Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

I believe that an over-acceptance of the statements and actions of authority - in the sense of officialdom - for the sake of their presumed authority - is at the heart of many of the guilters' views. Indeed, I believe many of them could be called authoritarians; a definition follows. There are two meanings, somewhat different.

Full Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

When the whole world is like Cartwheel world this defn. will be replaced by a shorter one - Dr Gill is always right

ps What happens if Steve Moore or Frank S disagrees with Dr Gill. Does the universe explode!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the onus is on the prosecution

"It is highly important in this connection to bear in mind that, given the tiny amount of material needed to give a result using the LCN DNA technique, everyone agreed that especially stringent measures must be taken to avoid the contamination of samples. Dr Griffin indicated that the protective measures in the laboratory have been enhanced since the advent of LCN and the awareness of the need for the wearing of masks and hair covering to prevent the transfer of DNA from the examiner onto the item. The Defence submit, correctly in my judgment, that it is for the prosecution to establish the integrity and freedom from possible contamination of each item throughout the entirety of the period between seizure and any examination relied upon. They contend, and I accept the contention, that the court must be satisfied by the prosecution witnesses and supporting documents that all dealings with each relevant exhibit have been satisfactorily accounted for from the moment of its seizure until the moment when any evidential sample relied upon by the prosecution is taken from it and that by a method and in conditions that are shown to have been reliable. This means that each person who has dealt with the item in the intervening period must be ascertainable and be able to demonstrate by reference to some proper system of bagging, labelling, and recording that the item has been preserved at every stage free from the suspicion of interference or contamination." (highlighting mine)

In the Queen v Sean Hoey, a LCN DNA case, the judge put the onus on the prosecution to show that the sample had been handled properly (not on the defense to show a mechanism of contamination). Thanks to katydid for finding the link. As katydid pointed out, the judge praised Dr. Gill.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow Indeed. This is fantastic stuff.
The Italian courts should cede jurisdiction in this matter to Dr Peter Gill.
Is it just this case or any case he takes an interest in?
Should the German, UK or US courts follow suit. What if Gill hears about a tale about a shoebox and decides a court in NY got it wrong in a murder trial. Would the same logic apply.

Simply fantastic. This thread never stops giving

Considering just how weak this case is....YES!! This case is absurd and never should have seen the inside of a courtroom in the first place. If one takes just a little time to review the actual evidence in this case, it is easy to see there is no real evidence supporting guilt other than the extremely weak and unreliable DNA evidence. Legal judges lack the background and education to wade through the complicated DNA evidence and should acknowledge that those peer reviewed experts have a far better perspectve.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shades of grey and likelihood ratios

In "The interpretation of DNA evidence (including low template DNA)" (2012) Peter Gill, June Guiness and Simon Iveson wrote, "The strength of evidence (to support a prosecution or defence hypothesis) is likely to be maximised with the full conventional DNA profile, and minimised with the poorest interpretable low level DNA profile. Between the two extremes the strength of evidence is effectively represented on a ‗sliding scale‘, typically as a likelihood ratio."

This is an entirely reasonable way of explaining the shades of grey IMO.

 

[platonov]

"It is highly important in this connection to bear in mind that, given the tiny amount of material needed to give a result using the LCN DNA technique, everyone agreed that especially stringent measures must be taken to avoid the contamination of samples. Dr Griffin indicated that the protective measures in the laboratory have been enhanced since the advent of LCN and the awareness of the need for the wearing of masks and hair covering to prevent the transfer of DNA from the examiner onto the item. The Defence submit, correctly in my judgment, that it is for the prosecution to establish the integrity and freedom from possible contamination of each item throughout the entirety of the period between seizure and any examination relied upon. They contend, and I accept the contention, that the court must be satisfied by the prosecution witnesses and supporting documents that all dealings with each relevant exhibit have been satisfactorily accounted for from the moment of its seizure until the moment when any evidential sample relied upon by the prosecution is taken from it and that by a method and in conditions that are shown to have been reliable. This means that each person who has dealt with the item in the intervening period must be ascertainable and be able to demonstrate by reference to some proper system of bagging, labelling, and recording that the item has been preserved at every stage free from the suspicion of interference or contamination." (highlighting mine)

In the Queen v Sean Hoey, a LCN DNA case, the judge put the onus on the prosecution to show that the sample had been handled properly (not on the defense to show a mechanism of contamination). Thanks to katydid for finding the link. As katydid pointed out, the judge praised Dr. Gill.

The Omagh trial is OT here but katydid didn’t do the Gill story justice in his haste.
He was called as a late prosecution witness, in his evidence he contradicted his earlier position [as stated in his published papers] and was unable to explain why he did so. The prosecution case collapsed [there was a lot* more to the whole murky business than that] and the judge praised him in his report!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

By the standards set forth in Hoey, Stefanoni failed by a wide margin

The PG commenters brought up the Hoey case to mock Dr. Gill. In doing so, they prompted the PI commenters to demonstrate (among other things) that the burden should be on the prosecution to show that the entire process has been handled correctly. By this criterion the knife was toast the moment Gubbiotti opened the package for no good reason. Then Stefanoni did her unvalidated testing in a facility that was not certified for regular DNA work, let alone a dedicated LCN facility. That makes it toast again. Then they failed repeatedly to document what they did. That makes the evidence toast for the third time. Thus have the PG commenters scored yet another own-goal. Impressive.

 

[lonepinealex]

Yes thanks to katydid and platonov for bringing up that important case which provides useful context to this one. Though platonov is slightly misrepresenting the facts by claiming that Dr Gill contradicted his own papers. The truth is more complex, but I s'pose that's not as much fun.

Gill's involvement in the Omagh case also provides us with a neat rebuttal of griffinmill's speculative smears - paid shill he ain't.

 

[Bill Williams]

The judges seem to argue that they don't really understand the experts therefore they will just accept the state's experts. A basic cop out.

Its worse than this - if one reads what Massei and Nencini says about it.

This is something which guilters cannot sidestep..... Massei says it best. Paraphrase:"Even though the state's expert has not brought in supporting documentation," eg. the EDFs, "so that the defence can scrutinize the work, I can see no reason why the state's expert would either lie or bemistaken. If the defence wants to bring some sort of allegation of incompetence or criminal action before this court I will then listen to them. However, the defence should be warned, that this opens them to defamation and/or calunnia - even before anyone has seen any supporting documentation, because - after all - these are state experts. Why should I not doubt them at their word."

When the court system is set up as an uneven playing field, usually what is meant is that the prosecution has to prove things, and in the absence of that the defence has to prove nothing.

Time after time after time, we are told in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution that it is the defence's job to prove things. Prove a route of contamination, etc.

Well, on the "evidence" all there is, really, before the court is the state expert's say-so. Indeed when it actually does come to a head in the courtroom, in this case Stefanoni lays down conditions for her "releasing the EDFs", lest the defence be allowed to attach "just any old interpretation to them."

The conditions? They have to come to Stefanoni's lab and see the info as she's willing to produce it. The defence then said, when the court sided with Stefanoni, never-mind.

Then - and here's the kicker - ever since guilters have said that the defence eventually said they didn't need to see the EDFs.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hoey is the gift that keeps on giving

More from Queen v Hoey: "In this case a most disturbing situation was exposed by the Defence. It came to light that a Ms Cooper, then a SOCO but now apparently a police officer, gave evidence that she was wearing protective clothing at this scene when in fact she was wearing nothing of the kind, as photographs taken at the scene fortunately revealed. I add that she gave similarly incorrect evidence in relation to her apparel at Forkhill, again happily exposed by the availability of photographs. A Detective Chief Inspector Marshall also gave evidence about his wearing protective clothing at Altmore which photographs proved to be incorrect." It is reassuring to know that the judges of some countries acknowledge that law enforcement personnel make false statements some of the time. So when Gubbiotti testified that he changed gloves for each item, should one believe him? Hmm...let me think.

 

[jsfisher]

Another batch of posts have been banished to AAH. Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

 

[LondonJohn]

The Omagh trial is OT here but katydid didn’t do the Gill story justice in his haste.
He was called as a late prosecution witness, in his evidence he contradicted his earlier position [as stated in his published papers] and was unable to explain why he did so. The prosecution case collapsed [there was a lot* more to the whole murky business than that] and the judge praised him in his report!

If a judge praises an expert at the conclusion of a trial, it's reasonable to suppose that that expert had made a materially important contribution to the fair application of justice in that particular trial.

In that particular trial, Gill clearly managed to show the court that LCN DNA evidence is inherently unreliable unless a whole raft of critical safeguards are applied in the collection, storage, transportation and testing of that evidence. Platonov seems to think that Gill's equivocation can be seen as a sign of weakness, confusion or incompetence. Oh the irony......

 

[Desert Fox]

If a judge praises an expert at the conclusion of a trial, it's reasonable to suppose that that expert had made a materially important contribution to the fair application of justice in that particular trial.

In that particular trial, Gill clearly managed to show the court that LCN DNA evidence is inherently unreliable unless a whole raft of critical safeguards are applied in the collection, storage, transportation and testing of that evidence. Platonov seems to think that Gill's equivocation can be seen as a sign of weakness, confusion or incompetence. Oh the irony......

A general skeptical position is to be cautious. Professor Gill's position where he is extremely cautious is something to be supported by skeptics.

 

[platonov]

If a judge praises an expert at the conclusion of a trial, it's reasonable to suppose that that expert had made a materially important contribution to the fair application of justice in that particular trial.

In that particular trial, Gill clearly managed to show the court that LCN DNA evidence is inherently unreliable unless a whole raft of critical safeguards are applied in the collection, storage, transportation and testing of that evidence. Platonov seems to think that Gill's equivocation can be seen as a sign of weakness, confusion or incompetence. Oh the irony......

Yeah, that’s how it happened

But leaving aside Gill’s triumph in the Omagh trial would you agree that he should be given carte blanche as regards the final verdict in all criminal trials in Italy. S Moore could cover France and Frank S Germany. Denmark for Budowle obviously.

& If you and the guys here could keep an eye on the Poles [ I don’t trust them ] we are all set.

 

[platonov]

You seem more interested in what Gill [the guy with the Shoebox story] had to say on Italian TV than was the case with Raffy!

And now RS has given another interview – what did he say this time

Lest we forget – what did he say?

Is he now giving her an alibi?

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah, that’s how it happened

But leaving aside Gill’s triumph in the Omagh trial would you agree that he should be given carte blanche as regards the final verdict in all criminal trials in Italy. S Moore could cover France and Frank S Germany. Denmark for Budowle obviously.

& If you and the guys here could keep an eye on the Poles [ I don’t trust them ] we are all set.

Those other places are OT, but yes, Italy needs to have an adult in charge of DNA testing and Gill would be a good choice. Bravo.

 

[TruthCalls]

Yeah, that’s how it happened

But leaving aside Gill’s triumph in the Omagh trial would you agree that he should be given carte blanche as regards the final verdict in all criminal trials in Italy. S Moore could cover France and Frank S Germany. Denmark for Budowle obviously.

& If you and the guys here could keep an eye on the Poles [ I don’t trust them ] we are all set.

You continue to suggest you know otherwise, but don't offer a cite to support your position. It appears you've swallowed a lone account published nine years ago, which in itself provided no source for the comment. I suspect Dan was spot on with his assessment of your commentary and, aside from denying it, you can't prove otherwise. Sarcasm gets you nowhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I do not know what if anything I can believe of the evidence of these two

Let's look at the very next passage beyond the one I previously quoted in the Hoey decision: "These two witnesses were responsible for dealing with exhibits from Altmore including the TPU and for transporting it to the Forensic Laboratory in Belfast and later to the laboratory in Birmingham for DNA examination. The explanation as to how their untruths came to be told and the deliberate attempts, as I am satisfied they were, to conceal what the Defence not unfairly characterised as the “beefing up” of the initial statement of Ms Cooper are deeply disquieting. I am left in the position that I do not know what if anything I can believe of the evidence of these two and I am satisfied that, had photographs not been available to gainsay their lies, they would have persisted in seeking to and very possibly have succeeded in convincing me that, being at that time (somewhat unusually if the evidence of others is correct) alive to the possibility of DNA contamination, they were wearing suitable protective clothing to obviate such a risk."

So given Mrs. Stefanoni's false statements about her wearing of gloves and that certain traces in the bathroom were continuous (among many others), what should we believe of the rest of her statements? Food for thought.

 

[Kauffer]

Wow Indeed. This is fantastic stuff.
The Italian courts should cede jurisdiction in this matter to Dr Peter Gill.
Is it just this case or any case he takes an interest in?
Should the German, UK or US courts follow suit. What if Gill hears about a tale about a shoebox and decides a court in NY got it wrong in a murder trial. Would the same logic apply.

Simply fantastic. This thread never stops giving

It's not about ceding jurisdiction. It's about who and what the courts choose to rely on in exercising their jurisdiction - testifying and non testifying expert opinion through citation, is a feature of trials, including these trials, by prosecution and defence. It is the court's job to unpack this. Despite having exceptional guidance, on a range of scientific evidence, Nencini has failed, as the text of his motivation report makes clear, to understand what it says and how it should be safely interpreted.

We reached the point long ago when the concerns of the international scientific community became so great in this case that the interests of justice could only be served by public pronouncements demonstrating that the Italian judiciary has in very large measure, not understood the issues involved. This is particularly true when it comes to the subject of contamination, where the court has accepted the rogue opinions of Novelli, who is not an expert on the matter, over the opinions of numerous, renowned experts including the court appointed independent experts.

 

[Numbers]

It's not about ceding jurisdiction. It's about who and what the courts choose to rely on in exercising their jurisdiction - testifying and non testifying expert opinion through citation, is a feature of trials, including these trials, by prosecution and defence. It is the court's job to unpack this. Despite having exceptional guidance, on a range of scientific evidence, Nencini has failed, as the text of his motivation report makes clear, to understand what it says and how it should be safely interpreted.

We reached the point long ago when the concerns of the international scientific community became so great in this case that the interests of justice could only be served by public pronouncements demonstrating that the Italian judiciary has in very large measure, not understood the issues involved. This is particularly true when it comes to the subject of contamination, where the court has accepted the rogue opinions of Novelli, who is not an expert on the matter, over the opinions of numerous, renowned experts including the court appointed independent experts.

The disregard for the findings of the independent court-appointed experts in the Nencini verdict and motivation report is yet another example of "manifestly unreasoned" reasoning. This disregard calls out for the CSC to correct this error. If they do not and finalize the Nencini verdict, in due time the ECHR will have its say regarding Italy and the violations of the Convention in this case.

 

[griffinmill]

Has there ever been a case where experts not cross examined at trial played any role in the reversal of a guilty verdict at final sentencing?

I don't doubt there are many cases where defendants have hired experts such as Gill to try the case in the press before that happens, but that's all I see here. A late attempt to sway public opinion with hired guns.

Fortunately, the real case is already in the books, with all the experts on both sides having weighed in, and all the evidence presented. That process lead to a guilty verdict. I look forward to it being finally carried out.