called though again there's little bumps which might also be low RFU alleles but you'd need the peak heights and areas from the edfs to determine that and 'zoom in' like Stefanoni did on the knife blade. As you can see here (scroll down to the one entitled 'Blade Chart, Color') that electropherogram shows the RFU scale on the left where the numbers are (for the top loci) 18, 36 and 54 (RFUs) as opposed to the previous chart (Rep 177) which had 400 in the middle and hashmarks for 200 and 600. Point being that those 'little bumps' look a lot bigger when you zoom in on them and if you're going to do that for one piece of evidence you have to do it for them all otherwise you're just cherry picking.



That doesn't remedy the fact she tried to hide them and was caught when her paperwork belied her RTIGF and statements in court.



They asked for 'all data' pertaining to the DNA evidence, that obviously means the data used to generate the charts!

All what you say has nothing to do with your allegation against Dr. Stefanoni, there is not a single fact there to support your false allegation that Stefanoni lied or hid results.
Stefanoni presented the e-grams when she was requested - this is information that comes from her, that she did not hide, but rather provided to the defence, even if the defence failed to do their request she it was due time - the simple and true fact, that you try to dance from your consciousness, together with all its legal and thus factual implications, is that the defenses did not request such documentation when it was due time for evidence documentation.

Now all your defensive complaints are nothing but complaints about documenting and providing documentation. That is what the defence decided not to do, every time when they were invited to do so.
The defence experts did not request to access Stefanoni's laboratory - thus did not come to access the raw data about the knife - not even when a phase of trial discussion (rinnovazione dibattimentale) was re-opened by Hellmann. Prosecution expert Novelli did go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data, the defence experts did not.
Not even Vecchiotti requested raw data, insofar we know she said she had obtained all what she had requested.

So the simple truth is the defence did not document the incidente probatorio and did not access the laboratory despite they were told Stefanoni would grant the access, they never did so for over 7 months, all the time when they could have access, until June 2008.

And all what the defence complain about is nothing but documentation. When we know the reason why they don't have some information, is precisely because they never wanted information. They were never interested in documenting evidence, when they could do that with no problem.

So Stefanoni never hid anything, and she never "tried to hide" anything neither, since there is absolutely no element to state so. What you can only say, is that when she was requested SALs, she provided those that she kept, and all what you know from them, you know because she chose to let you know it since she provided the SALs herself testifying the were authentic documentation. This is all you can't say: no element to say she was attempting to hide documentation information she provided herself!

Besides, it is also not true that she ever testified something false about such documentation, in fact in her 2008 testimony she herself says "we made several tests" beyond luminol on the footprints. This is what she says herself, without even being questioned about it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am going to try to be nice here. . . .

All appearances are that Rudy Guede was not an expert burglar however he was likely a good climber. The thing is that we can talk about averages and statistics but there is a lot of variation. Even if is is considered a difficult means of entry, he may have been simply being dumb or taking it as a challenge.

Your line of argumentation is weak. You can't avoid the existence of an indicator. Which happens to be one among a series all pointing to staging.
The easiest way was another one, this is a fact.
But also, there are issues of consistency. Something is not fluid, not natural. Think about the way the window was broken: by throwing a rock. It is awkward, not something that speaks about agility. Even imagine the further awkwardness of climbing twice, first to open the shutter, climb down then pick and throw a rock from the garden walk downstairs to climb again.
You are an agile climber; you may climb and open the window in thirty seconds. How would you break the pane? I guess you would do that immediately with a hammer or a stick or a metal bar. Would you pick a 4 kg rock from the garden, and maybe climb with that in a hand?
You come to something that is either illogical (climbing with a stone) or awkward; something not consistent with the assumption of an agile burglar.

But thus is just, let's say, about the first appearance. Inconsistency of alleged burglary with evidence and evidence of staging is deep and from multiple indicators, as I said.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly, those edfs will never be seen, Machiavelli expects they'll be destroyed as soon as the ISC rules, proving in this instance that the crime is worse than the cover-up.



Yes, and note from the electropherogram I (belatedly--had to edit it in because I forgot to link it initially) posted for the knife blade that most those alleles didn't even clear 50 RFUs, one is about 18 RFUs!



Yep, and if we could get our hands on those edfs along with reference profiles for Stefanoni, the forensic technicians, the others at the discovery like Filomena and her boys as well as the postales then we could prove it. However Nencini refused to allow the edfs to be seen due to the bogus argument (or half truth) that the edfs couldn't prove contamination for an individual sample, however it could prove endemic contamination which is a huge danger doing low template work in a lab not suited for it and using procedures which weren't even followed correctly for high template work.

Bascially with low template work you're looking for contamination level DNA, thus you shouldn't be surprised to find it if you don't follow the protocols.

For the knife blade e-gram (ID 771-200047330) I see 22 alleles called at less than 50 RFU, 5 at more than 50, and 1 double allele at more than 50. The lowest peak called is for the D75S820 allele at 15 RFU. If one looks carefully at the seeming clutter of noise, there are some additional very small peaks. I don't know if these are from other contaminantion or noise artifacts.

Briefly inspecting some of the available e-grams, some have peaks of several thousand RFUs; on that scale, DNA contamination of about 10 to 50 RFUs would not be distinguishable on the e-gram, but could be present. Only the EDFs could show the true state of the data.

 

[Kaosium]

All what you say has nothing to do with your allegation against Dr. Stefanoni, there is not a single fact there to support your false allegation that Stefanoni lied or hid results.
Stefanoni presented the e-grams when she was requested - this is information that comes from her, that she did not hide, but rather provided to the defence, even if the defence failed to do their request she it was due time - the simple and true fact, that you try to dance from your consciousness, together with all its legal and thus factual implications, is that the defenses did not request such documentation when it was due time for evidence documentation.

Now all your defensive complaints are nothing but complaints about documenting and providing documentation. That is what the defence decided not to do, every time when they were invited to do so.
The defence experts did not request to access Stefanoni's laboratory - thus did not come to access the raw data about the knife - not even when a phase of trial discussion (rinnovazione dibattimentale) was re-opened by Hellmann. Prosecution expert Novelli did go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data, the defence experts did not.
Not even Vecchiotti requested raw data, insofar we know she said she had obtained all what she had requested.

So the simple truth is the defence did not document the incidente probatorio and did not access the laboratory despite they were told Stefanoni would grant the access, they never did so for over 7 months, all the time when they could have access, until June 2008.

And all what the defence complain about is nothing but documentation. When we know the reason why they don't have some information, is precisely because they never wanted information. They were never interested in documenting evidence, when they could do that with no problem.

So Stefanoni never hid anything, and she never "tried to hide" anything neither, since there is absolutely no element to state so. What you can only say, is that when she was requested SALs, she provided those that she kept, and all what you know from them, you know because she chose to let you know it since she provided the SALs herself testifying the were authentic documentation. This is all you can't say: no element to say she was attempting to hide documentation information she provided herself!

Besides, it is also not true that she ever testified something false about such documentation, in fact in her 2008 testimony she herself says "we made several tests" beyond luminol on the footprints. This is what she says herself, without even being questioned about it.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. The defense asked for the documentation for the results and didn't get what little it did until after July 30th, 2009 for a trial that started around October of 2008. They complained they didn't receive all the documentation they needed (as per Massei) and asked that independent experts be appointed to evaluate the DNA evidence for the appeal. Those independent experts asked for all data pertaining to the bra clasp and knife blade and did not receive what little they did until after their commission expired, requiring an extension. Do you remember when I quoted and showed the dates of when they received the data including peak area from Stefanoni and how it was after their original commission expired? Do you recall posting the part of the transcript where Vecchiotti noted that the defense wanted the EDFs too? Do you recall the ridiculous lies told by Comodi about how including the EDFs (a CD) would make the case file too large? Chris Halkides was posting about the edfs from nearly the time he started posting on this case here, which was December of 2009, and he is in contact with the defense consultants and knows what they wanted and why.

Regarding the TMB negatives, she did those tests in December of 2008 and omitted them from her comprehensive technical report, the RTIGF and it wasn't discovered they existed until that July 30th, 2009 disclosure dump for a trial that was mostly over (all of August is a recess).

You can go into 'Deny Everything' mode as that keeps the dingbats and dupes in line, but you and I know better. This type of nonsense won't work with the sorts of people who'll be looking at this case in the future, they're more than familiar with corrupt officials and recognize 'Deny Everything' mode.

 

[Numbers]

All what you say has nothing to do with your allegation against Dr. Stefanoni, there is not a single fact there to support your false allegation that Stefanoni lied or hid results.
Stefanoni presented the e-grams when she was requested - this is information that comes from her, that she did not hide, but rather provided to the defence, even if the defence failed to do their request she it was due time - the simple and true fact, that you try to dance from your consciousness, together with all its legal and thus factual implications, is that the defenses did not request such documentation when it was due time for evidence documentation.

