Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

I guess NO. Science has caught up with the case in that tertiary transfer of DNA has been demonstrated - not that I think this will alter anyone's opinion. A number of leading labs have published on the inevitability of contamination, and how to address the issue, rather than denying it. Stefanoni's practice seems no worse than in some US commercial forensic labs (damning though that is).

Mach has announced that the prosecution (Kercher family) lawyers are sharing documents with the pro-guilt web sites (though whether this is at the instigation of the Kercher family is unclear - though likely).

A lot more documents are appearing on various web sites - some in translation.

I'm catching up on the new documents gradually. Some of the recent posts on the DNA issues with Stefanoni's work and the phone call records are interesting as well. I have yet to come across any information that points to guilt, as in the past, every document I read points to innocence and/or reasonable doubt.

It's hard for me to fathom anybody that studies the documents carefully thinking there is not at a minimum reasonable doubt in this case, from the witnesses to the forensics. There still appears no unified prosecution theory of the crime unless I am missing something.

 

[Planigale]

No no, I know what a fast track trial in Italy is! (And I believe you've described it accurately in many respects, except for the important part that it is the preliminary judge sitting alone who decides the case in the first instance). And that's the point. My post was exactly to indicate that there's no parallel between the Italian fast-track trial and anything in the Scottish (or E/W) criminal justice system.

It had been erroneously argued by a pro-guilt commentator that the Scottish summary procedure was in essence equivalent to the Italian fast-track trial (and that therefore people criticising the Italian fast-track trial system ought to know that the same thing happens in Scotland). But there's no equivalence whatsoever. The Italian fast-track trial is an option available to any defendant, even those on trial for murder (viz. Guede). It's a form of summary justice which is usually only chosen by those who know they have no chance of not being found not-guilty, since it attracts an automatic sentence reduction. If it does, therefore, have any parallel in Scottish (or E/W) criminal justice, it would be the practice of an early guilty plea (which also attracts an automatic sentence reduction in return for not having the case tested in full trial).

In contrast, the Scottish law summary procedure is in no way analogous to the Italian fast-track trial (and that's the point!). The summary procedure is an abbreviated (and far less costly) way of dealing with very minor criminal offences (driving offences, minor assaults, minor frauds, etc) by hearing them in a lower court in front of (usually) a single sheriff. The same thing exists in E/W, in the form of a trial in a magistrate's court. It's important also to note that in such trials, the defence are allowed to challenge the evidence against the accused and call witnesses and experts (within limits). Anyone in Scotland (or E/W) who is charged with a serious criminal offence (known as an "indictable offence") has no choice but to have a full trial in a high court (Scotland) or crown court (E/W).

So if Guede had been charged with murder in Scotland (or in E/W), he would have had no option of having any sort of abbreviated process - his alleged crimes would have been way too severe for this ever to be an option. He would have only had three options: 1) jury trial in a high court or crown court with a senior judge presiding; 2) judge-only trial in high court or crown court (exactly the same trial as in (1), but with no jury sitting and only the (high-level) judge deciding the case); or 3) Pleading guilty prior to (or during) a trial, in which case the proceedings would move directly to sentencing (with the appropriate sentence reduction to be applied).

Yes i get your point there is no equivalent in English (Commonwealth), US common law systems nor in the hybrid Roman law / common law Scottish system.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some things have not changed since I was a regular here. Has anyone changed their mind or had doubt cast on their opinion on the case recently?

What we've also discovered via Machiavelli is that Stepanoni actually did withhold the EDFs from the defence.

She did it by complaining to the court that in effect they were accusing her of lying and being a criminal, so attached conditions to the EDFs' release. These conditions were meant so that she could not really release them, but reshow here conclusions.

The judge had, apparently, not read Article 111 of the Italian Constitution - siding with Stefanoni and her conditions.

This meant that the defence either had to accuse the court of corruption, or let the matter lie.

Of course, guilters reduce this whole thing to: Stefanoni offered the EDFs and the defence refused.

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni's practice seems no worse than in some US commercial forensic labs (damning though that is).

Really? I know that some lab techs have been caught falsifying records, is that what you're referring to? Is there lab anywhere in the world that is unintentionally as bad as Stefanoni's?

 

[platonov]

It was all the rage here

Some things have not changed since I was a regular here. Has anyone changed their mind or had doubt cast on their opinion on the case recently?

Yea, Raffy has apparently

Didn’t you watch his latest TV appearance?

 

[platonov]

If you're curious as to why he calls her 'Britney,' he's referring to a video that went viral some ten years ago or so where a guy named Chris Crocker tearfully asks people to 'leave Britney (Spears) alone.'

I hadn't seen that in years.

After watching the complete version, the similarity is uncanny!

ETA
Actually Kaosium did you catch the recent exchanges between MichaelB & myself.
How would you incorporate this ‘new information’ into your Nov 5th theories?

 

[RoseMontague]

What we've also discovered via Machiavelli is that Stepanoni actually did withhold the EDFs from the defence.

She did it by complaining to the court that in effect they were accusing her of lying and being a criminal, so attached conditions to the EDFs' release. These conditions were meant so that she could not really release them, but reshow here conclusions.

The judge had, apparently, not read Article 111 of the Italian Constitution - siding with Stefanoni and her conditions.

This meant that the defence either had to accuse the court of corruption, or let the matter lie.

Of course, guilters reduce this whole thing to: Stefanoni offered the EDFs and the defence refused.

Amazing. Some things with this case you could not make up.

 

[LondonJohn]

The simplest explanation of a "Fast Track" trial I heard, was it was exactly the same three step process as ordinary trials, but with the evidence phase missing in the first two steps.

I likened this to proceeding with enough evidence simply stipulated that would satisfy a judge-panel that a reasonable determination of guilt - or innocence - could be made. The catch is that presumably a PM would not proceed to trial if the agreed stipulated evidence supported innocence.

It presents special problems, when others are being charged with the same crime. It's one thing when cross-examinable evidence has been tested atone trial, and viewed as "judicial truth" at another.

The injustice comes when stipulated, unexamined "judicial truth" is allowed to migrate over. This is why it is simply unjust to face "judicial truths" where you've not been allowed to question your accuser.

Guilters never address this.

But another very important difference is that a fast-track trial is only heard before a preliminary judge, and that the judge is deciding the case alone (i.e. without a second judge or any popular judges on a judicial panel).

In essence, it's very much like being convicted in a preliminary hearing. In England and Wales, even someone indicted for a serious offence such as murder has a preliminary hearing in a lower (magistrates') court, where three main things happen: 1) the magistrate or DJ hearing the case decides whether there is a prima facie case to answer (the prosecutor sets out the basics of the case and the charge, the defence lawyer has the chance to argue that there is no case to answer, the magistrate/DJ rules accordingly); 2) the case is remanded either back to the magistrates' court (only for minor charges) or passed over to the crown court (for all serious charges, including, of course, murder); and 3) the issue of bail is argued and decided (if appropriate).

As far as I can see, the Italian fast-track trial is in essence similar to a person charged with a serious crime (e.g. murder) being given the option of having this preliminary hearing decide his/her guilt. So if it could happen in the UK, a person up on the charge of murder would be able to opt for the magistrate (or DJ) sitting alone in the magistrates' court decide for guilt or non-guilt, purely on the basis of a preliminary hearing, in return for a lesser sentence if the finding was to convict.

 

[platonov]

New English translation of kiosk vendor Alessia Ceccarelli.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Testimony-of-Alessia-Ceccarelli.docx

You didn't respond to my last post.

Have I nailed it on the addition of RS to the 5.45 SD, do you think?

 

[platonov]

Oh yes, I knew.

It's just that I don't think that employing the name "Britney" to refer to Knox is appropriate at any level in a critical thinking forum. It was interesting that platonov wasn't prepared to explain his use of it directly again though.

If any serious, credible commentator wants to make claims that certain people have been hysterical in this manner in defence of Knox, then those accusations can reasonably be set out with direct reference to the people and emotions concerned. What's not acceptable in my view, however, is to appropriate the name "Britney" for Knox on that basis, and nor is it in any way appropriate to insinuate that such an emotional approach is the default position for anyone who believes that Knox (erm.... and Sollecito) should be acquitted.

But as I said above, it's interesting and useful when one gets a good peek behind the curtain - it makes it so much easier to assess the sincerity, quality and intellectual horsepower underpinning certain arguments. And then to be able to dismiss them pretty much out-of-hand for those reasons

Really

I thought perhaps Sr Gentile had a quiet word and your memories came flooding back.
Did you also know the last 3 or 4 times you asked 'Who's Britney'

ETA Steady on old chap - I can only apologize if the Britney reference upset you but Rolfe might be lurking. Lets give the mods a break shall we.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yea, Raffy has apparently

Didn’t you watch his latest TV appearance?

