Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Rolfe]

You are fortunate. Here, if the case is high profile enough, and attracts a measure of public sympathy, those resources might be available.

If not, you'd better have a pile of money, up front. And you'd better be right, with little leeway for understandable errors or mistakes which might creep in along the way.

Where's "here", for you, Bill?

To be fair, the case I'm involved in is about as high profile as it can get. There is also a pretty strong measure of public feeling that there was something wrong about the conviction. But that's not the point.

If any citizen believes that he or she has evidence that a crime has been committed, then they're not only able, they're positively obliged, to report this to the police. And the police are obliged to investigate it. If your accusation is frivolous, malicious or poorly-founded, it will of course be dismissed in pretty short order. But if the police find that it's soundly-based and credible, and is a serious enough matter, it will be investigated.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, please do not be absurd.

You just make false claims.

How about the other questions, though. In what way do Raffaele's responses in Porta a Porta differ in essence from Honor Bound?

I don't know what do you mean by "essence". But, for example that in Porta a Porta he doesn't remember absolutely anything of what he did that evening and night, not even if Amanda was with him.
Or when he says he realized there was blood in the bathroom only when he arrived at the cottage (apparently Amanda didn't tell him).
And another difference may be about things he does does not say in his interview, like all the allegations against the prosecution.

Then, I can easilly spot differences between his interview and the trial papers.
For example, in his Porta a Porta interview he says he was always ready to be interrogated, that he never refused, but the magistrate never summoned him.
This is false. He was summoned, and he invoked his right to refuse to answer questions.

He also pointed out that Filomena's door was "socchiusa" (ajar), while in his police testimonies and in his prison diaries he says and writes "spalancata" (wide open).

Do you believe Raffaele is innocent of this murder? If not, why is he still claiming Amanda's innocence?

He is not claiming Amanda's innocence.
He is claiming his own innocence. He says he belives Amanda's innocence, but only because - he says - intrinsically it comes out to him as unrealistic, because he thinks he would have probably noticed something.

 

[Machiavelli]

Patrizia Stefanoni would have been sacked for unacceptably low standards of sample handling in any lab I've ever worked in. The bra clasp thing is just astounding. My molecular technicians reject a sample for testing if someone opened the sample tube outside their controlled airspace.

A forensic expert working on a case cannot reject any sample nor refuse to test something.

This is especially true for experts who are working as periti (judge appointed experts) or within an incidente probatorio.

Technicians, scientists and experts have basically no discretional power, they can't refuse to do anything if they are ordered to by a judicial ordnance.

They can't take decisions based on their assessment on evidence against an order. They are absolutely barred from that power.

 

[Rolfe]

That was an analogy, not an injunction. I was pointing out how extremely sensitive PCR work is to contamination, and what care must be taken to avoid it. Anyone being as careless as she is seen to be has no business being there in the first place.

 

[Bill Williams]

You just make false claims.

You insist upon an absurd level of accuracy, making most conversation with you meaningless.

I don't know what do you mean by "essence". But, for example that in Porta a Porta he doesn't remember absolutely anything of what he did that evening and night, not even if Amanda was with him.
Or when he says he realized there was blood in the bathroom only when he arrived at the cottage (apparently Amanda didn't tell him).
And another difference may be about things he does does not say in his interview, like all the allegations against the prosecution.

Then, I can easilly spot differences between his interview and the trial papers.

You need to stop, Machiavelli. It is you who is now abandoning the precision of language you insist about others.

Raffaele never testified at trial. So why are you even bring up, "trial papers"?

For example, in his Porta a Porta interview he says he was always ready to be interrogated, that he never refused, but the magistrate never summoned him.
This is false. He was summoned, and he invoked his right to refuse to answer questions.

This one is laughable, Machiavelli. "He invoked his right to refuse to answer questions." Where is that in the trial papers? Where is that in any recording of Raffaele's interrogations?

In the absence of those, you are free to claim anything.

He also pointed out that Filomena's door was "socchiusa" (ajar), while in his police testimonies and in his prison diaries he says and writes "spalancata" (wide open).

This is nit-picking, and only part of a guilter narrative.

He is not claiming Amanda's innocence.
He is claiming his own innocence. He says he belives Amanda's innocence, but only because - he says - intrinsically it comes out to him as unrealistic, because he thinks he would have probably noticed something.

Ok, now you have returned to your insistence on precision. I wish you would follow the rules you set for others.