Now all your defensive complaints are nothing but complaints about documenting and providing documentation. That is what the defence decided not to do, every time when they were invited to do so.
The defence experts did not request to access Stefanoni's laboratory - thus did not come to access the raw data about the knife - not even when a phase of trial discussion (rinnovazione dibattimentale) was re-opened by Hellmann. Prosecution expert Novelli did go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data, the defence experts did not.
Not even Vecchiotti requested raw data, insofar we know she said she had obtained all what she had requested.

So the simple truth is the defence did not document the incidente probatorio and did not access the laboratory despite they were told Stefanoni would grant the access, they never did so for over 7 months, all the time when they could have access, until June 2008.

And all what the defence complain about is nothing but documentation. When we know the reason why they don't have some information, is precisely because they never wanted information. They were never interested in documenting evidence, when they could do that with no problem.

So Stefanoni never hid anything, and she never "tried to hide" anything neither, since there is absolutely no element to state so. What you can only say, is that when she was requested SALs, she provided those that she kept, and all what you know from them, you know because she chose to let you know it since she provided the SALs herself testifying the were authentic documentation. This is all you can't say: no element to say she was attempting to hide documentation information she provided herself!

Besides, it is also not true that she ever testified something false about such documentation, in fact in her 2008 testimony she herself says "we made several tests" beyond luminol on the footprints. This is what she says herself, without even being questioned about it.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/e...t-to-the-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case/

The ECHR has ruled trials unfair - not in accordance with Convention Article 6 - where the court and prosecution did not provide documentation, including computer records, that the defense has requested be put into evidence. It is also an obligation of the domestic court to assure that the defense is given the documentation, facilities, and time to prepare a proper defense.

The “facilities” which everyone charged with a criminal offence should enjoy include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence containing items that could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced may constitute a refusal of the facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3(b) of the Convention. The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons.

Natunen v. Finland 21022/04 § 43; Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece 59506/00 (as 6.3d) § 36-39; Laska & Lika v. Albania 12315/04 § 70; Leas v. Estonia 59577/08 § 76-89; Kuopila v. Finland 27752/95 § 38

Article 6 § 3(b) of the Convention concerns two elements of a proper defence, namely the question of facilities and that of time. This provision implies that the substantive defence activity on the accused’s behalf may comprise everything which is “necessary” to prepare the trial. The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the ability to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings. When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and the stage of the proceedings.

Gregačević v. Croatia 58331/09 § 51

 

[Desert Fox]

Your line of argumentation is weak. You can't avoid the existence of an indicator. Which happens to be one among a series all pointing to staging.
The easiest way was another one, this is a fact.
But also, there are issues of consistency. Something is not fluid, not natural. Think about the way the window was broken: by throwing a rock. It is awkward, not something that speaks about agility. Even imagine the further awkwardness of climbing twice, first to open the shutter, climb down then pick and throw a rock from the garden walk downstairs to climb again.
You are an agile climber; you may climb and open the window in thirty seconds. How would you break the pane? I guess you would do that immediately with a hammer or a stick or a metal bar. Would you pick a 4 kg rock from the garden, and maybe climb with that in a hand?
You come to something that is either illogical (climbing with a stone) or awkward; something not consistent with the assumption of an agile burglar.

But thus is just, let's say, about the first appearance. Inconsistency of alleged burglary with evidence and evidence of staging is deep and from multiple indicators, as I said.

Granted, he is on the pro innocence but why should I believe your position over a forensic engineer? I could repeat what he wrote but what is the point, you can read his stuff already.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

Edit: Looking at pictures of the rock, being that it broke easily, it is a soft rock which indicates it was not granite.
Looks like it is the size of an average brick. 4 kg seems a bit much for its weight. I would think 2 or 3 kg is far more likely.

 

[Kaosium]

For the knife blade e-gram (ID 771-200047330) I see 22 alleles called at less than 50 RFU, 5 at more than 50, and 1 double allele at more than 50. The lowest peak called is for the D75S820 allele at 15 RFU. If one looks carefully at the seeming clutter of noise, there are some additional very small peaks. I don't know if these are from other contaminantion or noise artifacts.

Briefly inspecting some of the available e-grams, some have peaks of several thousand RFUs; on that scale, DNA contamination of about 10 to 50 RFUs would not be distinguishable on the e-gram, but could be present. Only the EDFs could show the true state of the data.

Well you've got this down!

Question for you: what do you think the odds are that the ECHR might want to 'make a statement' on low template DNA work? Perhaps something like (but hopefully not limited to) requiring the release of edfs for cases with DNA work? A little while back I came across the McCann case where the DNA work by Portuguese officials was even worse than Stefanoni's in some respects, thus there might well be a need for it.

 

[Numbers]

Well you've got this down!

