Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Really? Italy has no mechanism for investigating prisoner beating unless the prisoner files a complaint against the cops? I say you're full of crap.

For beating, without complaint, impossible.

Not even rape can be prosecuted without a victim's complaint.
-

I think Mach might be right. Even here in the US, there are a lot of things LE can't do (depending on local, state, and federal laws) unless someone files a complaint. Rape is one of them and so is simple assault.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think Mach is right,

d

-
 
Mignini failed to protect his prisoner

For beating, without complaint, impossible.

Not even rape can be prosecuted without a victim's complaint.

Mach, Mignini ordered Knox detained, didn't he? He at that moment took on authority over her, pending formalizing it by a magistrate.

The moment he learned she was alleging that she had been struck that night by a police officer he should have ensured her physical safety by compartmenting her from the police officer in question and that officer's squad companions and friends who might by virtue of their professional and personal relationship seek to take action against the detainee. If Mignini did not have the authority to actually issue instructions on how she was to be jailed and in what facility she was to be jailed, then he should have demanded the police chief or a warden do so or go immediately before a magistrate and requested the magistrate issue orders to protect the prisoner. Mignini failed to protect his charge from her alleged assailant. He should have secured/compartmented her away from any potential police assailant. He left a prisoner exposed.

Knox clearly was at that time not able to understand Italian legal process on how to protect herself from police assault or how to make a proper complaint or to whom to make it. As a foreigner in detention who did not speak much of the language or understand processes, she needed the immediately advise of an Italian attorney to guide her in this. However, it was Mignini himself who denied her access to an attorney. At least he should have connected her to an attorney to address the immediate alleged violence against her by a policewoman inside police headquarters where Knox was being detained on Mignini's orders.

I think what we have here is Mignini working hand-in-hand with the police, and Mignini benefiting from their improper actions against Knox that night. He should have taken action rather than protect the police.
 
Last edited:
Nencini admitted he was clueless about DNA. It's on page 22-23 questioning the RIS experts.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Berti-Barni-Testimony.pdf

[qimg]https://casomeredithkercher.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nencini-knows-nothing-about-dna.jpg[/qimg]

There are many pro guilt people realising Nencini's cluelessness about many issues since they translated his report. Some of them have been very vocal about it actually. Of course the big concern is that given the ISC judges get to spend, on average, only 12 minutes per case ( as analysed recently by one very clever person!) we have to hope they see the anomalies also.
 
There are many pro guilt people realising Nencini's cluelessness about many issues since they translated his report. Some of them have been very vocal about it actually. Of course the big concern is that given the ISC judges get to spend, on average, only 12 minutes per case ( as analysed recently by one very clever person!) we have to hope they see the anomalies also.

12 minutes....thats less than Nencinis Fast Food Trial...

Somehow, the Guiltards early on decided there were a bunch of people who killed Meredith, they will not budge from this belief, this superstition.

Rudy is obvious, and who else could it be then with Rudy? but Amanda and Raffaele!

Some might ask "Where is the proof more people were involved?"
But many don't ask that.

With 12 minutes, the ISC might not have time to ask any questions.
 
There are many pro guilt people realising Nencini's cluelessness about many issues since they translated his report. Some of them have been very vocal about it actually. Of course the big concern is that given the ISC judges get to spend, on average, only 12 minutes per case ( as analysed recently by one very clever person!) we have to hope they see the anomalies also.

And this is a trivial case so 12 minutes will be a stretch :rolleyes:
 
If the Supreme Court would have wanted to endorse national pride, it would have been very easy for them to do pursue that goal by upholding Hellmann's verdict.
The Hellmann-Zanetti court was a national Appeals Court, it looked good in the eyes of American media, they could have easilly used it to make the judicial system look good, especially if they believed it had come truly to the right and legally correct verdict.

This would have happened if the Supreme Court were after national pride, of course.

That's an interesting POV. While it would have been immensely to Italy's credit in the long run had the March 2013 ISC acted correctly, the short-term humiliation of the Hellman verdict, for the Mignini faction within the judiciary, was such that it couldn't have been allowed to stand. Italy will inevitably face ultimate humiliation at the ECtHR, but clearly putting that off for however many years was preferable to the ISC in March 2013.

Of course, the faulty nature of the prosecution against Amanda and Raff is far easier to see than the fractional fingertip contact of the Italian rugby player, and it was laid plain for all to see during the Hellman appeal trial. Illegal "fact-finding" by the March 2013 court, and the making-up of new facts at the subsequent rigged trial, don't alter any of that.
 
When Machiavelli is about next, would great to get his opinion on these words from retired Italian Judge Edoardo Mori.