If you do not think that Raffaele believes Amanda is 100% innocent, can you explain why he has not offered evidence against her?

 

[Bill Williams]

A forensic expert working on a case cannot reject any sample nor refuse to test something.
This is especially true for experts who are working as periti (judge appointed experts) or within an incidente probatorio.

Technicians, scientists and experts have basically no discretional power, they can't refuse to do anything if they are ordered to by a judicial ordnance.

They can't take decisions based on their assessment on evidence against an order. They are absolutely barred from that power.

Oh? What about the putative semen stain?

 

[Bill Williams]

Where's "here", for you, Bill?

To be fair, the case I'm involved in is about as high profile as it can get. There is also a pretty strong measure of public feeling that there was something wrong about the conviction. But that's not the point.

If any citizen believes that he or she has evidence that a crime has been committed, then they're not only able, they're positively obliged, to report this to the police. And the police are obliged to investigate it. If your accusation is frivolous, malicious or poorly-founded, it will of course be dismissed in pretty short order. But if the police find that it's soundly-based and credible, and is a serious enough matter, it will be investigated.

"Here" is like "there". The police are obliged to investigate it, in theory. The devil is in the very details you cite - "if your accusation is frivolous....", vs. "if the police find that it is soundly based...." contains enough wiggle room to sink a battleship.

 

[platonov]

"Here" is like "there". The police are obliged to investigate it, in theory. The devil is in the very details you cite - "if your accusation is frivolous....", vs. "if the police find that it is soundly based...." contains enough wiggle room to sink a battleship.

Hmm.

It is my considered opinion that it is neither here nor there.

 

[Machiavelli]

That was an analogy, not an injunction. I was pointing out how extremely sensitive PCR work is to contamination, and what care must be taken to avoid it. Anyone being as careless as she is seen to be has no business being there in the first place.

Frankly I believe this vision on the part of the Knox supporters is a kind of hyperbole to say the least.

In fact Stefanoni did nothing that can be called "careless", and above all did not make do action that could contaminate the kitchen knife with Meredith's DNA and the crime scene with Sollecito's DNA.

I also think the quality of her job is something that depends on pursueing several tasks and goes far beyond merely taking precautions on the touching an item. I do believe she did a job of significant quality, and I consider her work overall. Organizing the collecting items in the murder room for example, what to pick up first and what after, the choice of what to sample based on her observation of the physical evidence, and the sheer number of items she was able to sample within a small number of hours and the number of samples she was able to process. Her picking up samples of hair and in the downstairs apartment, her taking care of swabbing the victim's nails. The volume of tasks she - and her team - fulfilled within a short time seems huge to me.

I don't believe those criticisms that you must use tweezers not gloves or paper bags etc. I do think that quantity is important, and I also believe that a principle that is also the basic one of Italian Cousine always applies, that is: always think you need to make the best of what you have.
You must start by optimizing what you have, start plans and procedures based on what is possible.

 

[lonepinealex]

Frankly I believe this vision on the part of the Knox supporters is a kind of hyperbole to say the least.

In fact Stefanoni did nothing that can be called "careless", and above all did not make do action that could contaminate the kitchen knife with Meredith's DNA and the crime scene with Sollecito's DNA.

I also think the quality of her job is something that depends on pursueing several tasks and goes far beyond merely taking precautions on the touching an item. I do believe she did a job of significant quality, and I consider her work overall. Organizing the collecting items in the murder room for example, what to pick up first and what after, the choice of what to sample based on her observation of the physical evidence, and the sheer number of items she was able to sample within a small number of hours and the number of samples she was able to process. Her picking up samples of hair and in the downstairs apartment, her taking care of swabbing the victim's nails. The volume of tasks she - and her team - fulfilled within a short time seems huge to me.

I don't believe those criticisms that you must use tweezers not gloves or paper bags etc. I do think that quantity is important, and I also believe that a principle that is also the basic one of Italian Cousine always applies, that is: always think you need to make the best of what you have.
You must start by optimizing what you have, start plans and procedures based on what is possible.

Huh. Poor Stefanoni, all those choices to make.

If your daughter had been murdered, and the forensics team didn't even collect and test the clothes she was wearing while she was murdered, I guess you'd just think, "well I'm sure they had a ton of stuff on their to do list".

 

[Desert Fox]

When a researcher violates multiple protocols, you have the choice of careless or deliberate malice. For example, I have a forensic study manual and she has violated many of the procedures.

