Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

My mistake. I've just read the relevant section of C and V. There's an epg for 25/09/09 and one for 10/06/2008 (British date format). With the latter attached to Stefanoni's original report. The peaks present RFU levels differently. Ok. Sorry Planigale et al.

There are numerous egrams:

amp. 681, plate 410, dated __ Jan 2008--the original egram that has been suppressed

amp. 681, plate 414, dated __ Jan. 2008--apparently a re-run of the plate 410 egram, perhaps to clean up some perceived deficiency in advance of the meeting of consultants that was held on January 10, 2008. The original version of this egram has not be found, AFIK.

amp. 681, plate 414, dated 10 Jun 2008--this is the egram of 681:414 as generated by Stefanoni for attachment of the lab report in June 2008.

amp, 681, plate 414, dated 25 Sep. 2009--I think that this is the "new" egram that Stefanoni created and supplied to the defense mid-trial to prove peak areas.

So, basically, Stefanoni did two electrophoresis runs of amplification no. 681, only used the second and failed to disclose the first, ran new egrams of the second whenever she felt like it, but didn't let the defense access the raw data that she was using to do so. Not sure how different peak heights are explained, unless she was using up part of the amplicon each time she ran a new egram, which would mean that she had some left as late as 2009.

Note also that there is only a single amplification of 681, even though the quantification run was both contaminated and improperly set up (and therefore totally unreliable), and the alleged Sollecito portion of the sample is miniscule.

 

[Diocletus]

How do you envisage “proof of contamination” being presented in any judicial context?

Well, we have the obviously contaminated controls. And the bra clasp that has more male profiles than the shower drain in a prison.

The ECHR deals with human rights violations. As far as I know, there is not a legal mechanism in the Italy\US extradition process to re-examine evidence. Indeed, the scheduled Court of Cassation hearing does not review evidence.

You do realize that you're talking about three different things? And that you have an excessively simplistic understanding of each of them?

 

[Kauffer]

How do you envisage “proof of contamination” being presented in any judicial context?

The ECHR deals with human rights violations. As far as I know, there is not a legal mechanism in the Italy\US extradition process to re-examine evidence. Indeed, the scheduled Court of Cassation hearing does not review evidence.

I think you've missed the context of my post which was about the tone of press interest in the case becoming more serious if the verdicts are confirmed, with specialist journalists in the legal and science fields taking a much closer interest and not, apparently, what you thought it was about.

 

[Diocletus]

All we appear to know is, if Stefanoni is being truthful, Polizia Scientifica has never disclosed data to defences in any case it has handled. I wonder how many cases that is? We do not know for certain however, how desperate the situation is elsewhere in Italy (although Stefanoni says the data is never disclosed anywhere) - in how many cases disclosure of data was made without request, with request or in how many cases it would or should have made a difference at trial. As you correctly point out, in this case we have one instance of testing from the carabinieri lab where the data was provided, in sharp contrast to Stefanoni's lab where the prosecution consultant was given exclusive access to evidence. So, is this more likely to be exclusively a Polizia Scientifica problem? Perhaps so.

I've been trying to follow developments in the Yara case, and it appears to be a carbon-copy of this case, with secret testing, strange forensics results and a refusal to turn over data to the defense. Sara Gino is the defense consultant in that case, too, so presumably she is on to the sneaky/illegal conduct by the labs. Don't know whether the defendant is guilty, but the lab work looks like it's going to be a mess.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Illogicality of reasoning

Indeed, the scheduled Court of Cassation hearing does not review evidence.

CoulsdonUK,

It is a shame that no one told the SCC that they were not supposed to rule on evidence in 2013. There, they decided that Curatolo was credible, and they found a prosecution witness (Novelli) more credible than independent witnesses (Conti and Vecchiotti). There are probably other such examples from this case. This has been a longstanding problem with the SCC. "Separating Law from Facts: The Difficulties Faced by the Italian Corte di cassazione in an Appeal for Illogicality of Reasoning," Rachel Anne Fenton, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 709-719. link

 

[Kauffer]

There are numerous egrams:

amp. 681, plate 410, dated __ Jan 2008--the original egram that has been suppressed

amp. 681, plate 414, dated __ Jan. 2008--apparently a re-run of the plate 410 egram, perhaps to clean up some perceived deficiency in advance of the meeting of consultants that was held on January 10, 2008. The original version of this egram has not be found, AFIK.

amp. 681, plate 414, dated 10 Jun 2008--this is the egram of 681:414 as generated by Stefanoni for attachment of the lab report in June 2008.

amp, 681, plate 414, dated 25 Sep. 2009--I think that this is the "new" egram that Stefanoni created and supplied to the defense mid-trial to prove peak areas.

