Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Mignini's ability to do any more damage has been significantly curtailed due to his recent "promotion".

In his new job, as deputy (something something), under Galatti, Mignini can't lead investigations or prosecute cases in court. He is only allowed to sit on appeal hearings, and only then with other judges to baby sit him and keep him out of trouble.

Mignini has been effectively warehoused by the Italian judiciary in a ceremonial cul-de-sac, until they are ready to ship him off to prison, where he belongs.

All this is just false; actually delusional, there's something made up here that quite shows fudnamental ignorance about the Italian system.

Mignini was not "promoted" by external forces. That could never happen. Magistrates are "unmoveable" under Italian Constitution (art.107).

As for the law, a magistrate can be promoted to some position only following his own request. Which in fact is what happened: Mignini applied to the post at Prosecution General long ago, at the time of Meredith's murder, maybe before (I shall ask him about the exact date). His application for promotion was freezed, however, as for the rules, because the Procura of Florence indicted him. When the case against him and Giuttari was completely annulled in Florence, however, the CSM lifted the barrage.

Also should be clear that he was a "deputy" prosecutor before too. The title "deputy" sounds a bit strange in Italian as well, since this does not mean that there is someone baby sitting him or leading in his place. I think something like 90% of prosecutors are "deputies" in Italy, because only the Chief Prosecutor does not have this word before his title.
It's a strange terminology. "prosecutor" in Italian is procuratore, and the office is Procura, which translates as "proxy". So the chief "proxy man" is called procuratore and all the others are called sostituti.
This is all about acting "in the name of" something, an Office, a judicial Power, the Republic etc.

This does not mean there is a hierarchical power during work, nothing of the kind that deputies follow orders from chiefs: the "substitute" who becomes "competent" with a case (who gains jurisdiction) in fact becomes dominus, the authority of reference, and no one else can interfer with his/her work (except another substitute who may be appointed "competent", such as Manuela Comodi).

So there is nobody keeping Mignini "out of trouble".
He is a dominus who works alone on cases he prosecutes on appeals.

He is actually regaded as a very qualified magistrate, one reason why he was immediately appointed to PG after he was cleared, is because Galati lobbied as he strongly wanted him.

I assume Mignini applied for the post at Prosecution General office for the obvious reason that it's a post better paid than prosecutor at the 1st instance court. There are at least 25 prosecutors in Umbria, while Prosecution General has a staff of only 4 magistrates (and each gets better wages). So I guess that was the practical reason why Mignini wanted that post.

I also think Mignini probably won't remain in that position for long, I tend to think he will seek some even higher post, most likely outside Umbria.

*

Btw, I think it's worth remind that Mignini's findings on the Narducci case are acknowledged as the truth. Courts have acknowledged the body-swap at the Trasimeno lake. Also, the Cassazione accepted Mignini's recourse about the 20 suspects, who were never "found innocent" (one of them, Brizioli, is still on trial; the others are off only because of expiration terms, thanks to Micheli delaying motivations).
Giuttari is vindicated now by courts even about his career. The Florentine judge who convicted him in 2010, Maradei, has fallen in disgrace on a political corruption scandal.
A new MoF investigation on "masterminds" has been opened focused on deceased Reinecke, one of the main focuses of Giuttari at the time of his investigation and a person of interest at the time of the Calamandrei case.

 

[Bill Williams]

All this is just false; actually delusional, there's something made up here that quite shows fudnamental ignorance about the Italian system.

Mignini was not "promoted" by external forces. That could never happen. Magistrates are "unmoveable" under Italian Constitution (art.107).

Aas for the law, a magistrate can be promoted to some position only following his own request. Which in fact is what happened: Mignini applied to the post at Prosecution General long ago, at the time of Meredith's murder, maybe before (I shall ask him the date). His application for promotion was freezed, however, as for the rules, because the Procura of Florence indicted him. When the case against him and Giuttari was completely annulled in Florence, however, the CSM lifted the barrage.

Also should be clear that he was a "deputy" prosecutor before too. The title "deputy" sounds a bit strange in Italian as well, since this does not mean that there is someone baby sitting him or leading in his place. I think something like 90% of prosecutors are "deputies" in Italy, because only the Chief Prosecutor does not have this word before his title.
It's a strange terminology. "prosecutor" in Italian is procuratore, and the office is Procura, which translated as "proxy". So the chief "proxy man" is called procuratore and all the others are called sostituti.
This is all about acting "in the name of" something, an Office, a judicial Power, the Republic etc.