Question for you: what do you think the odds are that the ECHR might want to 'make a statement' on low template DNA work? Perhaps something like (but hopefully not limited to) requiring the release of edfs for cases with DNA work? A little while back I came across the McCann case where the DNA work by Portuguese officials was even worse than Stefanoni's in some respects, thus there might well be a need for it.

I think, based on my reading of cases, that ECHR will take note of the issue of DNA reliability, but not say anything too specifically technical. They will reiterate their position that the ECHR does not determine the reliability of evidence, but judges:

1) whether the way reliability of evidence was evaluated was fair,

2) whether the way the evidence was used was fair, and

3) whether any unfairness in (1) or (2) affected the fairness of a conviction.

And ECHR will repeat that their responsibility under the Convention is to judge whether or not a conviction is fair; if unfair, then the State has violated the Convention (Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial).

They would probably judge for this particular case that denial to provide the EDFs to the defense was a violation of providing all necessary facilities to the defense, a violation of Convention Article 6.3b. This would have the effect of creating a clear precedent for providing the EDFs to the defense.

ECHR will - if it sees the need - look to documents and standards from international organizations, perform a comparison of the standards used in Council of Europe States (that is, if they have formal standards), and from other countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc. that either have government or national NGO (for example, forensic or bar association) standards. ECHR may also rely on third-party (friend of the Court) experts, if it authorizes them to submit documents. In the judgment, they could request the Committee of Ministers to formulate, or to get an international organization to formulate, standards.

As an example of the scope of ECHR research, in one case I read, which had little direct relevance to the AK-RS case, but was about alleged WWII war crimes in a Baltic state, for which a person was recently convicted. The ECHR researched treaties and documents relating to treatment of civilians, especially women and children, in war. The research reached back to the US Civil War, finding a Union document from 1863 emphasizing that civilians even in war zones are not to be harmed.

(In that case, IIRC, the ECHR judgment was that the conviction of the applicant for the war crime of murdering the wives of the men he had been ordered to execute was fair.)

 

[Bill Williams]

In this case, it's quite clearly illogical and improper to come to the conclusion that any true burglar would necessarily have chosen the balcony door or window as a point of entry, and that therefore the broken window to Filomena's room has to be part of a staging. End of story.

But as many have already alluded to, why would there even be any need for Knox (and Sollecito) - if they indeed had been involved in the murder - to have broken the window and constructed a staged break-in in this way? The front door was notably unreliable. Why wouldn't Knox have left it that she found the front door open the following morning, and that either a) Kercher had mistakenly left the door unlocked upon her return, b) Kercher had been rushed by the intruder/killer as she returned to the cottage, or c) Kercher had been disturbed some time after arriving home by a knock/ring at the front door, had opened the door, and had therefore unwittingly let in her killer?
If Knox (and Sollecito) were indeed involved in the murder, this would have been a far, far safer way of allowing investigators to speculate on how the killer had got into the cottage. Furthermore, the bizarre "clean up" that's been proposed means that a guilty Knox (and Sollecito) would have had several hours to think clearly about things.

..... and the only reasonable explanation left, then, is that the condition of Filomena's room is as the result of a burglary.

Yet when Battistelli was shown the room, and he said, "this is no burglary," is is technically correct. The actual burglary was forgotten about upon the poor victim's arrival.

But your point is right on the money: there were so many other things for a guilty-Knox to do other than fake a burglary - coincidentally in a manner Judge Nencini says was recognizable to the local police as Rudy Guede's M.O.!!!!!

And then there's the lamp. Machiavelli will not tell anyone what the lamp was used for in his rather unsystematic, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants scenario.

I think it was used to separate Knox's/Sollecito's DNA from Guede's.

 

[Kaosium]

I think, based on my reading of cases, that ECHR will take note of the issue of DNA reliability, but not say anything too specifically technical. They will reiterate their position that the ECHR does not determine the reliability of evidence, but judges:

1) whether the way reliability of evidence was evaluated was fair,

2) whether the way the evidence was used was fair, and

3) whether any unfairness in (1) or (2) affected the fairness of a conviction.

And ECHR will repeat that their responsibility under the Convention is to judge whether or not a conviction is fair; if unfair, then the State has violated the Convention (Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial).

ECHR will - if it sees the need - look to documents and standards from international organizations, perform a comparison of the standards used in Council of Europe States (that is, if they have formal standards), and from other countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc. that either have government or national NGO (for example, forensic or bar association) standards. ECHR may also rely on third-party (friend of the Court) experts, if it authorizes them to submit documents. In the judgment, they could request the Committee of Ministers to formulate, or to get an international organization to formulate, standards.