You have also had lab personnel and forensic scientists state the exact same thing.

You are far better off just admitting that she has completely hosed forensic protocols.

 

[christianahannah]

Christiananhannah,

What was the date?

Meredith's case was heard on March 25 and a decision given on March 26. According to press the case was discussed for several hours.

 

[Desert Fox]

Meredith's case was heard on March 25 and a decision given on March 26. According to press the case was discussed for several hours.

Not really directed at you but using your post as a jumping off point. . .
Assuming it is only discussed for a few hours, who actually writes up these many page reports. Does it just get tossed to some clerk who is told "write up something?"

 

[Machiavelli]

You insist upon an absurd level of accuracy, making most conversation with you meaningless.

You need to stop, Machiavelli. It is you who is now abandoning the precision of language you insist about others.

Raffaele never testified at trial. So why are you even bring up, "trial papers"?

The concept of "trial paper" is mapped on the Italian word atto, a formal legal document. It does not inclue just testimonies, but may indicate any document that has been included in a file as a legal document.
Therefore Sollecito's diaries are atti.
Also, so are his statements to Matteini, which he credits in his Porta a Porta interview as his position, and even his police interrogation are atti.
Not all of them are currently usable, some where not usable in his trial, but they exist (and they may theoretically become usable, for example if he requested so).

This one is laughable, Machiavelli. "He invoked his right to refuse to answer questions." Where is that in the trial papers? Where is that in any recording of Raffaele's interrogations?

In this one:





And this is what he says:

If you do not think that Raffaele believes Amanda is 100% innocent, can you explain why he has not offered evidence against her?

He decided to not defend her, because he knows she is indefensible.
He also decided not to blame her, in order to avoid the risk of being blamed.

 

[Machiavelli]

Huh. Poor Stefanoni, all those choices to make.

If your daughter had been murdered, and the forensics team didn't even collect and test the clothes she was wearing while she was murdered, I guess you'd just think, "well I'm sure they had a ton of stuff on their to do list".

Meredith's parents endorsed the work of Stefanoni. This is what they did through their legal representatives.

And I happen to agree with them.

 

[platonov]

When a researcher violates multiple protocols, you have the choice of careless or deliberate malice. For example, I have a forensic study manual and she has violated many of the procedures.

You have also had lab personnel and forensic scientists state the exact same thing.

You are far better off just admitting that she has completely hosed forensic protocols.

Her role wasn’t that of a ‘researcher’ [repeat visits to the crime scene notwithstanding] and that’s not a ‘forensic study manual’, it’s a Portuguese translation of a Tom Clancy novel which appears to be upside down.

Meredith's case was heard on March 25 and a decision given on March 26. According to press the case was discussed for several hours.

ch What did you make of RS's recent TV appearance?

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really directed at you but using your post as a jumping off point. . .
Assuming it is only discussed for a few hours, who actually writes up these many page reports. Does it just get tossed to some clerk who is told "write up something?"

No, there is a judge among the court who is tasked of being the giudice relatore (the reporting judge), and there is a Prosecutor General who works at the Surpeme Court who also brings his assessments about the case to the attention of the court.

 

[Desert Fox]

He decided to not defend her, because he knows she is indefensible.
He also decided not to blame her, in order to avoid the risk of being blamed.

Do you understand tactical thinking at all?
Raffaele does not in any way think that Amanda is guilty although I would not blame him for hating her for screwing up his life even if unintentionally. It is simply that he is taking the position that if they want to blame Amanda, leave him out of it.

 

[Samson]

Meredith's case was heard on March 25 and a decision given on March 26. According to press the case was discussed for several hours.

I am curious about the expression Meredith's case.
I thought they were discussing Knox and Sollecito's case. A minor quibble, but I sense a let's put Meredith at the centre because she is the true victim thing going on.
She is dead and there are two very live victims to consider and refer to, and indeed were named by the Procuratore in the state's appeal document..

 

[Machiavelli]

When a researcher violates multiple protocols, you have the choice of careless or deliberate malice. For example, I have a forensic study manual and she has violated many of the procedures.

You have also had lab personnel and forensic scientists state the exact same thing.

You are far better off just admitting that she has completely hosed forensic protocols.

Who, prof. Vecchiotti?

Don't you think she should better refrain from violating court orders and care a bit about her refrigerator?