Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Just 15 minutes before the search was to take place they called a public defender by telephone to see if it was okay.

What?

 

[Dan O.]

What?

It's right there in the arrest document. Geez, you'd think it was in a foreign language or something the way these things are ignored.

Avvisato della relativa facoltå, nominava quale difensore di fiducia l'Avvocato Tiziano TEDESCHI del Foro di Bari, con studio a Giovinazzo (BA), avvisato telefonicamente alle ore 12.50 sull'utenza 080/83941063.​

Warned of its faculty, appointed as an advocate of confidence Lawyer Titian GERMANS the Court of Bari, with a studio in Giovinazzo (BA), warned by phone at 12:50 on the user 080/83941063.​

 

[Numbers]

I did email Polizia Scientifica - they wouldn't give it to me. If you have her personal email, I'm more than happy to ask her directly.

I think her qualifications, training and expertise are relevant; I think they are relevant for any discipline, particularly when it's brought into court.

The American Bar Association standards require disclosure of qualifications and training of those who are put up as experts. Why not in Italy? But, then, Professor Vecchiotti's are published by Sapienza are they not?

After all, even I can put on a protective suit and start swabbing things with bits of cotton wool on the end of sticks whilst wearing latex gloves. It wouldn't mean I knew what I was doing however. The thing is, you see, there's some compelling evidence that Stefanoni didn't either and that she made rather a lot of mistakes both en scene and later in the lab - well, in the lab, actually, the allegations are even more serious than that.

Would you let a Doctor operate on you without knowing his or her background? Why should courts let people testify as experts without knowing theirs?

Why? Because she is a police official working for the prosecution. Even though Italy is supposed to practice the adversarial system of justice, the inquisitional system lives on in practice.

The failure to disclose the background and qualifications of the people running and supervising the tests and writing the reports is no different from the failure to disclose the methodology of the testing or the system, if any, of quality control/assurance and contamination recording/response. The police DNA lab in US terms is not compliant with standards and its results can be challenged on that basis.

 

[Mr Fied]

You don't need homicide to have urgency.

Paragraph 1. says urgency is a founded reason to suspect that traces or things at the place may be altered or be lost if they wait.

Does this mean that if evidence is not collected from a crime scene until weeks after the crime, and the crime scene has been altered and disturbed. Then that evidence could have been altered during that time?

 

[Kauffer]

It's right there in the arrest document. Geez, you'd think it was in a foreign language or something the way these things are ignored.

Avvisato della relativa facoltå, nominava quale difensore di fiducia l'Avvocato Tiziano TEDESCHI del Foro di Bari, con studio a Giovinazzo (BA), avvisato telefonicamente alle ore 12.50 sull'utenza 080/83941063.​

Warned of its faculty, appointed as an advocate of confidence Lawyer Titian GERMANS the Court of Bari, with a studio in Giovinazzo (BA), warned by phone at 12:50 on the user 080/83941063.​

But not surely, a public defender, referred to in a previous post. Tedeschi figures large in Mr Sollecito's book - a friend of his father, is he not?

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Tiziano-Tedeschi/1231286944

 

[carbonjam72]

MAC or PC?

What's your theory?

I must hear Mach's answer first, as to whether Mach's laptop is a MAC or PC, before I reveal my theory, so as to preserve the integrity of the thesis.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, I do have an idea.

Let's just say that his was both a political task he carried on as a paid member of the SISDE and both because of his belonging to a "circle" of friends (Calamandrei was a close friend of him too). Those "friends" were connected by some peculiar interests, by masonic brotherhood, and by their attending some people and places.

The most important "friend" was a prominent politician. Besides the political-ideological and cultural alleigiance, peculiar interests included exoterism (this was a factual finding about Spezi) and peculiar sexual activities (on the part of the politician, of Narducci and other friends) and about "unorthodox" medical techniques to heal sexual problems (on the part of Calamandrei, Narducci and others); habits and acquaintances in common between Narducci, Vanni, Pacciani and Lotti were that they attended the same Florentine prostitutes (albeit Narducci was from Perugia) and they would also visit them together, driving two cars one of which was Narducci's Citroen; and they also shared some very peculiar acquantances (like a known "psychic"); peculiar places included "Il Forteto" and some apartments and houses.
But the question is not really how these people happened to attend a circle and became involved in activities that connected them to each other.

