Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
My recollection is that the bill included some sort of data base or telephone tapping work. Would you look and see if anything like that is included? Can Google translate.
Click to expand...
From page 4:
3 Ricostruzione animata in 4D delle ambientazioni e della scena del delitto - realizzazione DVD per speech support multiangle in formato PAL in ambito giudiziario.
4 Progettazione e realizzazione data base per supporto requisitoria P.M.
prezzo a corpo
Click to expand...
google:
3 4D animated reconstruction of the setting and the scene of the crime - realization speech support for multiangle DVD in PAL format in the legal field.
4 Design and production database to support indictment PM
Price-to-hand
Click to expand...
 
Methos said:
Here's the invoice: EUR 182.784,00 :eye-poppi
Click to expand...


YOWZA, at today's exchange rate, that works out to $198,323.434.

Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong!
:)

No wonder Mignini was criticized, even in Italy, for wasting that much money on a silly cartoon.

And then Mignini didn't have any money to record Amanda's interrogation? Ya, right!
 
Vixen said:
Napoleoni suspected Amanda straight away, especially when she urged she come and have a look at a suspicious turd.

It is the detective management team who make the decision to make a suspicious person a formal legally defined suspect. The person is formally informed of this fact.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see what the ECtHR makes of this argument, should Italy think it worth presenting in its defence against Amanda's current application.
 
Grinder said:
My recollection is that the bill included some sort of data base or telephone tapping work. Would you look and see if anything like that is included? Can Google translate.
Click to expand...

Methos said:
From page 4:

google:
Click to expand...

http://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/2012/01/28/660361-meredith_costo_record_filmato_dell_omicidio.shtml

Yes, this article from La Nazione essentially says what Grinder and Methos posted above (sorry Methos, I don't know how to make the grey quotes appear). Basically in addition to the animation film there was also constructed a database of the case files (and the time taken and people who worked on such).
 
Grinder said:
So Vixen while you are trying to find one case where the knife produced no blood but DNA could you comment on why Steffanoni hasn't become a star like Gill in the forensic game?

Also besides the Italian police employees and Novelli are there any reputable scientists that have come out backing her work?

Could you also explain why contamination needs to be proven rather than systems and protocols that all but eliminate the possibility? Do agree with special certifications for LCN DNA work?

I don't think you ever addressed whether you understand that the alleged DNA of MK on the knife was 1/500.000 of a grain of salt.
Click to expand...


How big is a grain of salt?
 
Vixen said:
How big is a grain of salt?
Click to expand...

With the cube assumption, we find that a grain of salt is about 5.85x10^-5 grams. (We could have arrived at this result by weighing an individual grain, or by weighing a gram and then counting the number of grains in it
 
Grinder said:
So Vixen while you are trying to find one case where the knife produced no blood but DNA could you comment on why Steffanoni hasn't become a star like Gill in the forensic game?

Also besides the Italian police employees and Novelli are there any reputable scientists that have come out backing her work?

Could you also explain why contamination needs to be proven rather than systems and protocols that all but eliminate the possibility? Do agree with special certifications for LCN DNA work?

I don't think you ever addressed whether you understand that the alleged DNA of MK on the knife was 1/500.000 of a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Grinder, perhaps I can answer. :p

The reason Stefanoni is not a respected DNA expert in the international scientific community the way Gill is is because Stefanoni only speaks and writes Italian and her important contributions are just not known in the English-speaking world. But her work is well known in Italy. She has been quoted extensively in the Italian press since 2007.

Other recognized DNA experts support Stefanoni. One of them works at a hair salon in London. The Daily Mail interviewed her regarding the DNA results.

Contamination? Stefanoni says you don't get contamination when the matter is dry. You only have to change wipes or gloves when dealing with damp substances.

1/500.000 of a grain of salt? It is better to useable small amount. Too much is bad for you.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You are confusing the colloquial term, "suspect", with the legal formal style, "suspect".
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. There is no such thing in law as a colloquial suspect. But there's no need for me to lecture you on this subject. You should be able to work it out for yourself. When is the latest possible time that Amanda might legitimately be considered a witness informed of the facts rather than a suspect?