This does not mean there is a hierarchical power during work, nothing of the kind that deputies follow orders from chiefs: the "substitute" who becomes "competent" with a case (who gains jurisdiction) in fact becomes dominus, the authority of reference, and no one else can interfer with his/her work (except another substitute who may be appointed "competent", such as Manuela Comodi).

So there is nobody keeping Mignini "out of trouble".
He is a dominus who works alone on cases he prosecutes on appeals.

He is regaded as a very qualified magistrates, one reason why he was immediately appointed to PG after he was cleared, is because Galati lobbied as he strongly wanted him.

I assume Mignini applied for the post at Prosecution General office for the obvious reason that it's a post better paid than prosecutor at the 1st instance court. There are at least 25 prosecutors in Umbria, while Prosecution General has a staff of only 4 magistrates (and each gets better wages). So I guess that was the practical reason why Mignini wanted that post.

I also think Mignini won't remain in that position but will seek some higher post, most likely outside Umbria.

*

Btw, I think it's worth remind that Mignini's findings on the Narducci case are acknowledged as the truth. Courts have acknowledged the body-swap at the Trasimeno lake. Also, the Cassazione accepted Mignini's recourse about the 20 suspects, whom were never "found innocent" (one of them, Brizioli, is still on trial; the others are off only because of expiration terms, thanks to Micheli delaying motivations).
Giuttari is vindicated now by courts even about his career. The Florentine judge who convicted him in 2010, Maradei, has fallen in disgrace on a political corruption scandal.
A new MoF investigation on "masterminds" has been opened focused on deceased Reinecke, one of the main focuses of Giuttari at the time of his investigation and a person of interest at the time of the Calamandrei case.

The judicial-truths found by the Hellmann court, as well as the Marasca/Bruno section of the Italian ISC puts the lie to what you have just said. Judging from Mignini's role in starting the wrongful prosecution of the two, your defence of Mignini in other venues falls on deaf ears.

In fact, you cannot point to any source that sustains your belief that Hellmann, Zanetti, Vecchiotti, or Marasca and Bruno are corrupt. Your beliefs in this matter depend upon your unproven remarks about them.

You are a conspiracy theorist, out of step with your own judiciary, as is Mignini. That is the truth of the matter.

 

[Kauffer]

Isn't it rather critical, that AC stated a series of made up false allegations (four false statements within a page), ad shrugged "who cares" about falsehood on the part of the pro-Knoxes, while Machiavelli (myself) reported true facts?

Acbytesla said that:
Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data files, and that's false;
that the defence requested raw data at the Hellmann trial, and that's false (it's spectacularly false);
that Stefanoni refused to with Hellmann and Vecchiotti, and refused to provide raw data, and that's egregiously false;
that Vecchiotti requested raw data, and that's most clearly false being denied by Vecchiotti herself (on May 21. hearing).

Acbytesla spews accusations of lying against magistrates and witnesses without a spit of evidence.
And he, himself was caught making up at least four false statements in one page.

Good grief. How many posts does it take? Ok, so it was Conti's letter that asked for the raw data. At Micheli, it was the defence consultant who asked for it until Stefanoni pleaded with the judge not to order it.

Read Raffaele's 2014 appeal - these issues are covered there.

Did you see the exchange between Bongiorno and Berti I posted earlier? How embarrassing for you that you have to embrace his position in your factually inaccurate arguments.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by moije2 View Post

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. (...)​

You did get my point, in that I see you have avoided use of the word "liar" in this response. My comment was directed at AC refraining from lowering himself to call you a lair in his response to you. In English language usage the use of that word is packed with emotion and anger and thus your writings come off as emotional, and thus are not taken as seriously as they might. For that reason English speakers often hold that word in reserve.

With respect to your comments about raw data requests, my reading of your responses is that you are parsing words and not looking at the over all context and purposes. I will let you argue that the "defense" did not request data, and at what point of proceedings, and tell me/us that justice was or was not served.

Why would an honest person of science show any resistance - whatsoever - in turning over every darn thing in his/her possession? The obvious conclusion - sum of all the circumstantial and contextual information - is that Stefanoni in this case was not acting as a person of science, but as a player in the prosecution of this case. Was this an example of teleological ethics? A concept you say is commonly employed by your community? (I don't say "Italians" because your prior comments may not have intended the broader Italian society. Maybe just the academics?)