So, basically, Stefanoni did two electrophoresis runs of amplification no. 681, only used the second and failed to disclose the first, ran new egrams of the second whenever she felt like it, but didn't let the defense access the raw data that she was using to do so. Not sure how different peak heights are explained, unless she was using up part of the amplicon each time she ran a new egram, which would mean that she had some left as late as 2009.

Note also that there is only a single amplification of 681, even though the quantification run was both contaminated and improperly set up (and therefore totally unreliable), and the alleged Sollecito portion of the sample is miniscule.

Thanks for this - it's really helpful. I was reading the Sollecito appeal summary and got completely carried away thinking that maybe they had got hold of the original egram from 410. Duh!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

It is a shame that no one told the SCC that they were not supposed to rule on evidence in 2013. There, they decided that Curatolo was credible, and they found a prosecution witness (Novelli) more credible than independent witnesses (Conti and Vecchiotti). There are probably other such examples from this case. This has been a longstanding problem with the SCC. "Separating Law from Facts: The Difficulties Faced by the Italian Corte di cassazione in an Appeal for Illogicality of Reasoning," Rachel Anne The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 709-719. link

Chris_Halkides

Do you recall their legal arguments for doing so?

 

[tsig]

How do you envisage “proof of contamination” being presented in any judicial context?

The ECHR deals with human rights violations. As far as I know, there is not a legal mechanism in the Italy\US extradition process to re-examine evidence. Indeed, the scheduled Court of Cassation hearing does not review evidence.

That's why all this speculation on evidence, contamination, he said/she said is completely meaningless.

 

[Diocletus]

There are numerous egrams:

amp. 681, plate 410, dated __ Jan 2008--the original egram that has been suppressed

amp. 681, plate 414, dated __ Jan. 2008--apparently a re-run of the plate 410 egram, perhaps to clean up some perceived deficiency in advance of the meeting of consultants that was held on January 10, 2008. The original version of this egram has not be found, AFIK.

amp. 681, plate 414, dated 10 Jun 2008--this is the egram of 681:414 as generated by Stefanoni for attachment of the lab report in June 2008.

amp, 681, plate 414, dated 25 Sep. 2009--I think that this is the "new" egram that Stefanoni created and supplied to the defense mid-trial to prove peak areas.

So, basically, Stefanoni did two electrophoresis runs of amplification no. 681, only used the second and failed to disclose the first, ran new egrams of the second whenever she felt like it, but didn't let the defense access the raw data that she was using to do so. Not sure how different peak heights are explained, unless she was using up part of the amplicon each time she ran a new egram, which would mean that she had some left as late as 2009.

Note also that there is only a single amplification of 681, even though the quantification run was both contaminated and improperly set up (and therefore totally unreliable), and the alleged Sollecito portion of the sample is miniscule.

Further to this, here is an excerpt from C&V:

We now report the electropherogram, dated Sep 25, 2009 10:10 AM, relating to the interpretation of the stutters performed by Dr. Stefanoni, sent to us by her via CD-ROM, on April 29, 2011.

[graph p. 116]
[graph p. 117]

In order to determine whether the interpretation of the stutters in the electropherogram attached to the RTIGF was performed, as the Technical Consultant claimed, according to the “international standards” and according to the recommendations of the ISFG, we examined the electrophoretic graph, sent to us by Dr. Stefanoni via e-mail, on May 10, 2011, with the indications relative to the heights and areas of all the peaks present in the attached graph.

We note that no date of execution of the electrophoretic run is recorded in the graph sent to us on May 10, 2011, but from a comparison between this and the electropherogram dated Sep 25,2009 10:10 AM, where the stutters are indicated, we observe that the peaks present the same heights, so we conclude that the graph sent to us on May 10, 2011 refers to the graph dated Sep 25,2009 10:10 AM. However, differences in the heights of the peaks expressed in RFU emerge from a comparison of these electropherograms with the electropherogram attached to the RTIGF (dated June 10,2008 12:58 PM) (cf. electropherograms) in that in the graph attached to the RTIGF, the peaks present RFU [levels] above 1200 while in the other electropherograms (electropherogram of May 10, 2011, electropherogram dated Sep 25, 2009 10:10 AM) the peaks present RFU [levels] clearly [nettamente] below 1200.

So, C&V are saying that the 25 Sep. 2009 egram is different from the 10 Jun 2008 egram. I think we can be sure that the 681:410 egram (suppressed) would also be different. Thus, it appears to me that Stefanoni ran only one amplification, but at least three different electrophoreses of 165b (autosomal).

It seems to me that on or about 25 Sep. 2009, Stefanoni illegally conducted destructive testing that consumed the remainder of the 165b amplicon, and probably at this time illegally destroyed the bra clasp by storing it in buffer solution. I think that Stefanoni believed in September 2009 that it was likely that she was going to be compelled to turn over the samples/raw data pertaining to 165b.

She was doing bad stuff.

 

[Numbers]

Chris_Halkides

Do you recall their legal arguments for doing so?

The legal argument used is that the lower court acceptance of certain evidence or interpretation of certain evidence is "illogical". (The US or UK legal language would perhaps be "unreasonable".) Judgments or interpretations by a lower court, according to Italian procedural law (CPP), that are judged "illogical" by a higher court, may be re-interpreted. This is the mechanism that the CSC uses to act as a trier of fact, without actually evaluating the facts and evidence first-hand.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The SCC was manifestly wrong with respect to DNA

Chris_Halkides

Do you recall their legal arguments for doing so?

CoulsdonUK,

They court wrote in 2013 "...strongly as a result of the scientific contribution of Professor. Novelli, geneticist of undisputable fame recognized by the same Court (p. 79 sent.) on the availability of equipment able of operate with safety also quantities of less than ten picograms, in the areas of diagnostic character (even on embryos) in which the claim to certainty is certainly no less pressing than that which animates the legal field..." With respect to Dr. Novelli, they overpraised his credentials, which are not primarily in the area of forensics. The notion that a there is new equipment which somehow makes the problems of low template DNA forensics vanish is...wishful thinking (shall we say), as I have previously discussed at length. They also presented a false analogy to embryonic diagnostic work, likewise which I have gone through previously.

(from the link I provided) Rachel Anne Fenton wrote, "It can be concluded that throughout the judgment, the Corte di cassation has consistently put forward an alternative evaluation of the merits of the case and that this is the basis of the finding that the motivazione of the Corte diAppello was manifestly illogical and contained omissions. The Corte di cassazione has not criticised the motivazione on the basis that X plus Y cannot equal Z, but rather has declared that X plus Y must equal W. Such a judgment calls the very nature of the role of the Corte di cassazione into question, as clearly in this case it has acted as a court of third instance rather than in fulfilment of its nomothetic function."

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK,

It is a shame that no one told the SCC that they were not supposed to rule on evidence in 2013. There, they decided that Curatolo was credible, and they found a prosecution witness (Novelli) more credible than independent witnesses (Conti and Vecchiotti). There are probably other such examples from this case. This has been a longstanding problem with the SCC. "Separating Law from Facts: The Difficulties Faced by the Italian Corte di cassazione in an Appeal for Illogicality of Reasoning," Rachel Anne The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 709-719. link

The key here is that if Cassazione uses the "illogical" argument with regard to facts as found by lower courts, they are supposed to remand the case to the lower court with instructions to re-review the point in question. Added to this is the possibility that Cassazione can just rule to reverse a conviction (or acquittal) without remanding.

On the matters Chris mentions above, who really knows - it probably is within the domain of accepted practice in Italy to have Cassazione meddle in the unconstitutional way that they did. But the kicker is that the Nencini court did not, in fact, re-review many/most matters. The Nencini court acted as-if it had been directed to find a fact by Cassazione. One wonders if this alone is cause for Cassazione to overturn Nencini's decision - that Nencini in fact did not review the stuff his court was to review.

But as Chris mentions, the whole issue of separating the two concepts is fraught with difficulty and, IMO, abuse. This whole case is a case in point.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's why all this speculation on evidence, contamination, he said/she said is completely meaningless.

No, you're totally wrong.

The Italian Supreme Court has the right and the duty to rule on matters of law. There is a strong argument to be made that the various trial judges gravely erred in law when they failed to ensure full discovery of DNA source data to the defence. It's that little thing called "the right to a fair trial". You may have heard of that.

And the ECHR, likewise, has the remit to examine whether an applicant's human rights were violated - and one of the key ways in which such a violation can occur is if the applicant was denied the right to a fair trial. It's Article 6 in the Convention. And in order to adjudicate whether or not there was a fair trial, the ECHR will be rather interested in whether there was fair and proper discovery, and whether the DNA evidence was treated fairly and properly.

And on your simplistic point of "he said/she said", that also will indeed be of direct interest to (and well within the remit of) both the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR - there are numerous points of law that were arguably breached in the admission of this evidence and the logical knots in which the Nencini court in particular tied itself up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the electronic data files are the "best evidence"

The Italian Supreme Court has the right and the duty to rule on matters of law. There is a strong argument to be made that the various trial judges gravely erred in law when they failed to ensure full discovery of DNA source data to the defence. It's that little thing called "the right to a fair trial". You may have heard of that.

This. The SCC could have and should have taken this case as an opportunity to set things right with respect to the discovery of DNA evidence. As forensic DNA expert Marc Taylor observed, "We have discovered numerous manipulations of the data analysis or the actual physical analysis of the evidence by reviewing the electronic data…The electronic data is clearly the ‘best evidence’ in the legal system.” (highlighting mine)

 

[Numbers]

How do you envisage “proof of contamination” being presented in any judicial context?

The ECHR deals with human rights violations. As far as I know, there is not a legal mechanism in the Italy\US extradition process to re-examine evidence. Indeed, the scheduled Court of Cassation hearing does not review evidence.

Regarding your statement about ECHR, that is correct. More specifically, the ECHR is a court which hears applications including those from individuals who claim that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. One such right, specified broadly in Convention Article 6, is the right to a fair trial. The ECHR does not review evidence to determine whether or not a specific item of evidence is reliable, but it does review whether the fairness of a trial has been adversely affected by how evidence is evaluated in a court. This may include how the evidence was obtained and whether or not the defense was given sufficient and effective opportunity to challenge the validity and significance of the evidence, and whether or not the interpretation of the evidence by the court met the judicial standards of logic and probity accepted internationally.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Italian Supreme Court has the right and the duty to rule on matters of law. There is a strong argument to be made that the various trial judges gravely erred in law when they failed to ensure full discovery of DNA source data to the defence. It's that little thing called "the right to a fair trial". You may have heard of that.

This. The SCC could have and should have taken this case as an opportunity to set things right with respect to the discovery of DNA evidence. As forensic DNA expert Marc Taylor observed, "We have discovered numerous manipulations of the data analysis or the actual physical analysis of the evidence by reviewing the electronic data…The electronic data is clearly the ‘best evidence’ in the legal system.” (highlighting mine)

This. And this!

It is bizarre in the extreme to read a judge of the Supreme Court, in essence, reverse the burden of proof (as per Peter Gill's observations)....

.... as well as seemingly allow reentry of evidence against Amanda Knox which had been formerly ruled inadmissible by a former ruling of the very same Supreme Court.

Because of the Treaty of Westphalia, Italy perhaps has the right to rule on its own laws as it sees fit with no outside interference..... but there is a potential matter of international treaty looming as a possibility where the USA gets to apply its own standards.

I'm refreshed by at least one Italian on the Porta a Porta program who said, "The Americans protect the rights of their citizens, why don't we Italians do the same?" Or words to that effect.

That's a third "this". So far the Italian Supreme Court has used legal spin to deprive one of their own citizens of rights - with one slim chance (March 25) to set it right within the country.

 

[tsig]

No, you're totally wrong.

The Italian Supreme Court has the right and the duty to rule on matters of law. There is a strong argument to be made that the various trial judges gravely erred in law when they failed to ensure full discovery of DNA source data to the defence. It's that little thing called "the right to a fair trial". You may have heard of that.

And the ECHR, likewise, has the remit to examine whether an applicant's human rights were violated - and one of the key ways in which such a violation can occur is if the applicant was denied the right to a fair trial. It's Article 6 in the Convention. And in order to adjudicate whether or not there was a fair trial, the ECHR will be rather interested in whether there was fair and proper discovery, and whether the DNA evidence was treated fairly and properly.

And on your simplistic point of "he said/she said", that also will indeed be of direct interest to (and well within the remit of) both the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR - there are numerous points of law that were arguably breached in the admission of this evidence and the logical knots in which the Nencini court in particular tied itself up.

I somehow doubt the ISS will consider this thread as evidence. I doubt they even know that this forum exists.

 

[Bill Williams]

I somehow doubt the ISS will consider this thread as evidence. I doubt they even know that this forum exists.

This is true.

Yet it is refreshing to see on mainline Italian TV experts rehashing what is rehashed here. One Porta a Porta literally dared the "PMs" to come get him, after he mocked their power within the Italian judiciary. He blew kisses at the TV camera at the all-knowing, all-seeing PMs.

Mignini has certainly made sport of filing suits against everyone who has criticized him. All it takes is more Italians like that guy on TV as well as Judge Hellmann to say, "Well, you have to come and get me, too," for the house of cards to tumble. You can't sue everyone for impugning your honour, because it begins to look like your honour deserves to be impugned.

There used to be circulating here (circa 2008 or 2010) an academic paper which used the Sollecito/Knox case as an example of a legal system, like Italy's, which is stuck midway in a transition from inquisitorial to adversarial. IIRC the use of the Sollecito/Knox trials was to demonstrate what happens when the former power of the prosecutor in an inquisitorial system, is exercised in a system with some adversarial tools available to him and the courts.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but in an inquisitorial system, the courts simply assume that the police and prosecutor have brought someone before them who is probably guilty, simply on the say-so of the prosecutor and police. The court than affords all sorts of other checks and balances - including three levels of trials! - to balance off that uneven playing field to start things off.

In an adversarial system it is different, IIUC. All the skepticism of the prosecution's case is built in up front. Right from the git-go, the court assumes the accused's innocence, and says to the powerful state-representative: show me.

Does anyone remember that study? At the time it seemed to show how things could go off the rails, depending on where any one individual judge sat in relation to a mid-point of a major transition. There were traditionalists defending the old system, vs. progressives trying to rush the new system along.

 

[sept79]

I somehow doubt the ISS will consider this thread as evidence. I doubt they even know that this forum exists.

And your point is . . .

 

[Kaosium]

Can someone explain the meaning of this from Mr Sollecito's latest appeal (summary)?

(Eight Reason)

"The difference between the electropherogram originally derived by Stefanoni in 2008 and the one she finally gave to the court appointed experts on May 2011 lies in as much as 19 peaks suppressed from the autosomic profile and 14 suppressed from the Y-aplotype profile."

The defence has seen two different epgs for the clasp?

Or have I misunderstood?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co.../Summary-Sollecito-New-Reasons-of-Appeal.docx

I believe what they're getting at is something I explained in this post where I went through the various electropherograms Stefanoni produced (one in the RTIGF in 2008, one supplied to the Massei Court in 2009 and finally the one the independent experts received in 2011) and demonstrated how Stefanoni had hidden many alleles by not labeling them and not giving them peak data, but instead pretended those peaks were stutter.

In that post I linked those electropherograms and followed one loci (D8S1179) on the autosomic and showed how more alleles 'appeared' as more information was demanded of Stefanoni. For D8S1179 there were two peaks hidden in this fashion (going by a 50 RFU cut off) but the grand total for the entire electropherogram was 19 for the autosomic and 14 from the Y-STR results which I didn't address. Note that there were two basic DNA tests run on the bra clasp, the autosomic which is what many commonly think of as standard DNA testing and the Y-STR test which just checks for male DNA.

All of those electropherograms were derived from the same data, the EDFs, but by changing the parameters of what got labeled and given peak height and area data Stefanoni was able to conceal that many of the peaks she called 'stutter' were in fact alleles by the standards she claimed in her court testimony that she followed.