. " in the case of Perugia there was something unusual and never seen before that three defendants in opposition to one another, it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. "

Thanks in advance Mach!
 
But, if you believe the Supreme Court wold be ready to "cover up" alleged false evidence findings, your belief would equate to assuming that the Italian Supreme Court normally doesn't pursue justice at all, that it is rather a kind of Mafia power who would act systematically with the utmost contempt of truth and justice, actually with the purpose of pursueing injustice.

This is all too reminiscent of the statements of Lord Denning, with regard to the unravelling case against the Birmingham Six. The implications of facing up to the truth are so horrible that maintaining the pretence becomes of overriding importance.

Machiavelli - it's no good saying "if what you say is true, then it means that the Italian justice is corrupt". The March 2013 ISC ruling cannot be reconciled with either legality or justice.

They openly went outside their remit by ruling on Hellman's interpretation of evidence: "Hellman underestimated the DNA evidence." No, he didn't, and the Conti-Vecchiotti report shows exactly why.

Now we have the Nencini ruling, blatantly making up his own facts. We even have a categorical statement from the Rome scientific police, stating that Stefanoni's single isolated test, claiming the presence of Meredith's DNA, is not sufficient for the knife to be considered the murder weapon. Yet Nencinci uses it in his ruling, inventing a match with the bloodstain on the sheet, and stating the presence of Raff's DNA on it without any investigative basis whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Italy plays rugby? Who knew. Where did they find 11 guys who don't live in mama's basement?

Just to make it really difficult, Rugby Union is played 15-a-side. But yes, the annual 5-Nations tournament (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France) became the 6 Nations, what - 15 years ago (?) - with the addition of Italy who were already an established international side, though rather in the second tier in terms of reputation.

One of their noted achievements in the early years was to beat Wales at Rugby in the same week that Wales beat Italy at Soccer.
 
If the Supreme Court would have wanted to endorse national pride, it would have been very easy for them to do pursue that goal by upholding Hellmann's verdict.
The Hellmann-Zanetti court was a national Appeals Court, it looked good in the eyes of American media, they could have easilly used it to make the judicial system look good, especially if they believed it had come truly to the right and legally correct verdict.

This would have happened if the Supreme Court were after national pride, of course.

Originally Posted by Desert Fox
While I don't think it is the only reason, it would have put the forensic evidence for thousands of trials under scrutiny.

MACH: That's a theory. Unproven. But if the case was that the outcome "thousands of trials" would be lost, that would look like a matter of public security, rather than of national pride, don't you think? And possibly, a matter of jurisprudence and justice.

But, if you believe the Supreme Court wold be ready to "cover up" alleged false evidence findings, your belief would equate to assuming that the Italian Supreme Court normally doesn't pursue justice at all, that it is rather a kind of Mafia power who would act systematically with the utmost contempt of truth and justice, actually with the purpose of pursueing injustice.

Hi DF, - Others have pointed to Chieffi's comment on this in his reversal of Hellman (Bill quoted it a few comments up). But I think this is an exaggeration.

The DNA issue of single run LCN DNA, with lab data and notes suppressed, relates to the two pieces of DNA evidence in this case, Raf on the bra clasp and Meredith of the knife blade.

But it doesn't invalidate finding that were consistent with regular protocols, does it? Does anyone doubt the findings on Guede are accurate? I think Chieffi's histrionics are just an excuse to invoke institutional defensiveness on the part of the judiciary and law enforcement to justify the opinion in this case. I don't even think its a serious opinion, meaning Chieffi himself doesn't even believe it.

The notion that 'a route of DNA contamination must be proven' before a DNA result can be questioned, would disarm any defense from asserting a false DNA finding from contamination in Italy. It's an irrational standard that cannot survive scrutiny. Its only a matter of when that Chieffi's Italian "judicial innovation" that rejects science will be over-turned - either in this case now before cassation in March, or if need be when it gets before ECHR in the event of a final conviction. But it obviously can't last.

Italy can make wrong decisions based on evidence all day long, and deny justice to individual defendants. But they can't disregard science and deny justice to defendants en masse as a matter of law and judicial privilege.

MACH - Your analysis regarding Chieffi's reversal of Hellman is spot on, imo. (I understand you're not stating this as your belief, but it well phrases mine. SO, grazie.)
 
There are many pro guilt people realising Nencini's cluelessness about many issues since they translated his report. Some of them have been very vocal about it actually. Of course the big concern is that given the ISC judges get to spend, on average, only 12 minutes per case ( as analysed recently by one very clever person!) we have to hope they see the anomalies also.