Anyway, maybe you could help me with that concept, if you think it is applicable there.

What's sort of bizarre is that in a way I agree with Machiavelli. While I do think Hellman told Stefanoni to produce the raw data files she did not order Stef in such a way that forced her to comply. It was a wishy washy request and not a demand as I would expect from a western judge.

 

[Machiavelli]

The judicial-truths found by the Hellmann court, as well as the Marasca/Bruno section of the Italian ISC puts the lie to what you have just said. Judging from Mignini's role in starting the wrongful prosecution of the two, your defence of Mignini in other venues falls on deaf ears.

In fact, you cannot point to any source that sustains your belief that Hellmann, Zanetti, Vecchiotti, or Marasca and Bruno are corrupt. Your beliefs in this matter depend upon your unproven remarks about them.

You are a conspiracy theorist, out of step with your own judiciary, as is Mignini. That is the truth of the matter.

1. I can point to sources that proves corruption of certain subjects, but an internet forum is not the venue for this chat.
This is investigation matter and it's stuff for more serious people.

2. The Hellmann court did not find any judicial truth but that Knox voluntarily and maliciously placed false accusations against an innocent person.
It's worth note that no court ever had a reasonable doubt about the fact that Knox's false accusation was malicious.

3. Chieffi's section, and Guede's final verdict, both are definitive judicial truths, of equal value. Chieffi calls Vecchiotti "intellectually dishonest".

4. Bruno/Marasca's verdict declares to be subjected to 530.2, therefore is it not a factual finding of truth (and other fidings are still legally possible).

5. Amanda Knox is currently under trial for another calunnia case, where she will be convicted again, and that will bring further judicial truths.

6. Raffaele Sollecito is under trial for having told defamatory lies in his book.

The picture given by points above is not exhaustive.

 

[Bill Williams]

What's sort of bizarre is that in a way I agree with Machiavelli. While I do think Hellman told Stefanoni to produce the raw data files she did not order Stef in such a way that forced her to comply. It was a wishy washy request and not a demand as I would expect from a western judge.

I imagine all judges everywhere are reluctant to start a fight with police or police-experts. IMO Hellmann knew which direction he was leaning as to the DNA forensics anyway - the very video the Scientific Police themselves took of the collection process showed them to be incompetent. One segment showed a bootie'ed SP staff actually stepping in dried blood. Stefanoni herself was shown picking up the bra-clasp in obviously dirty gloves.

Judicially speaking, the lack of the EDFs (refusal to release them) was the least of the concerns about the so-called evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

The judicial-truths found by the Hellmann court, as well as the Marasca/Bruno section of the Italian ISC puts the lie to what you have just said. Judging from Mignini's role in starting the wrongful prosecution of the two, your defence of Mignini in other venues falls on deaf ears.

In fact, you cannot point to any source that sustains your belief that Hellmann, Zanetti, Vecchiotti, or Marasca and Bruno are corrupt. Your beliefs in this matter depend upon your unproven remarks about them.

You are a conspiracy theorist, out of step with your own judiciary, as is Mignini. That is the truth of the matter.

1. I can point to sources that proves corruption of certain subjects, but an internet forum is not the venue for this chat.
This is investigation matter and it's stuff for more serious people.

2. The Hellmann court did not find any judicial truth but that Knox voluntarily and maliciously placed false accusations against an innocent person.
It's worth note that no court ever had a reasonable doubt about the fact that Knox's false accusation was malicious.

3. Chieffi's section, and Guede's final verdict, both are definitive judicial truths, of equal value. Chieffi calls Vecchiotti "intellectually dishonest".

4. Bruno/Marasca's verdict declares to be subjected to 530.2, therefore is it not a factual finding of truth (and other fidings are still legally possible).

5. Amanda Knox is currently under trial for another calunnia case, where she will be convicted again, and that will bring further judicial truths.

6. Raffaele Sollecito is under trial for having told defamatory lies in his book.

The picture given by points above is not exhaustive.

You are wise to be more cautious, as per #1 above. You were not always so cautious. In fact on this very forum, you were filled with conspiracy tales, all of which put points #2 through #5 into a different perspective.

You seem to now be acting on legal advice to drop the conspiracy aspects of what your formerly argued. It's good to see that you can change.

 

[js202]

You seem to now be acting on legal advice to drop the conspiracy aspects of what your formerly argued. It's good to see that you can change.

And yet, as always, the post in question is, beneath its preposterous veneer of authority, a pack of haughty innuendo and garbage.

 

[zotz]

What's sort of bizarre is that in a way I agree with Machiavelli. While I do think Hellman told Stefanoni to produce the raw data files she did not order Stef in such a way that forced her to comply. It was a wishy washy request and not a demand as I would expect from a western judge.

I don't agree at all. This is Discovery and the defense should not be required to make specific requests. If the material is relevant to the innocence or guilt of the defendants then that is the criteria that should be considered. Mach is squirming to find a legal loophole to justify the suppression of evidence. In a more advanced system the prosecution would be guilty of both contempt of court and obstruction, but not in Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't agree at all. This is Discovery and the defense should not be required to make specific requests. If the material is relevant to the innocence or guilt of the defendants then that is the criteria that should be considered. Mach is squirming to find a legal loophole to justify the suppression of evidence. In a more advanced system the prosecution would be guilty of both contempt of court and obstruction, but not in Italy.

I think you miss my point. I agree with you about "should". But since when does that really mstter? Stefanoni clearly did not want to turn over the raw data files. So she didn't. Even though she was probably asked for them many times. Her attitude was slways, I'll give the defense what she thought it needed and nothing more.

Or she was hiding something. My guess is the latter, but of course we'll never know.

The point is that she was allowed not to produce them. It was never demanded under the penalty of law. So she didn't.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
Why would an honest person of science show any resistance - whatsoever - in turning over every darn thing in his/her possession? The obvious conclusion - sum of all the circumstantial and contextual information - is that Stefanoni in this case was not acting as a person of science, but as a player in the prosecution of this case.
.
.
.

Doesn't matter whether the data/information was requested or not . . .

 

[carbonjam72]

All this is just false; actually delusional, there's something made up here that quite shows fudnamental ignorance about the Italian system.

Mignini was not "promoted" by external forces. That could never happen. Magistrates are "unmoveable" under Italian Constitution (art.107).

As for the law, a magistrate can be promoted to some position only following his own request. Which in fact is what happened: Mignini applied to the post at Prosecution General long ago, at the time of Meredith's murder, maybe before (I shall ask him about the exact date). His application for promotion was freezed, however, as for the rules, because the Procura of Florence indicted him. When the case against him and Giuttari was completely annulled in Florence, however, the CSM lifted the barrage.

Also should be clear that he was a "deputy" prosecutor before too. The title "deputy" sounds a bit strange in Italian as well, since this does not mean that there is someone baby sitting him or leading in his place. I think something like 90% of prosecutors are "deputies" in Italy, because only the Chief Prosecutor does not have this word before his title.
It's a strange terminology. "prosecutor" in Italian is procuratore, and the office is Procura, which translates as "proxy". So the chief "proxy man" is called procuratore and all the others are called sostituti.
This is all about acting "in the name of" something, an Office, a judicial Power, the Republic etc.

This does not mean there is a hierarchical power during work, nothing of the kind that deputies follow orders from chiefs: the "substitute" who becomes "competent" with a case (who gains jurisdiction) in fact becomes dominus, the authority of reference, and no one else can interfer with his/her work (except another substitute who may be appointed "competent", such as Manuela Comodi).

So there is nobody keeping Mignini "out of trouble".
He is a dominus who works alone on cases he prosecutes on appeals.

He is actually regaded as a very qualified magistrate, one reason why he was immediately appointed to PG after he was cleared, is because Galati lobbied as he strongly wanted him.

I assume Mignini applied for the post at Prosecution General office for the obvious reason that it's a post better paid than prosecutor at the 1st instance court. There are at least 25 prosecutors in Umbria, while Prosecution General has a staff of only 4 magistrates (and each gets better wages). So I guess that was the practical reason why Mignini wanted that post.

I also think Mignini probably won't remain in that position for long, I tend to think he will seek some even higher post, most likely outside Umbria.

*

Btw, I think it's worth remind that Mignini's findings on the Narducci case are acknowledged as the truth. Courts have acknowledged the body-swap at the Trasimeno lake. Also, the Cassazione accepted Mignini's recourse about the 20 suspects, who were never "found innocent" (one of them, Brizioli, is still on trial; the others are off only because of expiration terms, thanks to Micheli delaying motivations). Giuttari is vindicated now by courts even about his career. The Florentine judge who convicted him in 2010, Maradei, has fallen in disgrace on a political corruption scandal. A new MoF investigation on "masterminds" has been opened focused on deceased Reinecke, one of the main focuses of Giuttari at the time of his investigation and a person of interest at the time of the Calamandrei case.

Well, concerning the question of Mignini's responsibilities, as far as I can tell, you are not disputing that Mignini will not be conducting investigations or trying cases at the 1 st level of trials anymore. When you say Mignini can bring cases on appeal, I was under the impression that Mignini can only sit with other judges on appeals panels.

I think its just nit picking to suggest that because Mignini himself applied for a promotion, that the judiciary did not necessarily consent to allowing him to receive it, its a trivial truth.

I find it inexplicable and incomprehensible that Mignini is allowed to remain in office in any capacity whatsoever, and will evade criminal culpability for his behavior in the Kercher case. I just can't believe it. So I watch the future trials unfolding with this view in mind.

Thanks for the update on all the other trials and "judicial truths" you point out. Can you clarify in what court motivation report were Mignini theories on Narducci accepted as judicial truths? I thought the body swap theory was never accepted, and the theory of criminal conspiracy among the Florence 20 was also rejected by cassation.

I'm not familiar with the name Maradei, though I may have forgotten it. Who is leading the new "MOF" investigation, are you able to say? Also, did Giobbi have any relationship with Giuttari before the Kercher case?

For the record, you do believe that Pacciani was indeed guilty of the MOF crimes, and that Vanni and Lotti were correctly convicted as his accomplices? Is that correct?

And you also believe that the Florence 20 in the Narducci case, were part of a masonic lodge that procured the sex organs of women, killed during sex, for use in their 'black masses' in accordance with the theories of Giuttari? Is that also correct?

Lastly, will Amanda's and Raf's cases for defamation now likely whither away due to statute of limitations (as has been reported in the media), and is it possible that Marasca's report will have some influence on the course of those cases?

 

[Kauffer]

Yet, even Bill Williams agrees the defence (Pascali) backtracked from the request, because - we may suppose - wasn't interested in just analyzing the files himself, in Stefanoni's laboratory, under controlled conditions together with parties along with incidente probatorio rules.

It's not for prosecutions or judicial systems to impose restraints on defence teams in the course of analysing evidence. What you do is you give the defence all the evidence in discovery and they go to court and present their analysis and arguments from it.

What you don't do is tell the defence to turn up to a prosecution lab at a certain time when their expert will be able to see only whatever the prosecution allows them to see or to analyse it there in a prescribed manner.

That's not equality of arms.

 

[Kauffer]

1. I can point to sources that proves corruption of certain subjects, but an internet forum is not the venue for this chat.
This is investigation matter and it's stuff for more serious people.

2. The Hellmann court did not find any judicial truth but that Knox voluntarily and maliciously placed false accusations against an innocent person.
It's worth note that no court ever had a reasonable doubt about the fact that Knox's false accusation was malicious.

3. Chieffi's section, and Guede's final verdict, both are definitive judicial truths, of equal value. Chieffi calls Vecchiotti "intellectually dishonest".

4. Bruno/Marasca's verdict declares to be subjected to 530.2, therefore is it not a factual finding of truth (and other fidings are still legally possible).

5. Amanda Knox is currently under trial for another calunnia case, where she will be convicted again, and that will bring further judicial truths.

6. Raffaele Sollecito is under trial for having told defamatory lies in his book.

The picture given by points above is not exhaustive.

Leaving aside the Guede trial for a moment, you seem to be under the impression that the Italian trial process constrains the possible findings of later courts each time a case goes before Cassation.

What judicial truths exactly were established by the Chieffi court?

As for Guede's trial, it is axiomatic that a finding in some other defendant's trial cannot be permitted to affect the outcome in a separate trial if the case against those defendants has been genuinely separated and if their trial is to fair. Otherwise, you must allow the defence teams in what will become the subsequent trial equal participation in the court of the first defendant - and that would mean there would be no point in having a separate trial!

Oh and by the way, the second callunia trial is waste of time because there is not enough time to complete it.

 

[acbytesla]

It's not for prosecutions or judicial systems to impose restraints on defence teams in the course of analysing evidence. What you do is you give the defence all the evidence in discovery and they go to court and present their analysis and arguments from it.

What you don't do is tell the defence to turn up to a prosecution lab at a certain time when their expert will be able to see only whatever the prosecution allows them to see or to analyse it there in a prescribed manner.

That's not equality of arms.

Ahhh, that may be the ideal, but I think in practice it is often played much differently. That efficiency and a nod to the state is more important than the ideal.

 

[davefoc]

It's not for prosecutions or judicial systems to impose restraints on defence teams in the course of analysing evidence. What you do is you give the defence all the evidence in discovery and they go to court and present their analysis and arguments from it.

What you don't do is tell the defence to turn up to a prosecution lab at a certain time when their expert will be able to see only whatever the prosecution allows them to see or to analyse it there in a prescribed manner.

That's not equality of arms.

I have wondered for awhile about Machiavelli's resistance on this point. Machiavelli, IMO, is an unusually skilled individual. He/she not only writes well in a second language, he is often aware of subtleties of meaning in his second language. He/she is a skilled debater and when the evidence even slightly leans in his favor I think he/she has done a good job of making arguments that support his view.

So I wonder how it is that this clearly bright and well spoken individual sees this issue in a way that seems to be so different than the way I and most of the people participating in this thread see it.

When I was on the jury of a drunk driving trial, for a moment the policeman testifying couldn't produce the calibration reports for the breathalyzer, I thought, OK, this deliberation is going to be easy for me. Since there are no calibration reports the results from the breathalyzer can be ignored and since that it what the case is about we can find the guy innocent and go home.

To me it sounds like Machiavelli is arguing that the calibration reports weren't necessary, we should just trust the prosecutor and the policeman. If that was so then what was our function on the jury?

An equivalent in this case is the control tests that should have been done when the DNA concentration on the knife was done. If there are no control tests, the DNA results on the knife for beyond a reasonable doubt purposes are useless, that evidence is out. Machiavelli seems to be arguing that the jury (including the judges in this case) should just trust trust the state witness even if she can't or won't provide documentation of her control tests. Really? Why? What is the function of a jury with this idea. Why not just get the prosecutor and police to agree on who is guilty and go with their judgment?


I simplified the situation above with regard to the knife DNA a bit. The results are unreliable for several other reasons as well and cumulatively they strongly support a premise that Kercher's DNA wasn't ever on the blade. And, of course, even if Kercher's DNA was on the knife the lack of blood reduces the probative value of the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife enormously. There are many innocent reasons why Kercher's DNA might have been on the knife, not the least of which is contamination in the collecting or testing process.

But Stefanoni has not provided evidence where she did testing to identify contamination if it occurred. But according to Machiavelli, the jury should just ignore that and trust the forensic scientist. On this, point, Machiavelli and I are on different planets. I am astounded that such a seemingly intelligent individual should be so trusting of a law enforcement official when there is so much direct evidence in this case that things are being hidden and when there is so much indirect evidence coming from the many well known cases where forensic scientists collaborated with the prosecution to generate false forensic evidence.

 

[Ken Dine]

The data gets copied onto a disk. Not sure what the big deal is?

I think you may understand what the problem is.

Incidente probatorio [Probative incident] requires that the parties discuss on the same piece of information, and that such piece of documentation is produced under procedures that everyone can control.

No sane person understands YOUR issues!

You obviously are largely ignorant of the law, and that would include Italian law since Vecchiotti had testified that under Italian law (as well as International Law), that the EDF's should have been turned over to the defense (see hi-lighted testimony):

Prosecutor: In a moment let’s have a look at the delivery note. But even if you didn’t find them didn’t you feel the need to ask Stefanoni for them?

Vecchiotti: I asked Dr. Stefanoni twice for the electropherograms taking for granted that she would have included them.

Prosecutor: That she would have included the electropherograms for the negative controls?

Vecchiotti: No that she would have… that in the electropherograms there would be the samples, there would be the negative controls, because why shouldn’t they be there?

Prosecutor: Yes but when did you notice that they weren’t there…

Conti S: We asked for them again.

Prosecutor: Because then you’d have noticed that they weren’t there, right?

Vecchiotti: It’s obvious but it’s her [STEFANONI's] responsibility to attach them, because why do they need to be asked for? It shouldn’t be necessary to ask for them. Prosecutor: You’re the expert, Doctor. Vecchiotti: Look they don’t need to be requested in that case, they [NEGATIVE CONTROLS] should be produced by those who have them. Prosecutor: Is this also an international rule, universally recognized? Vecchiotti: That the negative controls are included, yes.

Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…

Conti S: They were requested twice.

Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…

Conti S: In fact we asked for them twice.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

While the Italian prosecutor equivocated all over the place, even so, the Italian prosecutor did NOT disagree with Vecchiotti!

Yet, you come in here now with some made-up nonsense to the effect that releasing the EDFs to the defense would be improper since that could allow defense experts to independently analyze Stefanoni's analysis of her data, which is the entire point of International Law in requiring the release of the EDFs prior to trial!

If the defense & prosecution experts should disagree on what the RDF data shows, then that's worked out at trial!

If the files allow to change settings, produce new charts, change scales or magnify details, for example, those procedures must be done during the incidente probatorio, all parties must be sure of how they were obtained and all parties should agree to the framework of what information and document will be in the file for the parties to be discussed.

You're spouting utter nonsense, probably because you're clueless about the legal system, and also because you don't understand what RDFs even are.

As for the RDFs, as Stefanoni analyzed each item of evidence the DNA equipment she had used would automatically output data, and that data would also automatically be consecutively numbered, which means Stefanoni could NOT hide exculpatory evidence, such as any negative test controls that may show lab contamination.

From the raw data, Stefanoni (as well as the defense experts) would imput those RDFs into a computer for analysis, and from that analysis the DNA expert can then print those pretty electropherograms that surely you've seen over the years.

If the defence uses the files to produce a chart image, for example, that prosecution and other parties don't have and don't know about, that would be a violation of the basic principles of the procedure.

That's the entire point of pre-trial discovery! Eventually, both sides get each other's trial exhibits and evidence (and witness lists, etc) to review long before the actual trial even starts!

In the real world, should defense electropherograms markedly differ from the prosecution's electropherograms (each side will have each other's for comparison), then both sides will be aware of any discrepancies long before trial since each side needs to give the other side their trial Exhibits. At the same time, TWO (2) conformed copies are filed with the court, one of which the judge will use (and one for the court's files).

Along with the filing of the trial Exhibits with the court, each party must also file a Proof of Service proving that the other parties to the action have received a copy of everything filed with the court. A court clerk simply will not accept any documents for filing unless they have the proper Proofs of Service attached.

That is basic trial procedure, and while it may be slightly different in the UK or in Italy, I'm sure their respective court rules likewise are designed for fairness at trial.

Kudos on learning the English language so well, but knowing both Italian and English does NOT hide the fact that you clearly have a weak understanding of both the law, as well as science, particularly with how DNA analysis even works.

Seriously, go back to school since you're obviously in over your head here.

 

[acbytesla]

I have wondered for awhile about Machiavelli's resistance on this point. Machiavelli, IMO, is an unusually skilled individual. He/she not only writes well in a second language, he is often aware of subtleties of meaning in his second language. He/she is a skilled debater and when the evidence even slightly leans in his favor I think he/she has done a good job of making arguments that support his view.

So I wonder how it is that this clearly bright and well spoken individual sees this issue in a way that seems to be so different than the way I and most of the people participating in this thread see it.

When I was on the jury of a drunk driving trial, for a moment the policeman testifying couldn't produce the calibration reports for the breathalyzer, I thought, OK, this deliberation is going to be easy for me. Since there are no calibration reports the results from the breathalyzer can be ignored and since that it what the case is about we can find the guy innocent and go home.

To me it sounds like Machiavelli is arguing that the calibration reports weren't necessary, we should just trust the prosecutor and the policeman. If that was so then what was our function on the jury?

An equivalent in this case is the control tests that should have been done when the DNA concentration on the knife was done. If there are no control tests, the DNA results on the knife for beyond a reasonable doubt purposes are useless, that evidence is out. Machiavelli seems to be arguing that the jury (including the judges in this case) should just trust trust the state witness even if she can't or won't provide documentation of her control tests. Really? Why? What is the function of a jury with this idea. Why not just get the prosecutor and police to agree on who is guilty and go with their judgment?