Would you agree, that it cannot be later than when the police declared to her that Raffaele had taken away her alibi? This is BEFORE she made any incriminating statement, before she signed any statement and before any alleged callunia was commited.
 
Grinder said:
Wouldn't that DB be interesting.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the original work order was for the animation only. The work order was later amended to add database tasks, but no documentation detailing what those database tasks specifically entail is publicly available. There was speculation that the later database work was added to inflate the level or work in order to obfuscate the money spent for the animation.
 
Grinder said:
Wouldn't that DB be interesting.
Click to expand...

Maybe we've already been privy to parts of that database. ;) I think the wiretapping was also part of this bill (but not totally certain).

It is now very common for businesses (courts, medical, government) to hire companies which will scan paper documents and format such for digital access. Frees up physical space and makes those documents much easier to get to.
 
Last edited:
Ken Dine said:
Which takes me back to my earlier question about how Amanda could have been CRIMINALLY convicted of slander after their Supreme Ct had already stricken those two ILLEGAL documents from the criminal portion of her trial?

If the prosecution tried to get around those two stricken 'confession' documents by having police officers testify to what the prosecution had claimed those two stricken documents had memorialized in writing, then the verbal testimony of officers should have likewise been fruit of that poison tree?

Italy's Supreme Ct had properly ruled that Amanda had been denied her legal right to an attorney since she had legally been considered to be a suspect before being interrogated on Nov 5th & 6th, so nothing Amanda said that night should have been used against her in the criminal portion of her slander trial.

Italy's Supreme Ct did say that Amanda's voluntarily later hand-written statements could be used against her, but neither of her written statements would support a criminal slander charge - indeed, they both seemingly undermined such a charge?

I'm still confused how Amanda could have been convicted of criminal slander when all the evidence supporting such a charge had already been stricken by Italy's Supreme Ct?

Maybe, the ECHR can figure that one out?
Click to expand...

The calunnia conviction does not make sense in terms of Italian law, which forbids using evidence that was obtained contrary to law. But the CSC pretended there was no illegal gathering of the evidence for purposes of calunnia. As I've pointed out previously, ECHR case-law strongly suggests this conviction was a violation of the Convention, and Italy will need to revise it upon request from Amanda after the ECHR judgment.
 
MichaelB said:
Marco Marzan Statement 3-Nov-2007

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...7-11-03-Witness-deposition-Marzan-English.pdf
Click to expand...

The witness interview of Marco Marzan, on Nov. 3, has been translated into English. It contains important information about the downstairs crime scene, and shows that the police indeed were suppressing that information in their pursuit of Amanda and Raffaele. Noteworthy features of the interview: 1. Conducted by VQA (Deputy Assistant Chief) Giobbi and VQA Profazio, with Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, as well as Chief Inspectors Facchini and Ficarra. 2) Marzan was sworn to secrecy; this was done with only a few others, such as Bonassi, and reflects the police not wanting their information, which would tend to destroy the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from being made public. Marzan states that the cat's ear was not bleeding, as far as he knew, and that there was no blood on the floor when he had left. There was also no blood on the walls or light switch when he left; there may have been fly remains or blood on the wall. There was a stone in the flat that apparently had not been there previously, IIUC. Also, there apparently was blood in a sink; Marzan said there had been no blood there when he left.

The suppression of this information from downstairs by the police and prosecutor is very important. It confirms that on or about Nov. 3, the police and prosecutor would have been formulating a way to obscure the case against the real murderer and rapist of Meredith (whether or not they knew who he was) and were preparing to go after Amanda as the suspect of convenience. Note that Giobbi knew from Marzan's witness statement that the cat would not be the source of the blood and his testimony that the blood was from a cat was perjury. The same could be said about Stefanoni's testimony, since her tests showed the blood (or possibly the underlying surface below the stain) had human DNA.
 
Grinder said:
Do you have a list of whom they tapped? They also had others they were suspicious of, for example Hicham Khiri. He (the innocent) was interviewed twice on the fourth and his employer on the 5th. Christopher Turpin was interviewed on the 5th. I don't know if the list of witness statements on AMC are inclusive but it would appear they were suspicious of others.

I think Vixen is correct that being a suspect and attaining the rights of a suspect is an official status in Italy.
Click to expand...

Vixen is not correct. There are not two categories of suspect. You are a witness or you are a suspect in Italian law, but we really don't need to be detained by Italian law because the ECHR trumps it:

If you're a suspect you get a lawyer. It's that simple. However, there is no cause of action if you are not prosecuted or if your prosecution does not rely on the product of your lawyerless interrogation. If you do not incriminate yourself, nobody arrests you and nobody prosecutes you, there is no trial and you are not adversely affected by any theoretical rights violation. Rights are "practical and effective". (See below).

The key case law is Salduz v Turkey: Everything changed in Europe after this.

"52. National laws may attach consequences to the attitude of an accused at the initial stages of police interrogation which are decisive for the prospects of the defence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, Article 6 will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation. However, this right has so far been considered capable of being subject to restrictions for good cause. The question, in each case, has therefore been whether the restriction was justified and, if so, whether, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, it has not deprived the accused of a fair hearing, for even a justified restriction is capable of doing so in certain circumstances.

53. These principles, outlined in paragraph 52 above, are also in line with the generally recognised international human rights standards … which are at the core of the concept of a fair trial and whose rationale relates in particular to the protection of the accused against abusive coercion on the part of the authorities. They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused.

54. In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96). At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-..., and Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 51, 2 August 2005). Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh, cited above, § 101). In this connection, the Court also notes the recommendations of the CPT (paragraphs 39-40 above), in which the committee repeatedly stated that the right of a detainee to have access to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. Any exception to the enjoyment of this right should be clearly circumscribed and its application strictly limited in time. These principles are particularly called for in the case of serious charges, for it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies.
55. Against this background, the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently "practical and effective" (see paragraph 51 above) Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.’"
 
Numbers said:
The witness interview of Marco Marzan, on Nov. 3, has been translated into English. It contains important information about the downstairs crime scene, and shows that the police indeed were suppressing that information in their pursuit of Amanda and Raffaele. Noteworthy features of the interview: 1. Conducted by VQA (Deputy Assistant Chief) Giobbi and VQA Profazio, with Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, as well as Chief Inspectors Facchini and Ficarra. 2) Marzan was sworn to secrecy; this was done with only a few others, such as Bonassi, and reflects the police not wanting their information, which would tend to destroy the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from being made public. Marzan states that the cat's ear was not bleeding, as far as he knew, and that there was no blood on the floor when he had left. There was also no blood on the walls or light switch when he left; there may have been fly remains or blood on the wall. There was a stone in the flat that apparently had not been there previously, IIUC. Also, there apparently was blood in a sink; Marzan said there had been no blood there when he left.

The suppression of this information from downstairs by the police and prosecutor is very important. It confirms that on or about Nov. 3, the police and prosecutor would have been formulating a way to obscure the case against the real murderer and rapist of Meredith (whether or not they knew who he was) and were preparing to go after Amanda as the suspect of convenience. Note that Giobbi knew from Marzan's witness statement that the cat would not be the source of the blood and his testimony that the blood was from a cat was perjury. The same could be said about Stefanoni's testimony, since her tests showed the blood (or possibly the underlying surface below the stain) had human DNA.
Click to expand...

I agree this is very interesting in terms of the information about cats, blood and Giacomo's view of Kercher. (What a b******). I'd really like to check his alibi!

I do not think the secrecy issue is anything of significance. I think it just means witnesses should not discuss their interviews prior to the court case. Witnesses in England would be advised not to discuss the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom