Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[zotz]

Good heavens. This is an outrageous statement or Italy has an outrageous legal system (perhaps both). The belief that experts can give evidence in court without rigorous cross-examination including their own credibility is absurd.

The Reeva Steenkamp case is a case in point where state "expert witnesses" had their credibility torn to shreds by the defence in court and live on South Africa television.

I've been summonsed to court as an expert witness about half a dozen times and believe me it's no walk in the park being cross-examined.

Full disclosure of experience and cv is standard introduction for expert witnesses in SA courts. Not so in Italian courts?

It appears that Mach is giving the argument against transparency. The prosecution should be trusted because they are not the ones on trial. This is logical from the point of view of a society that doesn't believe in freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which they do not, at least not as we understand those rights.

 

[Kauffer]

Your reading is wrong. Not many people in Italy work as "researchers" without a doctorate; in particular, nobody could work for 8 years without a doctorate.
If one works as a researcher and doesn't earn a doctorate within 3 academic years, can say goodbye to their wages.

You may be correct that there is not a reference or piece of paper that states *directly* that Stefanoni has a doctorate. But your question was why I was sure she has a doctorate (I am Machiavelli, a distinct rational entity, not this thread").
I can say Stefanoni has a PhD because that's obvious to me, precisely based on indirect evidence.Because I know the context where Stefanoni is.
(btw, it should be clear to everyone by now that I emphasize the value of inferential evidence; I believe also would be good to other side if they develop some consciousness about parts of reality that they imply and they take for granted, the "contexts" they imagine, what forms their unconscious prejudice).

Hehe. I can imagine going for a science job in Italy and being asked for a copy of my qualifications. All it seems I would have to do is tell my interviewer that he can simply infer my qualifications from different pieces of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

What's this about asking?

You shouldn't have to ask. It should simply be turned over. It's called "discovery".

 

[LondonJohn]

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

Utter nonsense.

Follow the communications trail shown here:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

It clearly shows that C&V asked Hellmann's court to order Stefanoni and the police to turn over the raw data. Hellmann wrote to Stefanoni telling her to do so. Stefanoni wrote back to Hellmann essentially saying that she was not prepared to do so. Hellmann wrote back to Stefanoni in a handwritten note, basically ordering her to comply (my bolding):

Dear Dr. Stefanoni,

I received your note dated 20 April and take note of its content. I ask you however, to please kindly confer with the official experts on this matter, to whom copies of your and my responses have contemporaneously been sent, delivering directly to them that which they deem useful to acquire for the purpose of completing the review, subject to clarification of the perplexity expressed by yourself.

Thank you and cordial greetings,

The President
Claudio Pratillo Hellmann


The communications trail makes it perfectly clear that "that which (C&V) deem useful to acquire" explicitly includes the raw data. Further, this note makes it clear that Hellmann does not accept Stefanoni's excuses for not wanting to give C&V the required data - the final clause in the main paragraph basically says "unless you can give me a proper, valid reason why you cannot or will not hand over this stuff (and I don't accept the "reasons" you gave me in your previous communication with me), I'm ordering you to hand it over"

 

[Machiavelli]

Utter nonsense.

Follow the communications trail shown here:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

It clearly shows that C&V asked Hellmann's court to order Stefanoni and the police to turn over the raw data. Hellmann wrote to Stefanoni telling her to do so. Stefanoni wrote back to Hellmann essentially saying that she was not prepared to do so. Hellmann wrote back to Stefanoni in a handwritten note, basically ordering her to comply (my bolding):

Dear Dr. Stefanoni,

I received your note dated 20 April and take note of its content. I ask you however, to please kindly confer with the official experts on this matter, to whom copies of your and my responses have contemporaneously been sent, delivering directly to them that which they deem useful to acquire for the purpose of completing the review, subject to clarification of the perplexity expressed by yourself.

Thank you and cordial greetings,

The President
Claudio Pratillo Hellmann


The communications trail makes it perfectly clear that "that which (C&V) deem useful to acquire" explicitly includes the raw data. Further, this note makes it clear that Hellmann does not accept Stefanoni's excuses for not wanting to give C&V the required data - the final clause in the main paragraph basically says "unless you can give me a proper, valid reason why you cannot or will not hand over this stuff (and I don't accept the "reasons" you gave me in your previous communication with me), I'm ordering you to hand it over"

It's false.

Carla Vecchiotti even openly stated - and repeateddly - in court, that she had obtained all what she had asked, and she also repeatedly stated that she was not interested in raw data.

All this is in the records.

In fact, Vecchiotti's requests do not explicitly include raw data, contrarily to what you say. (Vecchiotti herself openly states so repeatedly in court).
Hellmann only told Stefanoni to cooperate with C&V and fullfil her requests, which - according to Vecchiotti herself - she did egregiously (Vecchiotti openly praised Stefanoni for her complete cooperation).
Hellmann did not order Stefanoni to disclose raw data.

So you are telling a false story.

Yet this is not all. Because in fact, the main point where AcbyTesla lied was stating that the defence requested the raw data; and that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to disclose raw data and she refused to cooperate.

These claims are false. Egregiously false, the contrary is true, and it's proven so.

 

[Diocletus]

What's this about asking?

You shouldn't have to ask. It should simply be turned over. It's called "discovery".

Yes, but this falls under the Italian exception: the prosecution really, really, really didn't want the defense to have the files. In the rest of the world, this is a telltale sign that the defense really, really, really needs the discovery material. In Italy . . . la dolce vita.

 

[Diocletus]

It's false.

Carla Vecchiotti even openly stated - and repeateddly - in court, that she had obtained all what she had asked, and she also repeatedly stated that she was not interested in raw data.

All this is in the records.

In fact, Vecchiotti's requests do not explicitly include raw data, contrarily to what you say. (Vecchiotti herself openly states so repeatedly in court).
Hellmann only told Stefanoni to cooperate with C&V and fullfil her requests, which - according to Vecchiotti herself - she did egregiously (Vecchiotti openly praised Stefanoni for her complete cooperation).
Hellmann did not order Stefanoni to disclose raw data.

So you are telling a false story.

Yet this is not all. Because in fact, the main point where AcbyTesla lied was stating that the defence requested the raw data; and that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to disclose raw data and she refused to cooperate.

These claims are false. Egregiously false, the contrary is true, and it's proven so.

LOL. You should try reading stefanoni's pathetic letters to Hellman. Anyone who has ever dealt with such an issue can tell immediately what she was up to.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach I understand the point you make.

As a non Italian could you enlighten me as to what the process is if the defence disagree with what happens during an incidente probatorio? Can they redo the test in the way they want? Can they veto a test? Or are they just passive observers? Can they video the process as evidence to present in court of an error? Are they allowed to take copies of laboratory records?

First, they can object that a test under this procedure takes place. Therefore we can say they can "veto" the procedure. In fact, a defence "veto" (impeaching the tests) prevents the test from taking place only temporarily: in that event authority about tests is immeditaley transferred from prosecution to investigating judge, and the test is (usually) ordered and carried on under the direct supervision of the judge.

The defence experts can intervene with demands about the way the tests are performed. They may ask to test certain items or samples or in a certain way. They may put their observations and objections about anything, including methods and circumstances, during the carrying on of the test. They may document the testing by their own means, they may even videotape it. They may request to obtain specific documentation from it (they may demand anything, including raw data).
Whether defence demands and conditions will be fully accepted and entirely fulfilled or not, this is not something that one can tell for sure. But sure if requests can be at least made and put in the records.

The test can absolutely not be re-done.

An incidente probatorio is a unique event. A hypothetical "repetition" of some testing, for the records, would be a second, different test.

 

[Machiavelli]

LOL. You should try reading stefanoni's pathetic letters to Hellman. Anyone who has ever dealt with such an issue can tell immediately what she was up to.

BS. I am right, and you can't disprove a single word what I am saying.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is pretty much what would be regarded as the lowest level of scientific report. It is a series of (brief) case reports presented at a conference. It is not a research publication, it does not report anything novel. I can find only one citation. It is the sort of thing one produces to justify going to a conference (24th International ISFG Congress).

I have corrected you on this before. Stefanoni is NOT a member of ENFSI. ENFSI is the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. There are two Italian members*, neither of which is Stefanoni. Interestingly Prof. Brian Caddy is an honorary member (one of a very select group of individuals), he is very critical about the use of LCN DNA in forensic cases.

*Central Anticrime Directorate of Italian National Police, Forensic Science Police Service (DAC-SPS), Rome, Italy.
Forensic science laboratories of Carabinieri Force (RaCIS), Rome, Italy

You are wrong.
Stefanoni is a member of ENFSI.

Stefanoni is precisely a directive of Central Anticrime Directorate of Italian National Police, Forensic Science Police Service (DAC-SPS), Rome, Italy.

The DAC includes:
(...)

Forensic Science Police Service (Servizio di Polizia Scientifica)
It supports investigations thanks to its experts in biology, chemistry, physics, fingerprinting, forensic medicine and more. It operates all over Italy through its Interregional, Regional and Provincial offices.

http://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/966-Investigations/#centrale_anticrimine

Stefanoni directs the biology section of Forensic Police Service, a division of DAC, Rome.
Her laboratory is located in Via Tuscolana 1548, Rome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Never mind that most of this is debatable. The idea that the bath mat print was compatible with Raffaele and not Rudy is simply NOT true. Just as the prosecution expert couldn't count the rings on a sneaker, they could also not measure the fuzzy bath mat print accurately.
(...)

You are lying again.
The expert who allegedly "couldn't count the rings" has nothing to do with the expert who attributed the bathmat print.
The experts who attributed the bathmat print (Rinaldi & Boemia) are also the ones who correctly attributed the shoeprint.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A real burglar would use a small implement to break the glass and it would be a real burglary and not a staged one.

Really? No -real- burglar would use a rock?



Not exactly the brightest burglars, but then no one accused Rudy of that either.... And before you suggest that it wasn't a rock because the window didn't break, it's a type of window that was designed to be unbreakable.

Of course all of these incidents weren't done by real burglars either...

Not real burglars

 

[LondonJohn]

It's false.

Carla Vecchiotti even openly stated - and repeateddly - in court, that she had obtained all what she had asked, and she also repeatedly stated that she was not interested in raw data.

All this is in the records.

In fact, Vecchiotti's requests do not explicitly include raw data, contrarily to what you say. (Vecchiotti herself openly states so repeatedly in court).
Hellmann only told Stefanoni to cooperate with C&V and fullfil her requests, which - according to Vecchiotti herself - she did egregiously (Vecchiotti openly praised Stefanoni for her complete cooperation).
Hellmann did not order Stefanoni to disclose raw data.

So you are telling a false story.

Yet this is not all. Because in fact, the main point where AcbyTesla lied was stating that the defence requested the raw data; and that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to disclose raw data and she refused to cooperate.

These claims are false. Egregiously false, the contrary is true, and it's proven so.

'Fraid not:


7th April 2011 – message from Stefano Conti to the Judges of the Court:

For the kind attention of the illustrious Mr. President Dr. Hellmann and the illustrious Mr. advisor Dr. Zanetti

We kindly request the illustrious Mr. President the authorization for the handing over of the following documentation that should be in the court records:

- CD of the electropherograms
- CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electrophoresis run generated by the automatic sequencer)
- All the records, in all phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the technical consultants for the parties (CTP), including the documentation deposited (considerations and notes, including any CDs that there may be).
- CD of video, photo, sequester report, methods of collection, conservation and transport to the Scientific Police laboratories relating to the seizure of the knife in Sollecito’s home, including the transcripts of the depositions in all their phases.

If the data, even partially, is not found in the court records or not received and/or not submitted, kindly, taking into account the complexity of the evaluation, given that they are an integral part of the analysis carried out on the two exhibits and given their importance in being able to fully respond to the task required of us, we request that they are made available for collection at the laboratories of the Scientific Police, through an official communication.

Thank-you for your kind attention,

On behalf of the assessors,
(Professor Stefano Conti)


Or maybe, in bizarro world, this is NOT Conti asking Hellmann to make Stefanoni give C&V the raw data (among other things which Stefanoni obviously hadn't given them either)....


ETA: Note also that Conti makes it explicitly clear in this letter that the items listed are an important prerequisite for enabling C&V "to fully respond to the task required of us". In other words, Conti is stating that C&V cannot do their analysis properly or adequately without being given the raw data and the other items lists. Which is of course objectively true, as any half-decent DNA scientist would unquestionably confirm.

 

[Kauffer]

First, they can object that a test under this procedure takes place. Therefore we can say the can "veto" the procedure. In fact, a defence "veto" (impeaching the tests) prevents the test from taking place only temporarily: in that event authority about tests is immeditaley transferred from prosecution to investigating judge, and the test is (usually) ordered and carried on under the direct supervision of the judge.

The defence experts can intervene with demands about the way the tests are performed. They may ask to test certain items or samples or in a certain way. They may put their observations and objections about anything, including methods and circumstances, during the carrying on of the test. They may document the testing by their own means, they may even videotape it. They may request to obtain specific documentation from it (they may demand anything, including raw data).
Whether defence demands and conditions will be fully accepted and entirely fulfilled or not, this is not something that one can tell for sure. But sure if requests can be at least made and put in the records.

The test can absolutely not be re-done.

An incidente probatorio is a unique event. A hypothetical "repetition" of some testing, for the records, would be a second, different test.

Do the Italians actually understand the principle of "equality of arms" in a criminal trial?

In what sense does anything you describe here and in particular in the highlight, equate to such a principle? The system loads the dice in favour of the prosecution's case, which becomes virtually impossible to impeach.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are lying again.
The expert who allegedly "couldn't count the rings" has nothing to do with the expert who attributed the bathmat print.
The experts who attributed the bathmat print (Rinaldi & Boemia) are also the ones who correctly attributed the shoeprint.

Ah.... so they were two different sets of incompetent prosecution "experts". Got it

 

[js202]

Do the Italians actually understand the principle of "equality of arms" in a criminal trial?

In what sense does anything you describe here and in particular in the highlight, equate to such a principle? The system loads the dice in favour of the prosecution's case, which becomes virtually impossible to impeach.

Do you remember Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, AKA "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali"? This was Saddam's clownish "information minister," who, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as American tanks were rumbling into town in the background over his shoulder, insisted the infidels were being routed. Their entrails ripped through their nostrils, running home to their mothers in fear, etc.

Well, in consulting your present interlocutor for pertinent and reliable information, you had just as well consult Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.

 

[Kauffer]

'Fraid not:


7th April 2011 – message from Stefano Conti to the Judges of the Court:

For the kind attention of the illustrious Mr. President Dr. Hellmann and the illustrious Mr. advisor Dr. Zanetti

We kindly request the illustrious Mr. President the authorization for the handing over of the following documentation that should be in the court records:

- CD of the electropherograms
- CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electrophoresis run generated by the automatic sequencer)
- All the records, in all phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the technical consultants for the parties (CTP), including the documentation deposited (considerations and notes, including any CDs that there may be).
- CD of video, photo, sequester report, methods of collection, conservation and transport to the Scientific Police laboratories relating to the seizure of the knife in Sollecito’s home, including the transcripts of the depositions in all their phases.

If the data, even partially, is not found in the court records or not received and/or not submitted, kindly, taking into account the complexity of the evaluation, given that they are an integral part of the analysis carried out on the two exhibits and given their importance in being able to fully respond to the task required of us, we request that they are made available for collection at the laboratories of the Scientific Police, through an official communication.

Thank-you for your kind attention,

On behalf of the assessors,
(Professor Stefano Conti)


Or maybe, in bizarro world, this is NOT Conti asking Hellmann to make Stefanoni give C&V the raw data (among other things which Stefanoni obviously hadn't given them either)....


ETA: Note also that Conti makes it explicitly clear in this letter that the items listed are an important prerequisite for enabling C&V "to fully respond to the task required of us". In other words, Conti is stating that C&V cannot do their analysis properly or adequately without being given the raw data and the other items lists. Which is of course objectively true, as any half-decent DNA scientist would unquestionably confirm.

Let us also not forget the astonishing letter written by Stefanoni to Micheli on Sept 30th 2008, asking (or begging) the judge not to release data to the defence:

"Regarding the request made by the Consultant for the defense Professor V. Pascali I report to you as follows:

Any technical report in the field of Genetic Forensics is, in the case of a positive result, the extrapolation of one or more DNA profiles. Such a result is presented, in both the national and international arena, in a technical report, usually in a tabular format, to render it easily understandable and useful to all readers and, eventually, is accompanied by the electropherograms produced by the machine. 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. 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.

It’s important for practical purposes, to underline that in all phases of the analysis carried out at the Laboratories of the Scientific Police Service, the technical consultants had the possibility to watch the results obtained and at no time did the technical consultants for the defense report observations of incorrect usage of the instrument or about the presentation of the aforementioned data.

Therefore, it is the opinion of the undersigned, that handing over of further information to the technical consultant Professor V. Pascali is not necessary, beyond what has already been provided on the CD-Rom provided on the date of 25/09/2008."

The defence has a right to this data. It is implicit in the principle of "equality of arms" covered by the ECHR. The prosecution has it, so the defence must have it too.

 

[js202]

It’s important for practical purposes, to underline that in all phases of the analysis carried out at the Laboratories of the Scientific Police Service, the technical consultants had the possibility to watch the results obtained and at no time did the technical consultants for the defense report observations of incorrect usage of the instrument or about the presentation of the aforementioned data.

Thanks for this. With regard to the highlighted portion, during the occasions when Stefanoni was repeatedly pushing her equipment for evidence worthy of a guilty verdict, and, over and over, kept coming up with "too low," something tells me that the defense's "technical consultants" were not present to avail themselves of the "possibility" to watch these particular results.

 

[Machiavelli]

'Fraid not:


7th April 2011 – message from Stefano Conti to the Judges of the Court:

For the kind attention of the illustrious Mr. President Dr. Hellmann and the illustrious Mr. advisor Dr. Zanetti

We kindly request the illustrious Mr. President the authorization for the handing over of the following documentation that should be in the court records:

- CD of the electropherograms
- CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electrophoresis run generated by the automatic sequencer)
- All the records, in all phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the technical consultants for the parties (CTP), including the documentation deposited (considerations and notes, including any CDs that there may be).
- CD of video, photo, sequester report, methods of collection, conservation and transport to the Scientific Police laboratories relating to the seizure of the knife in Sollecito’s home, including the transcripts of the depositions in all their phases.

If the data, even partially, is not found in the court records or not received and/or not submitted, kindly, taking into account the complexity of the evaluation, given that they are an integral part of the analysis carried out on the two exhibits and given their importance in being able to fully respond to the task required of us, we request that they are made available for collection at the laboratories of the Scientific Police, through an official communication.

Thank-you for your kind attention,

On behalf of the assessors,
(Professor Stefano Conti)


Or maybe, in bizarro world, this is NOT Conti asking Hellmann to make Stefanoni give C&V the raw data (among other things which Stefanoni obviously hadn't given them either)....


ETA: Note also that Conti makes it explicitly clear in this letter that the items listed are an important prerequisite for enabling C&V "to fully respond to the task required of us". In other words, Conti is stating that C&V cannot do their analysis properly or adequately without being given the raw data and the other items lists. Which is of course objectively true, as any half-decent DNA scientist would unquestionably confirm.

I'll repeat the concept again.

1. The above letter does not prove Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data.

2. The above letter, does not show the defence requested raw data.

3. Not only that. But the above letter also, in fact, does not even prove Vecchiotti and Conti wanted raw data, and even less that Stefanoni ever refused to disclose something or to cooperate; this because the communication between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni is not limited to that latter, but includes long direct talks between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni in accord to what emerges from hearing of May 21. 2011., communication through which they "clarified all points"; and above all because we have public declarations by Vecchiotti herself stating that she did not ask for and did not want raw data; Vecchiotti even praised Stefanoni for her maximum cooperation, and stated - repeatedly - that Stefanoni was cooperative to the point of giving her even more than what they asked, going "even beyond" what they requested her.

You cannot sweep such statements by Vecchiotti under the carpet. Even though Vecchiotti and Conti mentioned raw data in a letter to Hellmann (where - pay attention - they request Hellmann to search through the file to find for them a list of data "if it's not into the file records..."), yet evidently, subsequently to that they did not request raw data within their direct requests to Stefanoni, they didn't pursue such request; we know this, because this is what they state before the court on May 21. Vecchiotti stated that she didn't request raw data and that she wasn't interested in them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you remember Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, AKA "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali"? This was Saddam's clownish "information minister," who, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as American tanks were rumbling into town in the background over his shoulder, insisted the infidels were being routed. Their entrails ripped through their nostrils, running home to their mothers in fear, etc.

Well, in consulting your present interlocutor for pertinent and reliable information, you had just as well consult Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Moderators will take care about pointless ad personam rants.