Massei, the supreme court, and Nencini need to be added to the obstructionist list as well. Nary an Italian judge followed thru on insuring that the defense received the EDFs. Rather pathetic . . .
Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Diocletus
- Start date
- Status
Massei, the supreme court, and Nencini need to be added to the obstructionist list as well. Nary an Italian judge followed thru on insuring that the defense received the EDFs. Rather pathetic . . .
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
When the prosecution is telling the judge not to let the defense see something, the very first thing the judge should do is order it turned over.
When a lab tech tells the judge not to let the defense see her raw data, the judge should call the cops.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I find it incredibly devious that Stefanoni has, in effect, made the following argument to Judge Micheli:
"Pascali wants to see the EDFs. It's up to you (Micheli) to rule whether or not Pascali is allowed to see the EDFs. I'm telling you (as a scientist and expert....) that Pascali does not need to see the EDFs in order to do his job properly. Indeed, I'm further telling you that the only viable reason for Pascali wanting to see the EDFs would be if he thought I had committed fraud in my own analysis. So, Judge Micheli, it's up to you. If you think I'm a fraud too, then by all means let Pascali see the EDFs (but only under my conditions). If you don't think I'm a fraud, then you shouldn't let Pascali see the EDFs at all."
It reminded me very much of the scene in the classic TV comedy "Fawlty Towers" where Basil Fawlty has invited a group of friends over to celebrate his wedding anniversary, but his wife Sybil thinks he's forgotten their anniversary altogether and has stormed out in disgust. Basil tries to bluff the guests that the reason Sybil hasn't joined them is that she's ill upstairs in bed. When some of the more cantankerous guests start to question his story, he gets all defensive and attempts an elaborate double-bluff, by saying that they obviously think he's lying about his wife being seriously ill in bed upstairs, but they can all troop up and inspect her in her sick bed if that's what they really think. At this point all the guests back down and realise that the stakes are now getting too high and too silly. All except one - Roger - who calls Basil's bluff and takes him up on his offer. Disaster ensues....
If only Micheli had called Stefanoni's bluff and made her turn over the EDFs to Pascali.................
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,607
Thompson on full discovery
The following is from a 2009 presentation by Theresa Caragine
"Raw data does not exist in a readily accessible form that can be disclosed to the defense.
• Raw Data for up to 96 samples from many cases saved together.
– Sample files
– Project file: processed raw data
– Genotyper file: analyzed data for each “run” • Contains the DNA profiles for each sample • Generates the print outs contained in the case files
• in Liquid Sugars and W.R. Grace courts did not require the gov’t to create or compile complex files that did not exist at the time the discovery demand was made.
OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Raw electronic data does not have to be disclosed since it could result in the manipulation of data.
People v. Marcoux, No. 2009- 1176-FH (Mich. Cir. Ct., Macomb County, June 24, 2009"
Earlier today I posted some comments from Professor William Thompson which debunked the idea that there is a possibility of evidence tampering. Some time ago I asked Dr. Thompson about Dr. Caragine's assertion, and here is his response: "It seems particularly ironic and disappointing that the New York OCME is now championing opposition to disclosure of raw electronic data given that Robert Shaler, the former head of the lab OCME , helped champion the ABA DNA Standard that specifically declares that electronic data are discoverable and should be disclosed to the defense on request. The argument that disclosure of electronic data is burdensome is simply a lie. It is no more difficult than disclosing electronic photos stored on a hard drive. To say it is burdensome to disclose files related to a particular case because data from other cases is stored on the same drive is like saying it's burdensome to send the picture I took of you because I also took pictures of other people. This is simply obstruction of the judicial process that serves no legitimate purpose. The real goal is to hide problems in laboratory work."
(OCME = office of the chief medical examiner)
The following is from a 2009 presentation by Theresa Caragine
"Raw data does not exist in a readily accessible form that can be disclosed to the defense.
• Raw Data for up to 96 samples from many cases saved together.
– Sample files
– Project file: processed raw data
– Genotyper file: analyzed data for each “run” • Contains the DNA profiles for each sample • Generates the print outs contained in the case files
• in Liquid Sugars and W.R. Grace courts did not require the gov’t to create or compile complex files that did not exist at the time the discovery demand was made.
OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Raw electronic data does not have to be disclosed since it could result in the manipulation of data.
People v. Marcoux, No. 2009- 1176-FH (Mich. Cir. Ct., Macomb County, June 24, 2009"
Earlier today I posted some comments from Professor William Thompson which debunked the idea that there is a possibility of evidence tampering. Some time ago I asked Dr. Thompson about Dr. Caragine's assertion, and here is his response: "It seems particularly ironic and disappointing that the New York OCME is now championing opposition to disclosure of raw electronic data given that Robert Shaler, the former head of the lab OCME , helped champion the ABA DNA Standard that specifically declares that electronic data are discoverable and should be disclosed to the defense on request. The argument that disclosure of electronic data is burdensome is simply a lie. It is no more difficult than disclosing electronic photos stored on a hard drive. To say it is burdensome to disclose files related to a particular case because data from other cases is stored on the same drive is like saying it's burdensome to send the picture I took of you because I also took pictures of other people. This is simply obstruction of the judicial process that serves no legitimate purpose. The real goal is to hide problems in laboratory work."
(OCME = office of the chief medical examiner)
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
But the problem is that Stefanoni tells Micheli that Pascali doesn't need to see the data. And, what's even more outrageous, that this data would only be of interest or value if she (Stefanoni) had committed fraud in her work.
To make an analogy, imagine if Pascali had requested something that truly was superfluous and unnecessary, such as every email sent and received by Stefanoni (both work and personal) from the previous five years. For that request, Stefanoni would be justified in telling Micheli that a) such a request is unheard of in these circumstances, b) nothing useful could be gained from Pascali obtaining this information, and c) the request itself implies some sort of malpractice on her behalf. But if Micheli did somehow decide to allow the request, she could comply.
The problem is that Micheli was not able to distinguish between the second example (i.e. the one in the above paragraph), which is an entirely reasonable (hypothetical) argument from Stefanoni, and the first example (the real-world one), which is an entirely unreasonable argument from Stefanoni. He is guilty of taking Stefanoni entirely at her word, without (seemingly) stopping to question whether she might possibly have ulterior motives. Furthermore, he should have done enough questioning (including, perhaps, asking several other non-partisan genetic scientists for their opinions) to figure out whether it truly was reasonable for the defence to be asking for the EDFs. After all, even a smidgin of research would have shown Micheli that it is an entirely reasonable (indeed, important) defence request.
As I said before, I think that Micheli got caught out by the misplaced belief that someone like Stefanoni is a) gold standard at her job, b) at the cutting edge of standards and practice in her job, c) incapable of malpractice or mistakes, and d) honest and straightforward at all times. She worked for the police labs, after all! How could she be anything other than honest, diligent, expert and non-partisan?!
I suspect that this disclosure of raw electronic data is analogous to my college math professors' demands that all students must show their work on both homework and tests . . .
Last edited:
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
The letter from Stefanoni is not to Pascali. It is to the judge, Micheli. A careful reading of it (coupled with a proper understanding of the science and of reasonable disclosure requirements) shows clearly that Stefanoni is (improperly and wrongly) trying to convince the judge that Pascali's request for the EDFs is unreasonable. She even tries to insinuate that the only reason Pascali might have any need for the EDFs is if he believes she (Stefanoni) has been fraudulent in her work!
It ends with the cute (and very carefully constructed) offer that if the judge rules that Pascali really should see the EDFs, then - in the interests of openness and cooperation - Stefanoni will of course provide them. But only under circumstances and conditions that are (to any proper scientist, but hopefully not to an underinformed judge) totally unreasonable, unworkable and out of order.
The obvious primary aim of that letter is to get the judge to refuse Pascali access to the EDFs. The secondary aim, if Micheli somehow grants Pascali access, is to ensure that the conditions of access make it impossible in practice for Pascali to see and examine the EDFs properly. And the third aim is to leave the judge with the impression that Stefanoni is being totally open and reasonable, and that she's acting entirely in accordance with international standards and practice.
Thank you for the correction. I hurry and don't proof as I should and if I had done so would have written a letter from Stefanoni concerning Pascali's request. But at least there is documentation which can clear up my lapse.
I wonder what laboratories all over the world were doing in 2007-2008 regarding protocol with regards to file sharing, discovery, EDFs, etc.? And what were the judicial laws concerning such?
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
As to why Maresca would object I'm sure there was a reason, whether a valid one I don't know because I haven't read that part of testimony yet. It could have to do with why the defense wanted the Skype call entered into evidence but I really can't say.
Not sure how it could be more detrimental to Rudy. By this time Rudy had already been convicted in the fast track trial so his involvement in Meredith's murder was known. In the call he lies about the depth of his involvement of Meredith's murder and places the blame for her death on another or vaguely on others. (I am assuming October 2009 is when this motion was made by Maresca. If it was October 2008, again, I'd have to know the reasons for the motion.)
And no, my comment about Dan O's comment is the same. But you are definitely free to think it makes sense and that the Kerchers thought of Rudy as almost family.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Even more interesting would be to know what the echr thinks about the issue 5 years from now, because that's the law that is going to decide the issue.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I know that the Italian forensic team did not follow proper crime scene protocols for 2007 so why do you think they followed proper file sharing and discovery protocols for 2007.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
And it's a critically important difference that the letter was to the judge, Micheli, rather than to Pascali.
Many pro-guilt commentators seem to have misinterpreted this letter as Stefanoni giving Pascali permission to see the EDFs, albeit under certain conditions. But that's NOT what the letter says. Instead, the letter is Stefanoni telling Micheli that it will take a judge's order to grant Pascali access to the EDFs, and why he (Micheli) should not issue that order. It's only if Micheli does issue that order (in which case, Stefanoni seeks to imply, Micheli must consider that she might be a fraud and a liar) that the conditions of access to the EDFs even come into play.
We already know the answer to this question. Have you not read Chris' (and others') numerous posts on this very topic? Have you not seen the letter signed by the internationally-respected experts on this very topic?
But in case you've seen none of this, then the answer is that it was absolutely a reasonable request for a defence team to make of the forensic scientists who had analysed the DNA. And that was even in the days when only regular PCN DNA was viable for obtaining matches. In the era of low template DNA, it's even more critical than ever that the defence teams are able to see the raw source data, since issues of interpretation and subjective choice become exponentially more significant at these ultra-low quantities.
The answer to your question, therefore, is that Stefanoni absolutely should have provided the EDFs to the defence. She should have provided them from the start, but failing that she should have provided them unhesitatingly upon request. Micheli should have understood the issues, and he (and Massei after him) should have forced Stefanoni to provide the data. If Stefanoni had been unable or unwilling to provide the EDFs and other source data, then the relevant DNA evidence should arguably have been ruled inadmissible on that factor alone.
But the problem is that Stefanoni tells Micheli that Pascali doesn't need to see the data. And, what's even more outrageous, that this data would only be of interest or value if she (Stefanoni) had committed fraud in her work.
To make an analogy, imagine if Pascali had requested something that truly was superfluous and unnecessary, such as every email sent and received by Stefanoni (both work and personal) from the previous five years. For that request, Stefanoni would be justified in telling Micheli that a) such a request is unheard of in these circumstances, b) nothing useful could be gained from Pascali obtaining this information, and c) the request itself implies some sort of malpractice on her behalf. But if Micheli did somehow decide to allow the request, she could comply.
The problem is that Micheli was not able to distinguish between the second example (i.e. the one in the above paragraph), which is an entirely reasonable (hypothetical) argument from Stefanoni, and the first example (the real-world one), which is an entirely unreasonable argument from Stefanoni. He is guilty of taking Stefanoni entirely at her word, without (seemingly) stopping to question whether she might possibly have ulterior motives. Furthermore, he should have done enough questioning (including, perhaps, asking several other non-partisan genetic scientists for their opinions) to figure out whether it truly was reasonable for the defence to be asking for the EDFs. After all, even a smidgin of research would have shown Micheli that it is an entirely reasonable (indeed, important) defence request.
As I said before, I think that Micheli got caught out by the misplaced belief that someone like Stefanoni is a) gold standard at her job, b) at the cutting edge of standards and practice in her job, c) incapable of malpractice or mistakes, and d) honest and straightforward at all times. She worked for the police labs, after all! How could she be anything other than honest, diligent, expert and non-partisan?!
Another possibility is that Micheli did not wish to comply with the defense request, and Stefanoni's letter to him simply gave him cover. The police/prosecution/judiciary work as a team.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I think it's simply that Micheli didn't understand the situation properly, and was all too ready to take "conscientious and expert public servant" Stefanoni at her word: if Stefanoni tells me it's an unreasonable request, that Pascali already has everything he needs, and that for Pascali to make this request automatically implies that he thinks Stefanoni is a fraud, then that's good enough reason for me to deny the request.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Ah you're not grasping this issue properly, it appears. The significance of the Skype call is that it exposes Guede as an opportunistic liar. It shows that he made no direct reference to Knox or Sollecito in that Skype call. So it was important that the court could see the transcript of that call, in order to set it alongside Guede's later assertions that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. Only in that way could the court even hope to make a reasonable judgement on Guede's reliability on this issue (and on his general reliability). So any attempt to exclude this Skype call from the Knox/Sollecito trial would by definition only serve to bolster Guede's reliability, and by extension it would harm Knox and Sollecito.
The question thus remains: why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to make Guede appear more reliable than he demonstrably was, by seeking to exclude credible evidence that served to throw Guede's reliability and honesty into question? And why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to deny Knox and Sollecito the right to question key evidence against them (Guede's later accusations of them as the killers) by demonstrating that Guede had said something totally different in this Skype call much sooner after the murder (and before he'd had some *interesting* interactions with Mignini et al.....)?
A teensy bit of a straw man going on here, methinks. Firstly, I said that in the context of this issue, the phrase (which I described as "deliberately flippant") perhaps made "a little more sense".
Perhaps, for clarity and avoidance of misinterpretation, I should explain more exhaustively what I meant. I meant that I took the phrase (the "almost family" one) to be a) flippant, and b) deliberately hyperbolic/exaggeration. I took it to indicate the feeling that the Kercher family (both directly and through their esteemed lawyer, Maresca) appeared to be going to strange lengths to minimise Guede's role, to excuse his actions, and to believe his excuses. At the same time, they most certainly didn't appear to be extending the same sort of sentiments to Knox or Sollecito. Indeed, through things exactly such as this Maresca attempt to exclude the Guede Skype conversation, they appeared to be actively keen to "unlevel" the playing field against Knox and Sollecito.
Hope that makes things somewhat clearer. I dunno, maybe DanO personally really does think that the Kerchers consider Guede to be "almost family" - you'd have to take that up with him if you wanted to find out. It's not what I believe though - however (as I've just explained) it has some value as a flippant exaggeration in order to illustrate a feeling that the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Guede (the real killer....) on the one hand and Knox/Sollecito on the other.
But your arguments are certainly..... *enigmatic*
Last edited:
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
2 heads are better than 1
Last time Dan O suggested there was evidence for this claim but it tailed off in to Just Asking Questions.
Perhaps, by working with LJ, together they can prove the case.
We shall see.
Last time Dan O suggested there was evidence for this claim but it tailed off in to Just Asking Questions.
Perhaps, by working with LJ, together they can prove the case.
We shall see.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Ah you're not grasping this issue properly, it appears. The significance of the Skype call is that it exposes Guede as an opportunistic liar. It shows that he made no direct reference to Knox or Sollecito in that Skype call. So it was important that the court could see the transcript of that call, in order to set it alongside Guede's later assertions that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. Only in that way could the court even hope to make a reasonable judgement on Guede's reliability on this issue (and on his general reliability). So any attempt to exclude this Skype call from the Knox/Sollecito trial would by definition only serve to bolster Guede's reliability, and by extension it would harm Knox and Sollecito.
The question thus remains: why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to make Guede appear more reliable than he demonstrably was, by seeking to exclude credible evidence that served to throw Guede's reliability and honesty into question? And why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to deny Knox and Sollecito the right to question key evidence against them (Guede's later accusations of them as the killers) by demonstrating that Guede had said something totally different in this Skype call much sooner after the murder (and before he'd had some *interesting* interactions with Mignini et al.....)?
But your arguments are certainly..... *enigmatic*
Because if Knox and Sollecito are convicted, then Maresca triples the money he can collect. Whereas if they are innocent. then Maresca is left only being able to collect a civil judgement from Rudy Guede.
Raffaele comes from a wealthy family, and his inheritance could be looted by Maresca to give to the Kerchers. The utterly shameful note that seems to somehow get lost in all this, is that the Kerchers seem to be rushing towards this unjust enrichment, grabbing with both hands what isn't rightfully theirs to take.
Perhaps they feel their grief entitles them to steal money from innocent families, and wrongfully jail their innocent children for decades. Is it wrong to criticize this behavior? I think not.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Would Kercher's lawyer not do the same for any family member accused of involvement in the murder?
We all* know that the real answer is that Maresca doesn't give a damn about the Kerchers except to realize that unlimately that is where his paycheck is comming from. He can't squeeze blood from the turnip Guede so the best he can do is minimize Guede's involvement in order to maximize the penalty assessed against Amanda and Raffaele.
[* figuratively speaking for those that are actually following the case and not counting the trolls that are only here to snipe]
ETA: I did find it refreshing that After Rudy's fast track conviction, John Kercher was asking for Rudy to speak up and admit what really happened and actually accepted that Rudy had murdered his daughter. Rudy could not however speak at that time since he still had the appeals pending.
I do question though why John is no longer seeking the truth. Why would he have his attorney release the latest trial documents through a site known for spin rather than reach out to groups that actively seek the truth wherever it may lay?
Last edited:
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
I would like to be able to attribute the motivation of greed to the Kerchers, because I believe that their conduct has been repulsive. But, I don't think that maresca, or by extension the Kerchers, actually believe that they will ever see a cent from Knox or Sollecito.
Ah you're not grasping this issue properly, it appears. The significance of the Skype call is that it exposes Guede as an opportunistic liar. It shows that he made no direct reference to Knox or Sollecito in that Skype call. So it was important that the court could see the transcript of that call, in order to set it alongside Guede's later assertions that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. Only in that way could the court even hope to make a reasonable judgement on Guede's reliability on this issue (and on his general reliability). So any attempt to exclude this Skype call from the Knox/Sollecito trial would by definition only serve to bolster Guede's reliability, and by extension it would harm Knox and Sollecito.
The question thus remains: why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to make Guede appear more reliable than he demonstrably was, by seeking to exclude credible evidence that served to throw Guede's reliability and honesty into question? And why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to deny Knox and Sollecito the right to question key evidence against them (Guede's later accusations of them as the killers) by demonstrating that Guede had said something totally different in this Skype call much sooner after the murder (and before he'd had some *interesting* interactions with Mignini et al.....)?
A teensy bit of a straw man going on here, methinks. Firstly, I said that in the context of this issue, the phrase (which I described as "deliberately flippant") perhaps made "a little more sense".
Perhaps, for clarity and avoidance of misinterpretation, I should explain more exhaustively what I meant. I meant that I took the phrase (the "almost family" one) to be a) flippant, and b) deliberately hyperbolic/exaggeration. I took it to indicate the feeling that the Kercher family (both directly and through their esteemed lawyer, Maresca) appeared to be going to strange lengths to minimise Guede's role, to excuse his actions, and to believe his excuses. At the same time, they most certainly didn't appear to be extending the same sort of sentiments to Knox or Sollecito. Indeed, through things exactly such as this Maresca attempt to exclude the Guede Skype conversation, they appeared to be actively keen to "unlevel" the playing field against Knox and Sollecito.
Hope that makes things somewhat clearer. I dunno, maybe DanO personally really does think that the Kerchers consider Guede to be "almost family" - you'd have to take that up with him if you wanted to find out. It's not what I believe though - however (as I've just explained) it has some value as a flippant exaggeration in order to illustrate a feeling that the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Guede (the real killer....) on the one hand and Knox/Sollecito on the other.
But your arguments are certainly..... *enigmatic*
I had interpreted DanO's statement about Guede being "almost family" for the Kerchers as satirical.
Certainly Maresca was working against the legitimate interests of Amanda and Raffaele by his attempting to exclude Guede's Skype call from evidence. And since at that point he would not have been protecting Guede, he definitely was attempting to reduce the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele would have a telling piece of evidence for their legitimate defense.
I would not doubt that Maresca's motivations include a desire for monetary gain. But he may also be motivated by a desire to support his friends in the police and judiciary (including prosecutors).
The Kerchers may not be motivated by a desire for enrichment. They may have been convinced early on, when they were emotionally vulnerable because of Meredith's murder, by the prosecution that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. There is also "survivor's guilt": the survivor feels guilty (perhaps totally wrongly) that he could or should have done more to protect the victim, and must find someone to blame. That person might be the one who only by luck escaped being a victim herself - that is, Amanda. Had she come home to the cottage when Guede was there, rather than Meredith, she would have been the victim.
- Status