As an example, in one case I read, which had little direct relevance to the AK-RS case, but was about alleged WWII war crimes in a Baltic state, for which a person was recently convicted. The ECHR researched treaties and documents relating to treatment of civilians, especially women and children, in war. The research reached back to the US Civil War, finding a Union document from 1863 emphasizing that civilians even in war zones are not to be harmed.

(In that case, IIRC, the ECHR judgment was that the conviction of the applicant for the murder of the wives of the men he had been ordered to execute was fair, and constituted a war crime.)

That's interesting, especially the bit about looking into American Civil War history for a case involving a Baltic state that was adjudicated by a European entity. I imagine this might be where ABA standards would apply, and of course ENFSI standards listed by Conti and Vecchiotti.

 

[TomB]

Burglars often have odd MOs. It's dumb to say one what one would NEVER do.

Here's an example of a burglar whose MO was to use a rock to break bedroom windows:

A burglary victim spoke with a sometimes trembling voice about how she and her husband came home from a trip to Israel in 1999 to find a ladder against the house, a rock in their bedroom and more than $25,000 in jewelry and heirlooms gone.

...

Neese eluded capture during a 12-year crime spree in which he preyed on hundreds of homes in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and other East Valley cities before he was arrested in 2011. He targeted master bedrooms and bathrooms because those are seldom protected by burglar alarms, Rand said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/07/arizona-rock-burglar-sentence/2629175/

Using the rock to break the window is actually a fairly clever plan. Particularly if you are targeting a side window.

1- It accomplishes the necessary task without the burglar being at the window or even directly at the side of the house.

2- That part of the operation makes the most noise. A burglar can break the window and then wait and see if any attention is drawn. This eliminates being surprised by an unexpected occupant.

3- Ensures no alarms are sounded. If an alarm goes of, burglar walks away. (I don't know the prevalence of alarms in Italy. In the U.S. they are common even in relatively lower income areas.

4- If there are bystanders nearby that might see the burglary, this will draw them out, allowing the burglar to be fairly sure the area is clear before proceeding to proceed to points where it is harder to walk away.

I used to live next door to a professional thief who had just been released from prison.. He had all kinds of stories for how things were done. Commercial, he preferred to go in through the roof, I think. Residential, he said he would show up in a delivery van with some bogus temporary logo on it (Bob's TV repair), pull into your driveway, force your front door and wave to your neighbors as he and his partner load your projection screen TV onto the truck. (It was the 90s. He used that example because of our big 300 pound projection screen TV.) He got caught when he stole a safe out of someone's garage. His mistake was that he hired a high school kid as an accomplice who went to school and bragged to his friends.

By the way, the judge who said that the EDFs were not useful because they can't determine the contamination of the individual sample doesn't know what he is talking about. It's often impossible to detect contamination from a single sample record. But you determine the quality of the sequence by looking at the baseline and the results of known samples and blank samples run with a routine frequency. The quality of your data is inferred from the recoveries of the known samples and the cleanliness of the blanks. We have shut down instruments for weeks trying to fix noisy baseline problems.

 

[Samson]

Granted, he is on the pro innocence but why should I believe your position over a forensic engineer? I could repeat what he wrote but what is the point, you can read his stuff already.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

Edit: Looking at pictures of the rock, being that it broke easily, it is a soft rock which indicates it was not granite.
Looks like it is the size of an average brick. 4 kg seems a bit much for its weight. I would think 2 or 3 kg is far more likely.

It is actually the weight of a female competition shot put about 4 kg. Maximum launch velocity 28 mph to achieve 20 metres.

 

[Machiavelli]

Granted, he is on the pro innocence but why should I believe your position over a forensic engineer? I could repeat what he wrote but what is the point, you can read his stuff already.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

Edit: Looking at pictures of the rock, being that it broke easily, it is a soft rock which indicates it was not granite.
Looks like it is the size of an average brick. 4 kg seems a bit much for its weight. I would think 2 or 3 kg is far more likely.

Sorry, but the article doesn't say anything except that a rock has flown through the glass and has impacted against the inner shutter.
This proves nothing.

What - surprisingly - the author doesn't seem to notice, is that the paper bag partly containing the rock has fallen on top of a piece of clothing.
This implies, that the cloth must have been thrown on the floor before the rock was thrown, not after.
Also points out that Filomena found her laptop had been moved, was fallen and lying on its side. Yet the glass was on top of it.

The rock was 3.8 kilograms as for the police report IIRC, but there was also a second smaller piece of rock (it had broken on impact).