Platonov will simply repeat this factoid. It's called slow-flooding.

Rose - platonov is claiming that Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus at his press conference where he and Bongiorno were addressing the separation strategy.

Platonov is claiming something no one else claims. Raffaele's appeals document stands behind Amanda, the courts recognize that Raffaele is not throwing her under a bus and neither Amanda or her lawyers seem to no ( or care) about platonov's factoid.

But like all guilter evidence, simple repetition is enough.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you're curious as to why he calls her 'Britney,' he's referring to a video that went viral some ten years ago or so where a guy named Chris Crocker tearfully asks people to 'leave Britney (Spears) alone.'

I figure it had something to do with Britney Spears but was not sure what the exact reference might have been.

 

[platonov]

Platonov will simply repeat this factoid. It's called slow-flooding.

Rose - platonov is claiming that Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus at his press conference where he and Bongiorno were addressing the separation strategy. Platonov is claiming something no one else claims. Raffaele's appeals document stands behind Amanda, the courts recognize that Raffaele is not throwing her under a bus and neither Amanda or her lawyers seem to no ( or care) about platonov's factoid.

But like all guilter evidence, simple repetition is enough.

Oh Bill
It's happening again.

While the Press conf was hardly helpful ; 'She's not my alibi - RS', the word latest is a clue to what I'm referring to.

Please don't confuse Rose M. That's my job

 

[Kaosium]

I hadn't seen that in years.

After watching the complete version, the similarity is uncanny!

ETA
Actually Kaosium did you catch the recent exchanges between MichaelB & myself.
How would you incorporate this ‘new information’ into your Nov 5th theories?

You ought to re-read her note. If the cops testified (you mean Napoleoni, Ficarra & Zugarini I assume) that they never told her about Raffaele signing a statement leaving her without an alibi, then the cops lied as per her contemporaneous note. That's also what she said in a spontaneous statement right after they testified, something to the effect that she was 'sorry to hear it because none of it was true.'

 

[LondonJohn]

Amazing. Some things with this case you could not make up.

The letter was a thing of beauty if you're into sophistry

It was a letter from Stefanoni to Judge Micheli. The defence had previously contacted the court to ask why the prosecutors (via Stefanoni) were not providing discovery of the EDFs to the defence expert, Pascali. Stefanoni's letter was a deliciously Machiavellian (the real one) piece of work, whose purpose was to convince Micheli not to order disclosure of the EDFs, while at the same time giving Micheli the impression that she had nothing to hide. To that end, she told Micheli that such a request for EDFs by a defence team was essentially unheard-of in forensic science circles, that the defence definitely already had all they needed, and furthermore, that the only possible value to the defence in getting the EDFs would be if there had been fraudulent practice in Stefanoni's original work.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the subtext here from Stefanoni to Micheli:

"The defence don't need the EDFs to do their job properly, they've never been handed over before (and therefore you, judge, would be setting a worrying precedent if you rule they should be handed over in this case), and they'd only be of any use if my DNA work had been fraudulent (and therefore you, judge, would be in essence implying that you too were allowing for the possibility of fraudulent actions by me, your devoted public servant Stefanoni, if you were to mandate the turning over of the EDFs)."

And then came the piece de resistance! Stefanoni included in the letter the beautiful piece of theatre where she graciously and readily offered to let Pascali see the EDFs (but only if Micheli should order that Pascali must be allowed to see them....), under a set of conditions that might have seemed anodyne and acceptable to an ill-informed judge, but which would be utterly unacceptable within the scientific community.

So Stefanoni's desired effect from this letter - an effect which it would appear she achieved - was to show Micheli that in principle she was totally open and honest and ready to share everything with the defence, but that in the case of the EDFs it would be improper, unnecessary, and even suggestive of fraudulent acts by Stefanoni, for Micheli to order their discovery to Pascali:

"Judge, it's up to you: if you order me to show the EDFs to Pascali then I will readily and happily agree (under nutty conditions, the implications of which you probably don't understand...). But I strongly urge you NOT to order the release of the EDFs to Pascali for the compelling-looking reasons I gave you earlier. Your faithful, honest and diligent public servant, Doctor Stefanoni."

 

[Desert Fox]

You seem to find these memory lapses quite normal. I and many others including cops/ judges/jurists do not.