During the March 2013 ISC hearing the judges had 15 cases to decide. They deferred their decision on Meredith's case until the next day (the consensus being they needed more time). Obviously there were more than 12 minutes alloted for this case.
 
carbonjam72,

I don't think that Nencini knows what YSTR DNA profiling is. But even with the lower bound figure of two male contributors besides Sollecito, Giacomo could not account for more than one of the two. Moreover, it is appalling that Nencini was able to claim that Giacomo was a contributor without evidence. Judges should not be allowed to engage in pure speculation. Finally, two additional contributors is a lower bound. If Stefanoni gets to count peaks below 50 RFU for the clasp, why not count them here? That increases the number of contributors.

Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure whether Raf was included in the count of 2-4 extra males, but now I see he isn't.

I'm not disputing the unfairness or inaccuracy of Nenicini's opinion. I am disputing that its the result of erroneous reasoning or honest mistakes, rather than a simply corrupt intent to manufacture a guilty verdict without regard to evidence, truth, or justice.

These aren't mistakes of logic, reason or analysis. It's just an excuse to support a guilty finding, beginning with the cassation imperative that Guede killed Meredith along with others, and Curatolo must be believed.

It's not that Nencini doesn't understand what he's doing. I think he does, in the legalistic sense. His knowledge of DNA I don't doubt isn't particularly high (nor is mine), but I don't believe he will intentionally attribute a female as a "Y" DNA source, because someone would stop him from doing it.

I don't think he did actually this, and the actual answer can only be found in going back to what he actually wrote. Which means we (or I anyway) must rely on someone's translation.

We did this exercise up thread, courtesy of vibio (I know, consider the source). But we parsed the language carefully, and it didn't look like Nencini really dropped the "Y" bomb.

The logical consequence of their being 2-4 EXTRA male contributors, implies that Nencini's verdict in reality does leave him 'one man short' at least. But its an error that exists in contradiction to the evidence as it was submitted in court, NOT as Nencini purports the evidence to be. (am I being clear about this?).

Nenicini's appeal, it has been pointed out, appears to have been written by different people in different parts. Not the cohesive work of one person. Attributing a female to a "Y" DNA source is a mistake of a different class.

I don't think Nencini intentionally did this, but the test is in his actual words, not in our estimation of what he knows or don't know, imo.
 
If I had evidence that Stefanoni committed serious crimes I would submit a 'denouncement' to either the Carabinieri, the Police or the Procura in Rome.
That may be done directly by the witness or through a lawyer.
The denouncement contains the testimony and may include evidence (documents etc.). It can be an oral testimony or it can be written.
What's important is that it needs to be truthful, that means in good faith, or the witness faces a calunnia charge.

I don't know if this can be done from the US territory at the Italian embassy. But they may provide useful addresses.

There is also a special channel for "anonimous denouncements" at the Anti-Corruption Authority.

How much crime does Stefanoni get to commit before it reaches a threshold of being "serious"?

Does suppressing DNA data and hiding profiles count?

This really would make a good exercise. If the research that's been done showing contamination in stef's results and so on are accurate, wouldn't that constitute a basis for a compliant.

Seriously though, for anyone considering this, I would take advantage of Mach's suggestion to do so anonymously.

On the other hand, Stafanoni was caught committing perjury on the witness stand, and the courts did nothing about it. So who are we kidding here?
 
Hi DF, - Others have pointed to Chieffi's comment on this in his reversal of Hellman (Bill quoted it a few comments up). But I think this is an exaggeration.

The DNA issue of single run LCN DNA, with lab data and notes suppressed, relates to the two pieces of DNA evidence in this case, Raf on the bra clasp and Meredith of the knife blade.

But it doesn't invalidate finding that were consistent with regular protocols, does it? Does anyone doubt the findings on Guede are accurate? I think Chieffi's histrionics are just an excuse to invoke institutional defensiveness on the part of the judiciary and law enforcement to justify the opinion in this case. I don't even think its a serious opinion, meaning Chieffi himself doesn't even believe it.

The notion that 'a route of DNA contamination must be proven' before a DNA result can be questioned, would disarm any defense from asserting a false DNA finding from contamination in Italy. It's an irrational standard that cannot survive scrutiny. Its only a matter of when that Chieffi's Italian "judicial innovation" that rejects science will be over-turned - either in this case now before cassation in March, or if need be when it gets before ECHR in the event of a final conviction. But it obviously can't last.

Italy can make wrong decisions based on evidence all day long, and deny justice to individual defendants. But they can't disregard science and deny justice to defendants en masse as a matter of law and judicial privilege.

MACH - Your analysis regarding Chieffi's reversal of Hellman is spot on, imo. (I understand you're not stating this as your belief, but it well phrases mine. SO, grazie.)

A while back, probably over a year back now, I was discussing this case on another board - Actually a science fiction board.

There was a poster, actually one of the moderators, who tried to argue based on the Italian Supreme Court motivation report (a translation) of their guilt. He told me based on certain pages / passages of the report.

Trying to give it a fair shake, I read those pages / passages. I was not convinced of their guilt. I was however convinced that it was meant as a railroad job by the language.

I stated that I think one part of the motivation for railroading Amanda and Raff was due to the question it would put on many cases but I did clearly state that I do not think it is the only motivation.

There are plenty of cases where there is a reluctance to overturn convictions even when an appeals court reverses an appeal.

One example is Derek Tice of the Norfolk Four. He was interrogated and after taking a polygraph requested a lawyer and stated that he did not want to speak anymore. After a few minutes, the detective continued interrogating as if he had not asked for a lawyer and wanted to stop. Derek Tice eventually confessed.

A Virginia appeals court overturned the conviction based on continuing the interrogation after the defendant wished to terminate the interview. The Virginia Supreme Court however reinstated the conviction. Now, Mr Tice was lucky because the governor pardoned him and then a federal judge overturned his conviction. Still, you can see the reluctance of a Supreme Court to overturn a conviction.
 
carbonjam12 said:
I know this is one of Bill's favorites, but I think we found (courtesy of vibio no less), that a translation of Nencini has him finding 2-4 other profiles, or maybe even male profiles - so he takes the lower number of 2 - then assigns one to Raf and one to Meredith's boyfriend and ignores the other two, so that his motivation report is "compatible" with the evidence.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure we concluded Nencini was not actually suggesting women have "Y" DNA. He was just taking the lowest possible number of males, and assigning one extra to Meredith's boyfriend - purely speculatively and without a reference profile.

carbonjam72,

I don't think that Nencini knows what YSTR DNA profiling is. But even with the lower bound figure of two male contributors besides Sollecito, Giacomo could not account for more than one of the two. Moreover, it is appalling that Nencini was able to claim that Giacomo was a contributor without evidence. Judges should not be allowed to engage in pure speculation. Finally, two additional contributors is a lower bound. If Stefanoni gets to count peaks below 50 RFU for the clasp, why not count them here? That increases the number of contributors.

It's becoming more than my favourite. It seems some of the pro-guilt lobby are starting to "get" the quality of Nencini's report; one even saying that (in their point of view) Nencini came to the right verdict for the wrong reasons. Another is appaled that Nencini misapplies the cell-tower evidence to the text Amanda sent/received to/from Lumumba..... for reference sake, Nencini was trying to "prove" Amanda actually did leave the apartment that night, even though this episode is BEFORE Popovic's alibi for Knox at 8:35 pm.

Even Machiavelli has adopted a strange tone in relation to Judge's motivation reports, saying upthread on this very board:

"I have never been really that interested in motivations reports (even less in narratives)."

Nencini simply makes bonehead mistakes. Think of the Kerchers at this point - they have a judge who is being a bonehead with the death of their relative and accountability for it at stake.

The criminal aspect of this is that Nencini says what he says about the extra male contributors, as Halkides says, with no evidence at all to support his claim. The specification of two of them as "amica" is the least of the issues. Further, Prosecutor Crini (the one who is supposed to be arguing the case for guilt) is silent on the subject.

Nencini just makes it up - without evidence.

It's one thing to make a prediction as to what may happen at Cassazione on March 25. It's quite another to know what should happen.
 
Last edited:
The thin blue line was out of line

I think Mach might be right. Even here in the US, there are a lot of things LE can't do (depending on local, state, and federal laws) unless someone files a complaint. Rape is one of them and so is simple assault.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think Mach is right,

d

-
"Italy still failed to make torture, as defined in the UN Convention against Torture, a specific crime within its penal code. There was no independent police complaints and accountability body. Policing operations were not in line with the European Code of Police Ethics, for example in the requirement for officers to display prominently some form of identification, such as a service number, to ensure they could be held accountable." Amnesty International on Italy in 2007.
 
When did they release their decision?

During the March 2013 ISC hearing the judges had 15 cases to decide. They deferred their decision on Meredith's case until the next day (the consensus being they needed more time). Obviously there were more than 12 minutes alloted for this case.
Christiananhannah,

What was the date?
 
Nobody has posted to this thread for over five hours. Are you all dead or something?
 
If I had evidence that Stefanoni committed serious crimes I would submit a 'denouncement' to either the Carabinieri, the Police or the Procura in Rome.
.
.
.
Numbers' list is a good place to start:

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.

The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.

Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;

2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;

3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;

4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);

5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;

6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;

7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;

8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;

9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;

10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;

11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;

12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;

13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;

15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;

16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;

17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;

18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom