Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

Maybe he believed so, but the evidence he presented to the UN Security Council was manufactured.

Yes, a remarkable parallel to the prosecution case against Amanda and Raff.

 

[LondonJohn]

But I also cited news sources reporting she worked 8 years as a "researcher" at the University Federico II of Naples, and I explained how it works in Italy.
And also, I am not the person who brought up Stefanoni's academic qualifications as an argument: that one is an argument brought by the Knox supporters, and because they brought it up, they have a burden to prove it.

No, you didn't "explain how it works in Italy" at all. In fact, you came out with a ludicrous (and easily disproven) load of claptrap about how time served as a researcher somehow automatically/magically implies a PhD.

Actually she also said she was ready to provide the EDFs, if examined under controlled conditions. The defence did not pursue that opportunity, and Kaosium explained why: because Pascali (but I read "Hampikian") wanted the EDFs in order to use them in other venues and to change the settings, so to produce new files not deposited with the trial papers.
Thus, this is the reason why the defence turned down Stefanoni's offer, according to Kaosium. This seems the real reason, the one you should focus on if you want to understand the case.

For the last time, and I'll do it in capitals so that there's no ambiguity or chance of missing it:

THE DEFENCE DID NOT "TURN DOWN" STEFANONI'S OFFER, BECAUSE THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER.

THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER BECAUSE THAT OFFER WAS ITSELF WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY CONDITIONAL ON JUDGE MICHELI ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs.

MICHELI NEVER ORDERED DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs, SO PASCALI NEVER EVEN GOT THE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHETHER STEFANONI'S "CONDITIONS OF ACCESS" WERE FAIR OR REASONABLE.

STEFANONI'S LETTER TO MICHELI WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PERSUADE HIM THAT PASCALI SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE EDFs. MICHELI APPARENTLY DECIDED IN SUPPORT OF HER POSITION, AND THEREFORE THE OFFER TO VIEW THE EDFs WAS NEVER EVEN PUT TO PASCALI.


I hope this makes things clear, once and for all..........

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Christianahannah,
I just zoomed in 200% on the photo that Draca posted years ago of the foyer wall were B. Nadeau writes that the girls kept their keys, esh, (maybe I'm goin' blind, as my old sunburnt eyes do have pterygiums growin' on them), but hey, I do not see a key rack.
Does anyone else?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=164785023545977&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

 

[Machiavelli]

Couple questions Mach;

When the Carabinieri RIS completed their analysis, did they provide all the underlying electronic data files to the defense? It would be interesting to compare their sense of fair disclosure with Stefanoni's in with-holding copies of the EDF's and other lab notes from the defense for Amanda and Raf. In other words, did they just give the defense full electronic copies for them to inspect at their leisure, without preconditions or limitations of any kind?

The Carabinieri provided the EDFs to the court and defended as far as I know, but because the defences and the Carabinieri agreed to do so at the opening of the incidente probatorio, on a defence request.

Second question - Cassation confirmed Hellman's conviction of Amanda for calunnia? Isn't a cassation ruling final, and not appealable by the parties (other than to the Italian constitutional court, or to the ECHR)?

The Cassazione makes sentences become final. They can't be appealed. Cases can be re- opened but it's something different.
They cannot be speaker technically not even to the ECHR or to the constitutional court.

If so, then how did Nencini get to decide to increase the sentence for aggravated calunnia? Was this a further charge? How did this charge get brought into the Nencini appeal, if cassation had already finalized it in reversing Hellman?

Because the Cassazione finalized only part of the calunnia case, while annulled another part of the Hellman decision on it.
This is possible because an aggravating circumstance is like a charge itself. You can decide on them separately, like annul the aggravating charge finding but not the charge finding.(Obviously you can't have an aggravating circumstance without finding guilt on a charge.)

And, could Nencini convict Amanda on the aggravated Calunnia portion, and sentence her to "time served" since she was in jail for 4 years already. And then send the rest of the case back for re-trial, (or dismissal - can cassation dismiss the case for lack of evidence, in theory)?

I would day no. Nencini could only find her guilty or not guilty for murder, or at least of a crime connected to murder, while the aggravating charge depends on whether she is guilty or not of a second crime. Because it is an aggravating charge if continuance, this means it requires the suspect to be guilty of more than one criminal action. A continuance of calunnia alone, as a repeated action? Also possible maybe, in theory. But this specific charge of continuance referred to the same "criminal design" that included murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Carabinieri provided the EDFs to the court and defended as far as I know, but because the defences and the Carabinieri agreed to do so at the opening of the incidente probatorio, on a defence request.

Could the RIS Carabinieri have set conditions on the release? And if these conditions were not agreed to, could the court (or anyone else) have blocked their release?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Even more stringent procedures are necessary for LCN work

A side note. Your posts are noted for the frequent lack of consistency between the quoted source and the point. The second quote does not define an " LCN lab" any differently from the current labs we are talking about, and the first doesn't do anything but point out the stringent measures in laboratories like the UACV of Scientific Police in Rome or the Ris, which were also described in Stefanoni's testimony, and later also in Biondo's.
Also let's not forget Stefanoni's lab was a member of ENFSI, while Pascali's is not. It is also certified ISO 9001 and 17024.

Machiavelli,

Let's walk through this one step at a time. One, serious labs working at low template levels of DNA know that extra precautions are necessary. The most recent edition of John Butler's textbook has a section on low level DNA that reads (p. 332) in part:

...she [Theresa Caragine] offers five tips to preventing exogenous DNA contamination in forensic casework. First utilize dedicated and protected workspaces...Second wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE)...[including] double gloves...Lab coats are single-use within the evidence exam area...Third, perform regular cleaning of everything...Increased sensitivity with LTDNA or mtDNA techniques means that minute levels of contaminant DNA in labware or reagents may be detected from the manufacturer that would not be seen with conventional STR typing...Fourth, perform quality control testing on all reagents...Fifth, evaluate controls with every batch of samples." IIRC Stefanoni did not understand the difference between positive and negative pressure hoods, and by her own testimony, she obviously has no clue when it comes to gloves.

Two, the New Zealand Herald article was indeed discussing LCN DNA, “But the ties Lees said were used to bind her were sent to the United Kingdom's Forensic Science Service which with input from New Zealand forensic scientist Dr John Buckleton pioneered the highly-sensitive process called low copy number (LCN) DNA….LCN puts it through 34 cycles compared to 28 for the standard method (called SGMplus). Though the difference between the numbers doesn't seem much, it involves a 50-fold increase in sensitivity and potentially makes the invisible visible, the undetectable detectable.” I suggest that you read the entire article before commenting next time.

Three, Stefanoni's lab was not certified for regular STR typing at the time. Whether it is now is irrelevant, both to the case at hand and to whether or not it is equipped to perform true LCN testing. What standards Stefanoni says she follows now is not the point. If she cannot or will not document her work and allow scrutiny that is akin to what other labs in the world routinely accept, her work is subpar, and the idea that a court would accept her as an expert is extremely disheartening.

 

[christianahannah]

to be strictly accurate it is now but was not at the time

I think the lab was a member of the ENFSI at that time.

They were in the process of requesting the other certifications during the case investigation.

Massei Motivations - page 220:

The Scientific Police had asked for this certification. She added that when the analyses under discussion were performed, there was no public agency which possessed this certification. The Scientific Police and the RACIS (now the RIS) of the Carabinieri were the first to request it.

 

[christianahannah]

Hi Christianahannah,
I just zoomed in 200% on the photo that Draca posted years ago of the foyer wall were B. Nadeau writes that the girls kept their keys, esh, (maybe I'm goin' blind, as my old sunburnt eyes do have pterygiums growin' on them), but hey, I do not see a key rack.
Does anyone else?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=164785023545977&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

I do not see a key rack there.

I had been reading some of the telephone intercepts of Amanda and as early as November 3 the police were telling her they had found the downstairs keys (I think this is correct but will have to locate where I read it - my memory may be faulty of said intercept).

 

[Diocletus]

I think the lab was a member of the ENFSI at that time.

They were in the process of requesting the other certifications during the case investigation.

Massei Motivations - page 220:

The Scientific Police had asked for this certification. She added that when the analyses under discussion were performed, there was no public agency which possessed this certification. The Scientific Police and the RACIS (now the RIS) of the Carabinieri were the first to request it.

You would think that ENFSI would have the lab's protocols on file. That would be interesting.

 

[Diocletus]

I do not see a key rack there.

I had been reading some of the telephone intercepts of Amanda and as early as November 3 the police were telling her they had found the downstairs keys (I think this is correct but will have to locate where I read it - my memory may be faulty of said intercept).

Well, that can't be right. The police could not have had them on November 3, because they reported finding them in Knox's room on the 6th.

Unless . . .

 

[Machiavelli]

No, you didn't "explain how it works in Italy" at all. In fact, you came out with a ludicrous (and easily disproven) load of claptrap about how time served as a researcher somehow automatically/magically implies a PhD.

Not magically. Legally. Because researcher in Italy is an academic title, and it works exactly as I said. In fact, it is the words Italians rather than PhD.

For the last time, and I'll do it in capitals so that there's no ambiguity or chance of missing it:

THE DEFENCE DID NOT "TURN DOWN" STEFANONI'S OFFER, BECAUSE THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER.

By turning down I mean they were aware about it, and decided not to pursue that opportunity.

THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER BECAUSE THAT OFFER WAS ITSELF WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY CONDITIONAL ON JUDGE MICHELI ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs.

But this conflates two different instances.

1. You cannot blame Stefanoni of the existence if a judge's condition. The fact that Stefanoni related to Micheli, and not to Pascali. This is something that I see from the point of view of Stefanoni: she made her offer. And this is undisputable. You only need to accept the principle that her offer was to Micheli. So you can I blame her for not making an offer, because she did. And it is just obvious that any offer would be conditional to the judge's decision. It's not Stefanoni the one who pits the offer under the judge's decision, this is just the judge's role. Her only role is to make her offer, obviously under the judge's decision, and so she did. So she did make an offer. Full stop.

2. Another instance is that the defence was offered Stefanoni's offer insofar as they were aware about it, and the offer, as well ad the judge decision, refer to what will be discussed and decided on Oct. 4. So on Oct.4. the defence might have asked the judge that Stefanoni released the log files and they might have explained why the needed them. They chose nit to do so, and Pascali instead only explained that he needed the peaks areas.

MICHELI NEVER ORDERED DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs, SO PASCALI NEVER EVEN GOT THE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHETHER STEFANONI'S "CONDITIONS OF ACCESS" WERE FAIR OR REASONABLE.[/QUOTE

The defence were aware of Stefanoni's letter, because it was deposited with the court and belongs to the trial files.

STEFANONI'S LETTER TO MICHELI WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PERSUADE HIM THAT PASCALI SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE EDFs. MICHELI APPARENTLY DECIDED IN SUPPORT OF HER POSITION, AND THEREFORE THE OFFER TO VIEW THE EDFs WAS NEVER EVEN PUT TO PASCALI.

This is a personal interpretation, it is not supported by facts, and it is manifestly inconsistent with the content.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, that can't be right. The police could not have had them on November 3, because they reported finding them in Knox's room on the 6th.

Unless . . .

I remember from a photo a key(s) hanging on a hook above Amanda's night table (I think that is correct or maybe I am thinking in her door). The photo should be easy to find but even if there is a key where I say it doesn't mean it is the downstairs apartment keys.

 

[Planigale]

A side note. Your posts are noted for the frequent lack of consistency between the quoted source and the point. The second quote does not define an " LCN lab" any differently from the current labs we are talking about, and the first doesn't do anything but point out the stringent measures in laboratories like the UACV of Scientific Police in Rome or the Ris, which were also described in Stefanoni's testimony, and later also in Biondo's.
Also let's not forget Stefanoni's lab was a member of ENFSI, while Pascali's is not. It is also certified ISO 9001 and 17024.

Perhaps the fact that many people are building purpose-built labs to do LCN work is a clue that that no one thinks that the 'old' facilities are appropriate? You could check ENFSI recommendations on documentation and making available records of environmental and ambient exposure records. None of which Stefanoni met.

This is an interesting paper from the Netherlands National Forensic Institute
Error rates in forensic DNA analysis: Definition, numbers, impact and communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014
This documents that contamination rates are constant and discusses how they should be presented. (Not just denied.)