On the subject of memory lapses, here is Stefanoni giving testimony:

I was a juror in a trial and the officers were both asked where they were before they got the call and their answer was "I cannot recall."

I would ask anybody to take an even a week before and reconstruct what they did what in a certain day. I have had situations where i cannot recall if I worked a certain day.

 

[RWVBWL]

Keys...

Howdy,
About them upstairs keys...

Here's pic that Draca had linked to years ago,
it shows the foyer, or front door hallway, of Miss Kercher's flat.

Barbie Nadeau had written in her book "Angel Face"
that the foyer was were the girls hung their keys, umbrellas, and left messages.

As far as I know,
there's never been a photo of where the girls hung their keys.
It wasn't on the bulletin board. Where were the keys hung?

From watching the 1st Crime Scene video,
I found where the keys were most likely hung,
have a look above the date + time:

The umbrellas are hung on the wall behind the front door.

Just another tidbit of info...
RW

 

[RoseMontague]

Platonov will simply repeat this factoid. It's called slow-flooding.

Rose - platonov is claiming that Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus at his press conference where he and Bongiorno were addressing the separation strategy.

Platonov is claiming something no one else claims. Raffaele's appeals document stands behind Amanda, the courts recognize that Raffaele is not throwing her under a bus and neither Amanda or her lawyers seem to no ( or care) about platonov's factoid.

But like all guilter evidence, simple repetition is enough.

I have been following these exchanges on social media. Raffaele has not thrown AK under the bus. I agree with his defense team's strategy.

 

[Planigale]

I think that one area where pro innocence arguments have rather slipped from facts is regarding the bra hook. Whilst the failure to collect the bra hook during the initial crime scene investigation may say something to the quality of the crime scene investigation it does not mean that there is a logical explanation for Sollecito's DNA being found on the hook. I start with an assumption - I do not believe that there was any fraudulent contamination of the bra hook by Sollecito's DNA. The fact that the bra hook kicked (literally I suspect) around the floor and ended up under a rug does not in itself supply an explanation for Sollecito's DNA. Whilst no environmental samples were taken (and if they were, they would not have been exculpatory), there is no obvious reason for Sollecito's DNA being on the floor of Kercher's room. To some extent whether the hook was on the floor for 6 hours or 6 weeks is arbitrary.

It may be argued that during the six week interval some contamination episode happened, but it is not clear what this might have been. Whilst I think the suggested requirement of the defence to prove contamination is an undue burden; I do think the defence should make a specific rather than a generic argument for contamination.

I do think there are good innocent explanations for Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook. Unlike Guede, Sollecito had been present in the flat prior to Kercher's murder. DNA could have been directly deposited, Sollecito could have coughed or sneezed and deposited DNA on the bra, if it was hanging up to dry in the bathroom for instance. I know that some will say how did it end up on the hook and not elsewhere, but this is a postiori reasoning, wherever the DNA ended up that question could be asked. A more likely explanation would be secondary transfer. Either Knox with Sollecito's DNA on her hands picked up Kercher's bra (for instance out of a shared lot of laundry; or Meredith shook hands with / ruffled the hair of Sollecito that morning, went into her room put on her bra and transferred the DNA to the hook. Prof. Gill favours tertiary transmission, Sollecito's DNA transferred to the outside door knob when he tried to force Kercher's door (a very likely occurrence), the outer door knob was never tested for DNA. This DNA transferred to the gloves of the forensic scientist, (the knob was smooth metal and so would have transferred DNA well). Then DNA from the gloves was transferred on to the bra hook when collected.

Paradoxically the lack of DNA elsewhere in Kercher's bedroom and on her person favours these explanations. A struggle holding tight on to someone would have been very likely to transfer DNA, the excitement of a fight would have increased sweating (much of touch DNA originates from sweat) and thus DNA deposition. The bra hook would have been covered from direct contact, so the lack of DNA elsewhere and the presence of DNA on the hook favours an indirect transfer.

Overall I favour either secondary transfer via Kercher herself (very likely to touch the hook) or tertiary transfer via the gloves of the scene of crime investigator.

 

[Planigale]

Really? I know that some lab techs have been caught falsifying records, is that what you're referring to? Is there lab anywhere in the world that is unintentionally as bad as Stefanoni's?

I would not wish to make a defamatory statement, but if that is how you would interpret my statement i would not dispute it.