The actual point is that there was a structural element, we can call it a political element, that also happens to be made by masons, but this is incidental (it's only a sub-set of masons), it is basically a political structure, it had established itself in those years and already existed, it pre-existed to the entering of Spezi and others so that it was possible for those people to get involved in it, to become engaged under its umbrella, each one having the opportunity to take advantage of this in order to carry on their own personal illicit aims along their personal vices.
What keeps together a criminal group of power is that all members have something to hide, a need to cover up for each other and something to gain from their being the members of a circle.

Details would be helpful. Leaving these things vague or only hinted at, just makes it harder to understand.

Is the prominent politician Burlesconi? Is the 'psychic', Carlizzi? Was the Florence prostitute Ghiribelli? (these are probably terrible guesses).

What court or case was Spezzi "found to have interests of esoterism"? Is this a reference to Spezi writing articles about Giutarri's MOF theories?

What were the "unorthodox medical techniques", and what proof is there of such use?

How much of this information is derived from the testimonies of the 'algebraic witnesses' and maybe the other MOF witness (was his name Nesi?).

By the way, what is SISDE? IS that a state security organization? And do you have proof Spezi was employed by them? Or that Spezi was a failed lawyer and failed judge?

Can you disclose if your laptop is a MAC or PC variant? Or, do you even run UNIX?

 

[christianahannah]

You really should try to keep up. My statement was that there was no Novelli report concerning the "gap" samples or submitted in the Nencini proceeding. You failed to refute that.

I think Novelli's 2011 report dealt with the gap samples, however, it would have been one of the documents submitted to be considered during the 2nd appeal Nencini court. The RIS submitted a report to the Necini court but it was limited in scope dealing with the untested area on the knife which Vecchiotti and Conti did not do.

 

[carbonjam72]

You really should try to keep up. My statement was that there was no Novelli report concerning the "gap" samples or submitted in the Nencini proceeding. You failed to refute that.

Diocletus,

Can you explain the significance of this request? What are the "gap samples", and what is their importance or relevance to the case?

 

[christianahannah]

I must hear Mach's answer first, as to whether Mach's laptop is a MAC or PC, before I reveal my theory, so as to preserve the integrity of the thesis.

Well give two theories (depending on the answer - Mac or PC), thus preserving the integrity of your thesis.

 

[Kauffer]

Catinip's had a go at Zaichenko (p 110 of the latest PMF thread)

Was doing rather well - it's a slightly odd case - had recited the facts, explained some relevant aspects of a fair trial and carefully noted the decision and violation.

Then, Catnip wrote this:

"Z(aichenko)did not say: “Patrik did it! He’s a bad man! I covered my eyes in the yard.” So Z(aichenko)'s case is different from Amanda’s.

Maybe if Z had said that his passenger had taken the fuel, then there would be accusation like-for-like.

Further, from Amanda’s accusation of Patrick onwards, her legal path diverges even further from Z’s. Accusation made, Amanda was treated as a suspect, questioning stopped, defence due process guarantees activated automatically, the Public Prosecutor was immediately called in, woken from bed. The first formal interview as a suspect was in December. The various hand-written statements and the verbal accusation were ruled on by Cassation as to admissibility/inadmissibility on the murder/calunnia charges as against Amanda/others. Evidence was examined and cross-examined in detail."
I absolutely despair!

 

[Dan O.]

But not surely, a public defender, referred to in a previous post. Tedeschi figures large in Mr Sollecito's book - a friend of his father, is he not?

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Tiziano-Tedeschi/1231286944

Probably. Raffaele managed to call his father from the police station on the 5th. His father tried calling back and leaving messages with no response. The father probably figured out that Raffaele needed a lawyer and made the arrangement.

Ananda got the public defender.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well give two theories (depending on the answer - Mac or PC), thus preserving the integrity of your thesis.

And I'll simply suppress the one that's wrong, and claim I never did it. Same technique as Stefanoni's lab.

 

[Bill Williams]

The failure to disclose the background and qualifications of the people running and supervising the tests and writing the reports is no different from the failure to disclose the methodology of the testing or the system, if any, of quality control/assurance and contamination recording/response. The police DNA lab in US terms is not compliant with standards and its results can be challenged on that basis.

Although this entry seems to be based on US law, it makes a few point germane to Stefanoni's credentials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

Relevant to the discussion of whether or not Stefanoni has a Ph.D., in the US this would be part of the discovery process, and it is up to the side calling the expert to enter their credentials into evidence (therefore, Machiavelli should have Stef's credentials on his laptop, alongside the search warrant for Raffaele's apartment):

An expert testifying in a United States federal court must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Generally, under Rule 702, an expert is a person with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" who can "assist the trier of fact," which is typically a jury. A witness who is being offered as an expert must first establish his or her competency in the relevant field through an examination of his or her credentials. The opposing attorney is permitted to conduct a voir dire of the witness in order to challenge that witness’ qualifications. If qualified by the court, then the expert may testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" so long as: "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."​

This also talks about a "teaching witness" and a "reporting witness", where the first lays the groundwork so that the trier of fact has enough information about the field before receiving the facts, and then the latter witness brings the actual facts.

There's also the "Frye Test" as well as the "Daubert test". Read one.....

 

[Antony]

You don't need homicide to have urgency.

Paragraph 1. says urgency is a founded reason to suspect that traces or things at the place may be altered or be lost if they wait.

The only people who "lost" and altered evidence in this case were the police.

 

[Desert Fox]

Probably. Raffaele managed to call his father from the police station on the 5th. His father tried calling back and leaving messages with no response. The father probably figured out that Raffaele needed a lawyer and made the arrangement.

Ananda got the public defender.

Makes me wonder about the actual situation of public defenders in Italy

 

[sept79]

Originally Posted by christianahannah:
Well give two theories (depending on the answer - Mac or PC), thus preserving the integrity of your thesis.


And I'll simply suppress the one that's wrong, and claim I never did it. Same technique as Stefanoni's lab.

. . . and if I'm forced to release the EDFs, I'll just tell the court that I filed them with the interrogation video.

 

[Kaosium]

I thought this might be interesting to post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUX2MnFS1rw

Subtitled Italian talk show

That was a nice clip, thank you for posting it. I think Sulas made some powerful points at the end.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele has just released an appeal amendment for Cassazione to consider for its March 25 sitting.

Noticeably missing (once again), any reference to throwing Knox under a bus.

Lots of reference to Guede's admission that any sexual activity with Meredith was when Guede and Meredith were alone, which of course Guede maintains was consentual.

The document lays out (as best as I can read in Google translate) the simple impossibility for Sollecito to have been involved in this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?

I wonder if the Judges are asking this now, as they review the case files.

Probably not. As Machiavelli reminds us, in Italy people giving evidence are not on trial. Especially police, they are simply giving the facts and no one has the right to ask how they came to the conclusions they did.

This exchange is from a month ago.... as for witnesses, esp. expert witnesses being deemed, "not at trial here".....

The following bears repeating, albeit from US law......

An expert testifying in a United States federal court must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Generally, under Rule 702, an expert is a person with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" who can "assist the trier of fact," which is typically a jury. A witness who is being offered as an expert must first establish his or her competency in the relevant field through an examination of his or her credentials. The opposing attorney is permitted to conduct a voir dire of the witness in order to challenge that witness’ qualifications. If qualified by the court, then the expert may testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" so long as: "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."​

It is amazing how many items at this trial do not require proof, just the word of an expert.

And remember this - Cassazione seems to be seeking harmony between the judgments involving Rudy Guede - judgements which create "judicial facts" about Raffaele and Amanda, even though neither of them were "at trial" at Rudy's process......

.... but further, Rudy's process was a "fast track" process, meaning a regular set of trials with the evidence phase missing. This means that the judicial facts created by Rudy's trials were never tested, just stipulated. Yet they still count as "judicial facts" against people not represented at trial!

And further, remember the requests from the defence for further testing/analysis which were denied by Nencini!

AK and RS are potentially going to be condemned by a process with no evidence (just stipulations at a separate trial), and no right of reply. In the case of the "experts" (like Stefanoni, regardless of her academic qualifications), they are not on trial so don't even need to deposit a C.V. with the court! (Or else it would be on Machiavelli's laptop.)