A good practical example of how Stefanoni's lab was not set up for LCN work is the fact that she used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA in the extract - completely inappropriate for a low DNA sample. Then vacuum extraction - a very high risk method for contamination to concentrate the extract.

 

[Diocletus]

1. You cannot blame Stefanoni of the existence if a judge's condition.

Yes we can. The judge was reacting to Stefanoni's objection (BTW: who the hell lets lab techs make discovery objections? LOL).

 

[Numbers]

Not magically. Legally. Because researcher in Italy is an academic title, and it works exactly as I said. In fact, it is the words Italians rather than PhD.

For the last time, and I'll do it in capitals so that there's no ambiguity or chance of missing it:



By turning down I mean they were aware about it, and decided not to pursue that opportunity.



But this conflates two different instances.



1. You cannot blame Stefanoni of the existence if a judge's condition. The fact that Stefanoni related to Micheli, and not to Pascali. This is something that I see from the point of view of Stefanoni: she made her offer. And this is undisputable. You only need to accept the principle that her offer was to Micheli. So you can I blame her for not making an offer, because she did. And it is just obvious that any offer would be conditional to the judge's decision. It's not Stefanoni the one who pits the offer under the judge's decision, this is just the judge's role. Her only role is to make her offer, obviously under the judge's decision, and so she did. So she did make an offer. Full stop.

2. Another instance is that the defence was offered Stefanoni's offer insofar as they were aware about it, and the offer, as well ad the judge decision, refer to what will be discussed and decided on Oct. 4. So on Oct.4. the defence might have asked the judge that Stefanoni released the log files and they might have explained why the needed them. They chose nit to do so, and Pascali instead only explained that he needed the peaks areas.

MICHELI NEVER ORDERED DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs, SO PASCALI NEVER EVEN GOT THE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHETHER STEFANONI'S "CONDITIONS OF ACCESS" WERE FAIR OR REASONABLE.

The defence were aware of Stefanoni's letter, because it was deposited with the court and belongs to the trial files.



This is a personal interpretation, it is not supported by facts, and it is manifestly inconsistent with the content.

Mach,
If you are saying that Judge Micheli violated the Italian Constitution and the European Convention and ECHR case-law by not judicially forcing Stefanoni to turn over true copies of the EDFs to the court and the defense, I am totally in agreement. We shouldn't blame Stefanoni, just because she didn't want to turn over copies of these critical results of her testing, when it was the judge's responsibility, as the impartial supervisor of an adversarial process, to force her to provide true copies. And if and when this case reaches the ECHR, if will be Italy that will have been judged to have violated the Convention, rather than any individual.

 

[Diocletus]

A good practical example of how Stefanoni's lab was not set up for LCN work is the fact that she used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA in the extract - completely inappropriate for a low DNA sample. Then vacuum extraction - a very high risk method for contamination to concentrate the extract.

There's also the fact that the lab bench doubled as their lunch table.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, you didn't "explain how it works in Italy" at all. In fact, you came out with a ludicrous (and easily disproven) load of claptrap about how time served as a researcher somehow automatically/magically implies a PhD.

Not magically. Legally. Because researcher in Italy is an academic title, and it works exactly as I said: you don't become a researcher but enrolling in a research doctorate. Those posts in Italy are assigned as posts in a study program, there is a public competition. In fact, it is the words Italians would use rather than PhD. (nobody would call himself "PhD".).

THE DEFENCE DID NOT "TURN DOWN" STEFANONI'S OFFER, BECAUSE THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER.

By turning down I mean they were aware about it, and decided not to pursue that opportunity.

THE DEFENCE WAS NEVER OFFERED STEFANONI'S OFFER BECAUSE THAT OFFER WAS ITSELF WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY CONDITIONAL ON JUDGE MICHELI ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs.

But this conflates two different instances.

1. You cannot blame Stefanoni of the existence if a judge's condition. The fact that Stefanoni related to Micheli, and not to Pascali. This is something that I see from the point of view of Stefanoni: she made her offer. And this is undisputable. You only need to accept the principle that her offer was to Micheli. So you can't blame her for not making an offer: she did offer to provide them. And it is just obvious that any offer would be conditional to the judge's decision. It's not Stefanoni the one who pits the offer under the judge's decision, this is just the judge's role. Her only role is to make her offer, obviously under the judge's decision, and so she did. So she did make an offer. Full stop.

2. Another instance is that the defence was offered Stefanoni's offer insofar as they were aware about it, and the offer, as well ad the judge decision, refer to what will be discussed and decided on Oct. 4. So on Oct.4. the defence might have asked the judge that Stefanoni released the log files and they might have explained why the needed them. They chose nit to do so, and Pascali instead only explained that he needed the peaks areas.

MICHELI NEVER ORDERED DISCLOSURE OF THE EDFs, SO PASCALI NEVER EVEN GOT THE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHETHER STEFANONI'S "CONDITIONS OF ACCESS" WERE FAIR OR REASONABLE.

The defence were aware of Stefanoni's letter, because it was deposited with the court and belongs to the trial files.

STEFANONI'S LETTER TO MICHELI WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PERSUADE HIM THAT PASCALI SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE EDFs. MICHELI APPARENTLY DECIDED IN SUPPORT OF HER POSITION, AND THEREFORE THE OFFER TO VIEW THE EDFs WAS NEVER EVEN PUT TO PASCALI.

This is a personal interpretation, it is not supported by facts, and it is manifestly inconsistent with the content. In particular, it is omitting the statement of Stefanoni where she says she is ready to make them available, while it is undisputable she stated that. If fact your whole interpretation sounds like an attempt to remove the existence of such statement from the table, to maintain that it doesn't exist.
But that is not exactly what an unbiased observer would do.
She might have hinted that she would prefer not to release them, but she also, indisputably, said she was ready to release them. Then, you make a fuss about the condition to a judge's decision, in order to portray this as if it supported your slanted interpretation that the offer doesn't exist, but in fact a judge's decision is just a condition implicit within any request to the judge on this phase.

 

[Bill Williams]

STEFANONI'S LETTER TO MICHELI WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PERSUADE HIM THAT PASCALI SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE EDFs. MICHELI APPARENTLY DECIDED IN SUPPORT OF HER POSITION, AND THEREFORE THE OFFER TO VIEW THE EDFs WAS NEVER EVEN PUT TO PASCALI.

This is a personal interpretation, it is not supported by facts, and it is manifestly inconsistent with the content.

What a load of hooey, Machiavelli. You have just spent the larger part of the post describing the "content" which LJ's point is manifestly consistent with.

It is simply unbelievable that you'd argue as you do, then provide your answer as a simple, "no it isn't," when it manifestly is.

You have cojones, Machiavelli, to lie like this so publicly.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a personal interpretation, it is not supported by facts, and it is manifestly inconsistent with the content. In particular, it is omitting the statement of Stefanoni where she says she is ready to make them available, while it is undisputable she stated that. If fact your whole interpretation sounds like an attempt to remove the existence of such statement from the table, to maintain that it doesn't exist.
But that is not exactly what an unbiased observer would do.
She might have hinted that she would prefer not to release them, but she also, indisputably, said she was ready to release them. Then, you make a fuss about the condition to a judge's decision, in order to portray this as if it supported your slanted interpretation that the offer doesn't exist, but in fact a judge's decision is just a condition implicit within any request to the judge on this phase.

Machiavelli - can you put this slanted and biased view of yours in the context of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution?

I thought not.

 

[carbonjam72]

Perhaps the fact that many people are building purpose-built labs to do LCN work is a clue that that no one thinks that the 'old' facilities are appropriate? You could check ENFSI recommendations on documentation and making available records of environmental and ambient exposure records. None of which Stefanoni met.

This is an interesting paper from the Netherlands National Forensic Institute
Error rates in forensic DNA analysis: Definition, numbers, impact and communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014
This documents that contamination rates are constant and discusses how they should be presented. (Not just denied.)

A good practical example of how Stefanoni's lab was not set up for LCN work is the fact that she used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA in the extract - completely inappropriate for a low DNA sample. Then vacuum extraction - a very high risk method for contamination to concentrate the extract.

Maybe that's the whole point of her doing it. That's her method of inducing contamination. As long as she denies there's anything wrong, what prosecutor will complain of getting the result they need to convict?