I simplified the situation above with regard to the knife DNA a bit. The results are unreliable for several other reasons as well and cumulatively they strongly support a premise that Kercher's DNA wasn't ever on the blade. And, of course, even if Kercher's DNA was on the knife the lack of blood reduces the probative value of the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife enormously. There are many innocent reasons why Kercher's DNA might have been on the knife, not the least of which is contamination in the collecting or testing process.

But Stefanoni has not provided evidence where she did testing to identify contamination if it occurred. But according to Machiavelli, the jury should just ignore that and trust the forensic scientist. On this, point, Machiavelli and I are on different planets. I am astounded that such a seemingly intelligent individual should be so trusting of a law enforcement official when there is so much direct evidence in this case that things are being hidden and when there is so much indirect evidence coming from the many well known cases where forensic scientists collaborated with the prosecution to generate false forensic evidence.

It's interesting that you mention the calibration on the breathalyzer. I think I've mentioned this many times before...but what the hell, here I go again. My best friend is a police officer with the Seattle Police Department. He hates arresting people for DUI. Inevitably, if the defendant has money, he is with help of an attorney able to avoid being convicted, often for the reason you just mentioned. But if they don't have money, they are almost always convicted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Leaving aside the Guede trial for a moment, you seem to be under the impression that the Italian trial process constrains the possible findings of later courts each time a case goes before Cassation.

What judicial truths exactly were established by the Chieffi court?

As for Guede's trial, it is axiomatic that a finding in some other defendant's trial cannot be permitted to affect the outcome in a separate trial if the case against those defendants has been genuinely separated and if their trial is to fair. Otherwise, you must allow the defence teams in what will become the subsequent trial equal participation in the court of the first defendant - and that would mean there would be no point in having a separate trial!

Oh and by the way, the second callunia trial is waste of time because there is not enough time to complete it.

As for the 1st paragraph, I'm afraid I am not following you.

The list that I have made portrays a summary picture of the current status of what the trial findigns are and judicial truth.

From a legal point of view, this legally constitutes a framework, a basis on which any possible action may occur.
The legal framework also is considered as a sort of acknowledgment about findings and proceedings. It may be seen as something that expresses and points to a historical truth.

The second calunnia trial is absolutely not a waste of time: it will come to a conclusion, and will bring to a judicial truth. There are some probabilities that time is not enough to sort penalty effect (albeit the expiration time is more than 11 years on aggravated calunnia of this kind) but even without prison penalty there is a finding and acknowledgement of judicial truth.

As for Guede's trial, it shall be clear that in the Italian system trials are not entirely independant from each other. A conflict of res iudicata is normally regarded as unacceptable, meaning that truths established are important and have some consequence universally, not just within a limited boundary areound the parties of a trial.
Guede's trial leads to a judicial truth which everyone can hold as evidence, even in legal venues. (it is not true that Knox defence was not represented in that trial btw, but that's not the point).
The fact that Guede was not holding the murder weapon is thus a definitive finding, something that allows to people say and write things and may allow lawyers and judiciaries many kind of things.

 

[Numbers]

It's not for prosecutions or judicial systems to impose restraints on defence teams in the course of analysing evidence. What you do is you give the defence all the evidence in discovery and they go to court and present their analysis and arguments from it.

What you don't do is tell the defence to turn up to a prosecution lab at a certain time when their expert will be able to see only whatever the prosecution allows them to see or to analyse it there in a prescribed manner.

That's not equality of arms.

Ahhh, that may be the ideal, but I think in practice it is often played much differently. That efficiency and a nod to the state is more important than the ideal.

Whatever common practice may be in the Italian judicial system, the Italian Constitution demands certain practices in agreement with the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law. Thus, Mach's posts to the contrary are full of misstatements, and the Massei and Nencini court procedures, as well as the Chieffi CSC panel suggestions, did not follow the Italian Constitution, CPP (Italian procedural law), or ECHR case-law.

Here is a relevant article from the Italian Constitution. I have bolded provisions violated by the police in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation, Mignini, Massei and Nencini courts, and not criticized by the Chieffi CSC panel. (The provision requiring reasons was violated in the sense that the reasons provided were arbitrary, a violation of ECHR case-law.)

Italian Constitution

Article 111

1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.
7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8) The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

Here is a key article from the CPP regarding "Right to evidence":

CPP Art. 190

1. Evidence shall be admitted on request of a party. The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant.
2....
3....