Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

For those who would rather not rely on strawman arguments, the following is an English version of Raffaele's appeal amendment to Cassazione.

As you will see, the gloves are off. Also, no mention at all of withdrawal of alibi.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Summary-Sollecito-New-Reasons-of-Appeal.docx

​

Paradoxically this [Curatolo] argument took up all of 3 lines in the 2010 Hellmann appeal doc.
Now it’s down to a line and a half. My my - these lawyers are longwinded at times are they not.

So in a nutshell GB [for RS] is reduced to claiming Curatolo as an alibi as opposed to using AK
Is that the only alibi he claims?

 

[Kauffer]

Paradoxically this argument took up all of 3 lines in the 2010 Hellmann appeal doc.
Now it’s down to a line and a half. My my - these lawyers are longwinded at times are they not.

So in a nutshell GB [for RS] is reduced to claiming Curatolo as an alibi as opposed to using AK
Is that the only alibi he claims?

Since the prosecution claims Ms Knox was also involved in the murder, it's the only one that matters. If the prosecution seeks to rely on Curatalo, then they must treat his evidence (as must the court) for what it is and not what they would prefer it to be.

Alibi witnesses cannot help you when they too are charged with the same crime.

How many times have you had this explained to you in the last, say, five years?

 

[Numbers]

It looks very close to theirs.

Isn't this the bit where the money is? The bit that calls her out as a prosecution stooge and condemns her in the eyes of the international forensic scientific community?

"No other information, especially of a computerized nature, such as the log files requested by Professor V. Pascali, is necessary, to a genetic scientist, for the interpretation of analytical data, unless one hypothesizes falsification of the data presented"
Doesn't the good scientist say: "Here's my data; I stand by my work; go ahead and take a look"?

Does one have to hypothesise falsification? Aren't these files sometimes analysed by third parties who find honest error too?

Interesting too that she says that if the judge orders the disclosure then it would be:

"the only ever time in forensic history known to this office"

Does she mean in Italy or anywhere in the world?

Either she's deliberately misleading the judge or else there are countless cases - all criminal cases in fact in which the work of the Forensic Genetics section of the Polizia Scientifica was utilised - where, definitively, guilty or innocent, defendants have not received a fair trial.

This would appear to be extraordinary.

MichaelB,

Thank you; this letter is very revealing: "If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner." Compare this with the ABA standards on DNA evidence which explicitly make the raw data discoverable or the many quotes at viewfromwilmington on this subject. And this is more evidence, if it were actually needed, that the defense asked for forensic data but was refused, rendering the trials unfair. How people can continue to defend Stefanoni or the Italian system with respect to discovery is much more mysterious than this case itself ever was.

The Stefanoni interpretation of discovery, endorsed by the Italian judicial system, cries out for correction by a higher judicial or legislative power, which may be a CSC United Sections panel, the Italian Constitutional Court, the Italian Parliament, or at last resort, the ECHR.

 

[LondonJohn]

MichaelB,

Thank you; this letter is very revealing: "If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner." Compare this with the ABA standards on DNA evidence which explicitly make the raw data discoverable or the many quotes at viewfromwilmington on this subject. And this is more evidence, if it were actually needed, that the defense asked for forensic data but was refused, rendering the trials unfair. How people can continue to defend Stefanoni or the Italian system with respect to discovery is much more mysterious than this case itself ever was.

Oh I suspect not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni chose her words extremely carefully when she wrote "the only ever time in forensic history known to this office" ("unico caso nell’esperienza forense nota a questo Ufficio" in the original Italian). She couldn't write just "the only time ever in forensic history", because that's easily falsifiable (and I suspect Stefanoni, and others in her office, knew it to be false on its face).

But by adding the cunning "....known to this office", She conveniently added deniability to her claim. In other words, if Micheli came to learn that in fact the turning over of EDFs (indeed, all of the source data) was standard practice in most civilised jurisdictions, and mandated in many, then Stefanoni could plausibly claim "Oh gosh, Judge, that's news to me and my colleagues! We've never done it and we believed that nobody else had ever done it either!"

So I think she's gone for the cunning method of getting into Micheli's head that to turn over the EDFs is unheard of in the whole world of forensic science, while giving herself the wiggle room if Micheli ever did bother to check whether her claim was true. I suspect, however, that Stefanoni was pretty confident that Micheli would take her at her word, since she was/is well aware that Italian courts tend to place improper levels of blind faith in the police and their forensic scientists.....

 

[Kauffer]

Oh I suspect not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni chose her words extremely carefully when she wrote "the only ever time in forensic history known to this office" ("unico caso nell’esperienza forense nota a questo Ufficio" in the original Italian). She couldn't write just "the only time ever in forensic history", because that's easily falsifiable (and I suspect Stefanoni, and others in her office, knew it to be false on its face).

But by adding the cunning "....known to this office", She conveniently added deniability to her claim. In other words, if Micheli came to learn that in fact the turning over of EDFs (indeed, all of the source data) was standard practice in most civilised jurisdictions, and mandated in many, then Stefanoni could plausibly claim "Oh gosh, Judge, that's news to me and my colleagues! We've never done it and we believed that nobody else had ever done it either!"

So I think she's gone for the cunning method of getting into Micheli's head that to turn over the EDFs is unheard of in the whole world of forensic science, while giving herself the wiggle room if Micheli ever did bother to check whether her claim was true. I suspect, however, that Stefanoni was pretty confident that Micheli would take her at her word, since she was/is well aware that Italian courts tend to place improper levels of blind faith in the police and their forensic scientists.....

You are right LJ. But, as you clearly appreciate, if it wasn't true for the Polizia Scientifica, then it would be falsifiable. So I think it's probably true for them and that they've never disclosed data even when asked to.

Every case that has gone through PS labs should be reviewed. And that's just PS labs. What about others?

Since, we would argue, that any case coming before the ECHR, where disclosure has not been made, would be a violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial and since such a violation would ordinarily demand a retrial under Article 46, then this is a very serious matter indeed.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are right LJ. But, as you clearly appreciate, if it wasn't true for the Polizia Scientifica, then it would be falsifiable. So I think it's probably true for them and that they've never disclosed data even when asked to.

Every case that has gone through PS labs should be reviewed. And that's just PS labs. What about others?

Since, we would argue, that any case coming before the ECHR, where disclosure has not been made, would be a violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial and since such a violation would ordinarily demand a retrial under Article 46, then this is a very serious matter indeed.

Yep, I'm guessing that the totalitarian leanings of the Italian courts have pretty much allowed Italian police forensics labs to get away with all sorts of shenanigans, under the improper beliefs that a) the police (and police scientists) are as diligent, professional and honest as they could possibly be, and b) the police (and police scientists) have no incentive to be anything other than 100% truthful, open and reliable, since they are merely "seekers of the truth" with no investment in the outcome of a trial.

I wonder also if Italian defence lawyers have been, to a significant extent, indoctrinated into this way of thinking, since it's probably all they've ever known in practice. I think it's certainly possible to see this phenomenon in other areas of the defence teams' interactions with the courts and prosecutors in the Knox/Sollecito trials. I suspect, sadly, that until Pascali requested the EDFs, and outside experts started offering advice that it was critical to gain access to the EDFs, neither Dalla Vedova nor Bongiorno had any idea of what really ought to be disclosed on DNA issues (let alone low-template DNA issues).

 

[Bill Williams]

You are right LJ. But, as you clearly appreciate, if it wasn't true for the Polizia Scientifica, then it would be falsifiable. So I think it's probably true for them and that they've never disclosed data even when asked to.

Every case that has gone through PS labs should be reviewed. And that's just PS labs. What about others?

Since, we would argue, that any case coming before the ECHR, where disclosure has not been made, would be a violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial and since such a violation would ordinarily demand a retrial under Article 46, then this is a very serious matter indeed.

You are right LJ. But, as you clearly appreciate, if it wasn't true for the Polizia Scientifica, then it would be falsifiable. So I think it's probably true for them and that they've never disclosed data even when asked to.

Every case that has gone through PS labs should be reviewed. And that's just PS labs. What about others?

Since, we would argue, that any case coming before the ECHR, where disclosure has not been made, would be a violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial and since such a violation would ordinarily demand a retrial under Article 46, then this is a very serious matter indeed.

Unfortunately, this business of operator "intuition" being judicially over and against accepted protocol is now enshrined into Italian law, if you believe the Chieffi report from 2013:

12. - Genetic Investigations -

Also well founded is further criticism raised by the public plaintiff,
according to which the signs of the experts were passively incorporated, as
to the mere inadequacy of the investigations carried out by the Scientific
Police, who were not renewed, the experts having considered inadequate
the two samples in question ( 36 and 165 B) for the detection of the genetic
profile and due to the fact that it could not be ruled out that the result was
derived "from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of
sampling and/or handling and/or analytical processes made” . From p. 75
p. 82 the Court adopted the arguments developed in the assesment that,
indeed, had been the subject of severe disagreement with both Prof. Novelli
that Prof. Torricelli, consultants of the Procurator General and the civil
parties, whose authoritative voices were completely neglected. Prof.
Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but
added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud.
6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.​

Judge Massei believed Patrizia Stefanoni over and against Professor Tagliabracci ...........

....... simply on her say so. Afterall, as Machiavelli says here, the prosecution technical experts are not the ones on trial here. If they were, all decisions since 1986 would be suspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

Paradoxically this [Curatolo] argument took up all of 3 lines in the 2010 Hellmann appeal doc.
Now it’s down to a line and a half. My my - these lawyers are longwinded at times are they not.

So in a nutshell GB [for RS] is reduced to claiming Curatolo as an alibi as opposed to using AK
Is that the only alibi he claims?

Sigh.

Read Raffaele's full, initial appeals document. The one I pointed to is the most recent amendment. In the first one, "alibi" comes up 45 times. A major theme of it is, (paraphrase) "if you're going to this THAT piece of evidence against Knox, please note it gives an alibi to Raffaele." Yet they courts continue ruling that one piece f evidence which condemns one, condemns both. The Curatolo evidence is of a special category - Curatolo actually tends to give an alibi to BOTH!

I think this is the problem with the pro-guilt lobby. No matter what evidence is put before them, they stick with their confirmation bias.

Good for you.

 

[Kauffer]

Judge Massei believed Patrizia Stefanoni over and against Professor Tagliabracci ...........

....... simply on her say so. Afterall, as Machiavelli says here, the prosecution technical experts are not the ones on trial here. If they were, all decisions since 1986 would be suspect.

Well, all the decisions are suspect. There is now no question about this. It doesn't mean they are all wrong of course.

 

[Diocletus]

You are right LJ. But, as you clearly appreciate, if it wasn't true for the Polizia Scientifica, then it would be falsifiable. So I think it's probably true for them and that they've never disclosed data even when asked to.

Every case that has gone through PS labs should be reviewed. And that's just PS labs. What about others?

Since, we would argue, that any case coming before the ECHR, where disclosure has not been made, would be a violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial and since such a violation would ordinarily demand a retrial under Article 46, then this is a very serious matter indeed.

The issue doesn't really matter in cases where the raw files were not requested, were produced, or it can be shown that either the data or the DNA results don't really matter.

I'm guessing that there are very few cases where access to EDFs was requested and so strongly resisted by the authorities, and the DNA results were so shaky and yet decisive. This may be a bellwhether case in Italy.

Note, though, that the RIS attached their underlying data to their report to Nencini without any fuss. Also, Novelli was readily given access to not only lab results from this case, but also from other cases, simply by asking, and contrast that to the way the authorities responded to the defendants requests.

 

[Bill Williams]

Judge Massei believed Patrizia Stefanoni over and against Professor Tagliabracci ...........

....... simply on her say so. Afterall, as Machiavelli says here, the prosecution technical experts are not the ones on trial here. If they were, all decisions since 1986 would be suspect.

Well, all the decisions are suspect. There is now no question about this. It doesn't mean they are all wrong of course.

When the Branch Davidian/Mt. Carmel standoff concluded in the 1990s with a horrible fire in their compound, 80+ women, children and men burned. Many blamed the FBI and ATF for mishandling the whole affair.

However, some went further to say that the FBI/ATF started the fires, or should have known that fires might start in a wooden structure as they were pouring tear gas into it.

At the inquiry, someone favourable to the "the FBI/ATF did it," theory of how the fire started pointed to a Texas fire-expert's report saying the opposite. The fire-expert was accused by the conspiracist of all sorts of things - hiding data and being in bed with the Washington elite over and against Texans in general, not just Branch Davidians near Waco.

The very next witness was that very same fire-expert. He asked if he could open with a personal statement which was granted. He described himself as the original good ol'-boy red-neck, who thought (then-President) Bill Clinton was a Communist, and that Janet Reno had no business being attorney general. Indeed, if it was his call, the Lone Star flag would be a national flag, not a State flag.

He said he'd have been the first to want to blame the 'Feds for mishandling a situation like Mt. Carmel, when a few Texas Rangers with Wilson Combat pistols would have sorted it all out fairly quickly.

Then he said that first and foremost he was a scientist,and an arson/fire specialist. As much as he would love to blame that Communist Clinton for the disaster at Mt. Carmel, he said the science said that the Branch Davidians started it themselves.

He further said that he would release all the information which supported this to anyone who asked - because his lifeblood was peer review. The only coin in his realm was the confidence of peers who knew how to judge his work, and he invited anyone anytime to ask for anything to do with this case, because.....

The Branch Davidians did it.

He then put his Stetson back on, spit some chaw onto the floor of the inquiry room, and said, "ask me anything......"

What's a central theme here from Perugia 2007, is the suspect-centric nature of the investigation and subsequent judicial truths which come from that. Massei even addresses it in his 2010 report; but always comes back to this conclusion:

This was not a suspect-centric case, because......

..... Stefanoni told me so.

 

[JREF2010]

Unfortunately, this business of operator "intuition" being judicially over and against accepted protocol is now enshrined into Italian law, if you believe the Chieffi report from 2013:

​

Judge Massei believed Patrizia Stefanoni over and against Professor Tagliabracci ...........

....... simply on her say so. Afterall, as Machiavelli says here, the prosecution technical experts are not the ones on trial here. If they were, all decisions since 1986 would be suspect.

After seeing Edgardo Giobbi on film, in his own words saying how he uses his "gut instinct"only, its an ignorant group who handled this case.
For the Judges who blindly accept these humans as honest, because they hold a job wearing a uniform, is a very pathetic reality.

Look at Napoleoni and what she has been busted for? The lying and bizarre sloppy work of the police/prosecution experts can still, after all these years, make one ill, and destroy all faith in the police and legal systems like we see in this case.

The interrogation wasnt recorded because of budget cuts....give me a break.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We need to put it on the record

The interrogation wasnt recorded because of budget cuts....give me a break.

JREF2010,

One account of Amanda's interactions with Rita Ficarra is as follows:
The silver-haired officer said, “I was just asking Amanda some questions.” Ficarra said, “If that’s the case, we need to put it on the record.”

So where is the record? I bet Rita Ficarra is very mad that no one did as she said.

 

[Kauffer]

JREF2010,

One account of Amanda's interactions with Rita Ficarra is as follows:
The silver-haired officer said, “I was just asking Amanda some questions.” Ficarra said, “If that’s the case, we need to put it on the record.”

So where is the record? I bet Rita Ficarra is very mad that no one did as she said.

Isn't there a reference to contemporaneous note taking, somewhere in the testimonies?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Was Ficarra writing notes?

Isn't there a reference to contemporaneous note taking, somewhere in the testimonies?

I was puzzled about that portion of Ficarra's testimony at themurderofmeredithkercher, which does say that she was recording or writing down something (I have not double-checked her testimony elsewhere). I wonder what happened to those notes.

 

[platonov]

Words - how do they work?

Sigh.

Read Raffaele's full, initial appeals document. The one I pointed to is the most recent amendment. In the first one, "alibi" comes up 45 times. A major theme of it is, (paraphrase) "if you're going to this THAT piece of evidence against Knox, please note it gives an alibi to Raffaele." Yet they courts continue ruling that one piece f evidence which condemns one, condemns both. The Curatolo evidence is of a special category - Curatolo actually tends to give an alibi to BOTH!

I think this is the problem with the pro-guilt lobby. No matter what evidence is put before them, they stick with their confirmation bias.

Good for you.

Not ‘confirmation bias’ Bill the correct term is reading

See below

The Court of Florence did not analyze Sollecito’s position separately from Knox’s.
Particularly it appears that the Court denied the need for such an analisys because Sollecito had not dissociated himself from Knox.

In truth in all the recorded statements by Sollecito, he claims he does not remember the details of that evening because he had smoked marijuana. He does not remember exactly if Knox went out of his flat or not. On the other hand Sollecito is not accusing Knox: he cannot believe that she may have participated to such a heinous crime.

But this should not have prevented the Court of Florence from examining the possibility of an acquittal of Sollecito independently from Knox’s position.

Moreover the appealed ruling itself admits than in her 1.45 statement Knox places herself at Piazza Grimana not together with Sollecito, but with Lumumba.

For what concerns witness Curatolo and his sighting of the two defendants together at Piazza Grimana that evening, his unreliability has already been exposed previously, together with the paradoxical fact that accepting his testimony as true would mean giving the two defendants an alibi.

 

[platonov]

We have always been at war with ..someone

Since the prosecution claims Ms Knox was also involved in the murder, it's the only one that matters. If the prosecution seeks to rely on Curatalo, then they must treat his evidence (as must the court) for what it is and not what they would prefer it to be.

Alibi witnesses cannot help you when they too are charged with the same crime.

How many times have you had this explained to you in the last, say, five years?

Not once, now that you ask, for obvious reasons
That 2 co defendants giving each other an alibi is not particularly compelling has however been explained to the groupies thousands of times.

That, as is the case here, an alibi that is not reciprocated is even less compelling has also been explained - by platonov most recently as it happens.

What next - are you going to wonder how often it has been explained to me that the 2 white kids are guilty

 

[Diocletus]

What next - are you going to wonder how often it has been explained to me that the 2 white kids are guilty

No. You would have to go to the CLASOL forum for that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not ‘confirmation bias’ Bill the correct term is reading

See below

You left out a word. Selective.

As in 'selective reading.'

Once again, for the umpteenth time, please read the appeals document that this is an amendment to.

In fact, read his book.

The pro guilt lobby makes sport of lifting things out of context.

The chief context here is the judicial fact that the courts concede that each is the others' alibi, and that the way to destroy it as an alibi is to charge both with the **same** crime.

You pull well trod judicial territory out of context to sell an agenda that no one else shares - that Raffaele is throwing Amanda under a bus.

For the umpteenth time, read the whole appeal, complete with addendum.

 

[Kauffer]

Not once, now that you ask, for obvious reasons
That 2 co defendants giving each other an alibi is not particularly compelling has however been explained to the groupies thousands of times.

That, as is the case here, an alibi that is not reciprocated is even less compelling has also been explained - by platonov most recently as it happens.

What next - are you going to wonder how often it has been explained to me that the 2 white kids are guilty

What? I just explained this to you!

But to answer your question, the only thing you have ever prompted me to wonder about is your illeism.