Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

If you hear the video of the collection of the bra, you would see Stefanoni's picking up the bra and discussing about it with another forensic, and, at a certain point you can hear her clearly repeating "E' stato strappato" (this has been torn). This is stated more than once IIRC.
Stefanoni said torn, not cut, this is recorded on video.

This is the video of November 3. Meredith's corps has just been removed and the begin to collect the evidence. There are no suspects at this time. Stefanony does not know who Raffaele or Amanda are. Mignini has not declared what happened, what needs to be proven. This is just an impromptu observation by a lab tech. As she picks up the bra with one hand, she motions to/touches the area of the missing clasp with the fingers of the other hand and states ”this has been torn".

But in court, recorded in the official court transcript, Stefanoni abandons her unbiased observation and turns this into a claim against the boy who always carries a knife saying the fabric had been "cut cleanly".

The fake doctor Patricia Stefanoni is nothing but a tool of the prosecution.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

separating the wheat from the chaff with respect to DNA claims

It says, Vinci has identified the extra alleles as belonging to Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.

(I'm not saying Vinci's interpretation is correct. This is just what Sollecito's defence said).

Another article about the same hearing is from la Nazione Oct. 27 .2008.
In this article Ghirga makes an explicit reference to the "Y-chromosome extra alleles", as he maintains that "we - given that our client is a female - don't have to be concerned about the extra alleles, since they belong to the Y haplotype chart" (I paraphrase).

This can pnly mean the defence experts had all information about the Y-chromosome profiles, with their charts and with all the extra alleles (Vecchiotti did't reveal anything new in 2011)

With respect to the autosomal profile, Dr. Vinci is not a DNA specialist, and we don't have his exact words. IIRC the press reports did not perfectly align. Not that this issue matters; we know that Amanda's DNA was not on the clasp, because multiple DNA specialists have examined it.

With respect to the YSTR results, a machine translation does not support your claim. Nor do the tables that Stefanoni produced support your claim.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni's obstructionism

Oh, you mean Patricia stefanoni, the profile suppressor.

You are I obviously confusing the word "professor" with "suppressor"

LOL, good one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not much of substance in the Cold Cases paper

So this is a 'review of the literature' not original research. This is presented for a conference and is published in its proceedings. This would not be regarded as a peer reviewed publication. The usual reason for churning out one of these is because your employer only allows you attend a conference if you have paper in. Conferences facilitate this by accepting almost anything.

I have a copy. It is only a two-page article, and Stefanoni is not even the corresponding author, A. Caglia is (A. Caglia` *, P. Stefanoni, A. La Rosa). It contains no new research into DNA profiling.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

even if this recent story were true, it is ridiculous

ETA
It is clearly unreasonably expensive to fly in and house an international expert, such as Gill to sit in Stefanoni's lab and analyse data under her supervision, whilst it is clearly much more economic to email a data set to them in their own laboratory. The defence have a right to examine the data even if they choose not to present an expert witness and accept Stefanoni's interpretation.

Planigale,

I don't take Machiavelli's story at face value. But even if true, it is even more unreasonable when one considers that Amanda's DNA experts would have had to come in from the United States. In addition, they know more than she does, and they have their own ways of analyzing date, using their own parameters.

 

[carbonjam72]

This is what's in A Fatal Gift of Beauty



"According to some reports"

Who? Where? What reports? Del Prato said he was let go because they didn't know what to do with him. I've never come across anything credible about Guede being put on a train or Perugia calling Milan and saying let him go or there was a second knife he got to keep. I just haven't. There was Bob Graham's unpublished Mignini interview which I guess is interesting if it's accurate but Mignini doesn't say he was an informant.

If you want to go down the conspiracy theory road then go right ahead. I don't wish to argue about it because it really doesn't interest me. But there is simply nothing anywhere that documents any of this happening.

Thanks for fishing out the quote from Burleigh, which I agree, shades in favor of your position.

In the book, "rude guede, the forgotten killer"(not exact title), Steve Moore wrote one chapter, well worth reading. But, I irv, Moore writes Rudy was put on next train back to Perugia, with his backpack and knife, aftercall between Milan & Perugia.

So these accounts are largely consistent in regard to pattern of facts. But differ on interpretation of meaning.

I am not at all pre-disposed to vanishing down the conspiracy theory hole, on the contrary.

But it's a possibility, and consistent with mignini and police behavior at the crime scene (particularly napoleone and zugarini, and mignini).

The Explanations offered by mignini pointing away from guede, and towards a female suspect, appear contrived.

Strozzi asked why such a small error as helping in girded release from Milan would give pause to Peruvian police? Because the public and press might not think it's a small or understandable error. Italy seems to like blaming people for tragedies, like scientists who failed to predict an earthquake. Maybe they prefer to be seen as solving the case than as causing the crime?

In the end, it's moore's conjecture that Rudy was an informant. I find it plausible, and consistent with totality of facts and evidence. Doesn't mean it's right. But not disproven by a hand waive. Read moore's chapter, then we can see if you're persuaded, or not.

Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[christianahannah]

Planigale,

I don't take Machiavelli's story at face value. But even if true, it is even more unreasonable when one considers that Amanda's DNA experts would have had to come in from the United States. In addition, they know more than she does, and they have their own ways of analyzing date, using their own parameters.

Weren't Amanda's DNA experts from Italy? We're any of the American DNA experts placed before the court to testify by Amanda's Italian attorneys? I believe Hampkien flew to Italy but did he testify before the court?

If there were American DNA experts on Amanda's defense do you know who they were and what their reports/testimony entailed?

 

[christianahannah]

In the defense motions debate on October 9 Bongiorno says on page 44 that Raffaele was definitely at the police station when someone accessed his computer on the 5th.

And on page 25 (if I read it correctly), Guede's attorney Francesco Maresca opposed the defense entering the Skype call into evidence. Of course he would. I shouldn't be surprised.

Maresca was Rudy's attorney? I thought his attorneys were Biscotti (and another whose name escapes me but I didn't think it was Maresca).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no discovery of the files

Weren't Amanda's DNA experts from Italy? We're any of the American DNA experts placed before the court to testify by Amanda's Italian attorneys? I believe Hampkien flew to Italy but did he testify before the court?

If there were American DNA experts on Amanda's defense do you know who they were and what their reports/testimony entailed?

There were DNA experts consulted by the defense, but the experts wanted the electronic data files. Despite multiple requests by the defense, these files were not turned over. There are reasons why the American Bar Association specifies the discovery of these files in their guidelines. Later on Dr. Budowle provided a letter to the Hellman, which is part of the trial record.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you hear the video of the collection of the bra, you would see Stefanoni's picking up the bra and discussing about it with another forensic, and, at a certain point you can hear her clearly repeating "E' stato strappato" (this has been torn). This is stated more than once IIRC.
Stefanoni said torn, not cut, this is recorded on video.

This is the video of November 3. Meredith's corps has just been removed and the begin to collect the evidence. There are no suspects at this time. Stefanony does not know who Raffaele or Amanda are. Mignini has not declared what happened, what needs to be proven. This is just an impromptu observation by a lab tech. As she picks up the bra with one hand, she motions to/touches the area of the missing clasp with the fingers of the other hand and states ”this has been torn".

But in court, recorded in the official court transcript, Stefanoni abandons her unbiased observation and turns this into a claim against the boy who always carries a knife saying the fabric had been "cut cleanly".

The fake doctor Patricia Stefanoni is nothing but a tool of the prosecution.

One can only wonder why Machiavelli deliberately misstates evidence. I have made my views known. I believe he is attempting a limited hangout, knowing that reckoning is on its way.

 

[christianahannah]

There were DNA experts consulted by the defense, but the experts wanted the electronic data files. Despite multiple requests by the defense, these files were not turned over. There are reasons why the American Bar Association specifies the discovery of these files in their guidelines. Later on Dr. Budowle provided a letter to the Hellman, which is part of the trial record.

Ah, I understand. The Italian attorneys and perhaps the Italian DNA experts wanted an outside source, the American DNA experts, to look over the records, etc. Is that correct?

Do you know what process (judicially speaking) would need to take place to have the American DNA experts consultation admitted to the court record? And a letter, while good, probably doesn't have the same impact as directly questioning a witness (by both sides).

 

[Dan O.]

Maresca was Rudy's attorney? I thought his attorneys were Biscotti (and another whose name escapes me but I didn't think it was Maresca).

In my wiki page “Kercher case people" under the heading "Guede", sub heading defense I have listed: Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile.

Francesco Maresca is the lawyer representing the Kercher family.



But Rudy is almost family so why shouldn't Maresca be representing him too

 

[MDDVS]

Ah, I understand. The Italian attorneys and perhaps the Italian DNA experts wanted an outside source, the American DNA experts, to look over the records, etc. Is that correct?

Do you know what process (judicially speaking) would need to take place to have the American DNA experts consultation admitted to the court record? And a letter, while good, probably doesn't have the same impact as directly questioning a witness (by both sides).

Yes, but note that completely neutral experts (i.e. not associated with the defense) have also expressed their opinion. When the opinon of virtually every (all?) expert that as looked into this case is favourable to the defense that has to have some weight.

 

[christianahannah]

In my wiki page “Kercher case people" under the heading "Guede", sub heading defense I have listed: Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile.

Francesco Maresca is the lawyer representing the Kercher family.



But Rudy is almost family so why shouldn't Maresca be representing him too

Thank you. I couldn't remember Gentile.

Dan O your last sentence isn't a true representation and may be one with the desire of being provocative for provocative's sake.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, but note that completely neutral experts (i.e. not associated with the defense) have also expressed their opinion. When the opinon of virtually every (all?) expert that as looked into this case is favourable to the defense that has to have some weight.

Yes, I agree, however, there were many letters sent on behalf of both the prosecution and defense, but how is a court to weigh the content of letters when they cannot be cross examined by either side? If the prosecution has letters that say everything was done correctly should that be given as much weight as testimony? And can only experts outside of Italy be neutral?

 

[christianahannah]

I am still interested in this issue. The defence request a copy of the data, Mach now accepts this, and it happened after Oct 24 2008. Stefanoni, responded that they could not have a copy of the original data but had to examine the original data under her supervision. This makes it difficult for the expert and defence lawyer to have confidential discussions, with Stefanoni peering over their shoulders. Using other peoples computers and software with which you may not be familiar is awkward, it also impedes getting multiple opinions e.g. from a statistician such as Balding and a laboratory expert such as Gill (as examples). The statistician in particular would want to use their own software package, e.g.winbugs or R.

I am also unclear about the authority Stefanoni has to decide this, she may advise the judge this is appropriate, but surely the judge decides? Here it appears the judge did not agree to Stefanoni's request, but decided the data were not indispensible to his decision and what? It appears (s)he just ignored the issue and did not rule either way? The choice being between Stefanoni's refusal to disclose a copy of the data which Mach now confirms, but to only allow the defence to examine the original data under her supervision; and the defence request for a copy of the original data to examine for themselves not under supervision of the prosecution. I think this is a very vulnerable position for the prosecution case if it came to an ECHR appeal on inequality of access to forensic results.

ETA
It is clearly unreasonably expensive to fly in and house an international expert, such as Gill to sit in Stefanoni's lab and analyse data under her supervision, whilst it is clearly much more economic to email a data set to them in their own laboratory. The defence have a right to examine the data even if they choose not to present an expert witness and accept Stefanoni's interpretation.

I think Machiavelli made an error and this request for data was in September 2008. At least that is what I get from the letter/document from Stefanoni to Pascali.

I would be interested to know what the judge ruled on this request but have not seen that documentation.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, I agree, however, there were many letters sent on behalf of both the prosecution and defense, but how is a court to weigh the content of letters when they cannot be cross examined by either side? If the prosecution has letters that say everything was done correctly should that be given as much weight as testimony? And can only experts outside of Italy be neutral?

Neutral in the sense of independent: the fact that an expert opinion is helpful to one side does not mean that the expert is not neutral/independent, it just means that he has an opinion. Does the prossecution in this case have letters from neutral experts supporting their case? There are plenty of neutral experts in Italy, in fact most of them can be considere neutral and two of them even participated in the second trial and trashed the prossecution case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

defense, independent, and prosecution witnesses

Yes, I agree, however, there were many letters sent on behalf of both the prosecution and defense, but how is a court to weigh the content of letters when they cannot be cross examined by either side? If the prosecution has letters that say everything was done correctly should that be given as much weight as testimony? And can only experts outside of Italy be neutral?

An interesting question, but Dr. Budowle was willing to testify. Hellman went with Italian independent experts instead.

However, let us consider what the SCC actually did. They inflated the credentials of a prosecution expert, Dr. Novelli and then took his unsupported word above the independent, court-appointed experts. If the prosecution expert witness trumps an independent witness in Italy, then it would seem that even calling defense expert witnesses is a bit like playing craps with loaded dice. The pseudo-gambler is responsible for the outcome, but the outcome is pre-determined.

 

[JREF2010]

Neutral, weighing testimony....geeez. This is a trial that includes Judge Massei assigning Mignnini to investigate the interrogation, as if he was a unbiased neutral person.

This whole Italian case shows a system as a circus of idiots, with the main "evil" Rudy the Rapist Murderer getting away with everything for playing the game and will walk out soon with a free college degree.

Theres the Italian justice system....

I wont go into forensic teams who destroy harddrives, cant count circles on tennis shoes, and dont know how to store bloody samples....and dont test semen stains located beside the murdered raped victim...

 

[Numbers]

Yes, I agree, however, there were many letters sent on behalf of both the prosecution and defense, but how is a court to weigh the content of letters when they cannot be cross examined by either side? If the prosecution has letters that say everything was done correctly should that be given as much weight as testimony? And can only experts outside of Italy be neutral?

The Hellmann court-appointed experts Conti and Vecchiotti were independent of prosecutor and defendants and were Italian.

Scientific forensic evidence and the procedures used to obtain such evidence have an objective, empirical basis and are not merely based on arbitrary interpretation. There are internationally recognized protocols relating to the collection of evidence (in particular, DNA samples) and methods of obtaining results (DNA STR profiles). The risks of contamination of samples and various misinterpretations due to failure to objectively examine the raw data, which the profiling equipment records automatically in electronic data files, are well-known. To deviate arbitrarily, without any scientific validation of methods or even documentation of methods, from such well-known procedures of data collection and data analysis is clearly unfair.