Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Hellmann was either showing perversity or really doesn't have a clue how criminal law evidence works.

I think you'll find that evidence works really really well when it is in fact disclosed.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Think about it. You are the defense for a hypothetical murder case in which there are minute traces of potential DNA, blood, hair, fibre, bodily fluid.

The judge arranges a date for both sides to independently witness the lab testing on these items.

The defense witness not bothering to turn up is tantamount to the same contempt of court of not bothering to appear at a hearing. Of course, the testing and/or the hearing continues without the blackguard. To cock a snook at the court directions and then demand a retest/re-hearing is the epitome of "taking the mickey".

ETA Any objections should be raised at the time. There were not any.

 

[sept79]

For the record, Hellmann's report, and in particular Vecchiotti and Conti's contribution, was expunged, excoriated, extinguished, expired, is no more. It is as dead as a dodo.

On March 27, 2015, Marasca's Supreme Court of Cassation retrieved it from the trash bin where it had been mistakenly placed . . .

 

[Vixen]

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 defence "expert witnesses" had their credibility torn to shreds by the prosecution 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?

Bongiorno and Vedova gave Stefanoni a very hard time in the witness stand. They were rude, insulting, called her a liar, questioned her competence. Stefanoni kept a cool head.

Anyone would think Stefanoni had topped her roommate.

 

[zotz]

Or, Raff removed Mez' bra after her death and that is why his DNA is all over the bra clasp.

There were four male DNA profiles on the bra, five when you count Rudy's which was found on the bra fabric. So that makes five. Add to that the fact that Raffaele's DNA was a LCN amount which Stefanoni's lab was not qualified to process.

If we are being logical and consistent and we rule out contamination as the source, we must conclude that there were five men in Meredith's room that handled the bra and logically they must have participated in her rape and murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

I am afraid there is a very serious misunderstanding of my position here.

There are several things that I pointed at, that for some reasons I see "innocentisti" on this thread apparently missed. You still overlook some details and logical passages.

For example, I just see AC recognizes Hellmann's letter to Stefanoni was not an "order" and had no clear indication but rather looked like something vague, "wishy washy".

It's interesting to me that this is noted, because I can see how the detail is correct but it is in contrast with what I would notice first.
It's true that Hellmann made some kind of absolutely vague, almost political and diplomatic invitation to the parties, without any content and avoiding any issue, and btw I can say Hellmann appeared indeed "wishy washy" and shabby on many occasion, embarassingly incompetent in his leading of the courtroom, appearing superficial, indifferent, approximate and incompetent at every technical juncture of the procedure; yet the shallowness of Hellmann is not what I would see as important if the issue was disclosure EDF data.

My being a little familiar with criminal procedure, makes me see this Hellmann's weakness as not consequential to the issue, and to "understanding" what reall yhappens about this trial issue.
What I can see as absolutely determinant, rather than judges or prosecutors attitudes, instead, is that the defence attitude about requesting raw data was "wishy washy". This all throughout the trial.

What I see as an event with a key meaning, is Pascali backtracking from his request of raw data in oct. 2008, after Stefanoni said that she is ready to release the data for analysis if the judge orders that, only suggests it's better to have some control of procedure on how those data will be elaborated and used.

At that point apparently Pascali doesn't insist with the request, and doesn't mention raw data at all at the hearing four days later.

Such a defence choice to backtrack from that request and focus on other points instead, would seal the boundaries of evidence and settle the issue of what must be in and what must be out.

It's not a matter of "trusting an authority", it's not "an authority" who decides here. It's the nature of evidence that can be shaped like that through choices by multiple players within the rails of procedure. Some information and evidence is included, some is not. A trial is not a scientific research, points of evidence are not, by their nature, subjected to be continuously investigated or re-opened, the boundaries are not to be mobile and adjusted at any time.

Such nature of trial evidence is, you know, somehing independant on the question of whether the evidence that was produced was sufficiently complete or whether it is established and presented through a fair process. Questions like fairness or scientific completeness of evidence are kind of philosophical questions we can always ask ourselves, if we want to question the procedure in terms od morals and justice, but as for the trial, the factual thing that I would have to acknowledge is that the parties have shaped the evidence that way through their actions, apparently respecting the procedure. This fact would come first, it's a trial fact, comes before our thoughts about what fairness should be like, or what we want to "discover" and see.

Now it happens that in the procedure code there are other rules, for example after evidence phase is closed about a topic, it may happen that a party wants to re-open the discussion and bring in some more evidence, like call another witness or submit some documentation. Procedure code says: to request to re-open evidence discussion, the party needs to explain (convincingly) how exactly they think the additional evidence/information could be useful and be determinant to the decision, and also explain (and convince the judge) on why they were unable to bring that evidence before.
It may be scientifically important to see for an expert or not, it may be a desperate or opportunistic attempt or there might be a reason why they didn't make that request before, it could be everything but it's the party's job to convince the judge, not Stefanoni's.
This rule is not based on "science", it just exists. It's the nature of a trial.

Based on this principle of procedure, for example, if a lawyer fails to explain the judge why they think it's absolutely necessary for them to have the raw data now, how they would like to use them, or if they don't even make a clear request, well can hardly blame Stefanoni or others for that.

You need to consider these mechanisms when you look at a trial. I repeat: it's not about "trusting authorities". There are law principles about trusting witnesses, which means that if you think the witness is porposedly placing false evidence then you have the burden to prove it, you can't just work on personal suspicion. It is also true that the prosecutor in the Italian system deserves the same trust that is owed to the judge, as for Italian Constitution there is no difference between magistrates. This does not mean that one can't dispute evidence. Given that some mechanisms exist on the background and are part of the context, of the "language" of the trial, there is a cultural background etc. anyway, it's actions of players what I regard as determinant, and I mean *all* players. The specific issue of EDF data is manifestly something that appears to me determined and built by defence actions.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It's true of any court, the judge calls the shots.

 

[Vixen]

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"

Hellmann was stiffed, stifled, zapped, struck out.

 

[Kauffer]

Think about it. You are the defense for a hypothetical murder case in which there are minute traces of potential DNA, blood, hair, fibre, bodily fluid.

The judge arranges a date for both sides to independently witness the lab testing on these items.

The defense witness not bothering to turn up is tantamount to the same contempt of court of not bothering to appear at a hearing. Of course, the testing and/or the hearing continues without the blackguard. To cock a snook at the court directions and then demand a retest/re-hearing is the epitome of "taking the mickey".

ETA Any objections should be raised at the time. There were not any.

You have a copy of the invitations to the defence attend all the testing?

You do realise that watching what happens in a lab test does not preclude the requirement for the lab to release its data so that everyone can be sure that the results declared by the lab are supportable? You cannot determine this by watching.

When I take my car for its annual test and the mechanic needs to discover if my exhaust emissions are within a tolerable range, he doesn't stand at the back of the car and observe the exhaust gas. He plugs it into a machine which provides a scientific measurement. This machine's functioning is also tested scientifically and data is available for examination. When the Ministry of Transport assessors ask the mechanic for his data, he doesn't refuse to give it them or tell them the only thing they're allowed to do is watch an emissions test.

 

[zotz]

Bongiorno and Vedova gave Stefanoni a very hard time in the witness stand. They were rude, insulting, called her a liar, questioned her competence. Stefanoni kept a cool head.

Anyone would think Stefanoni had topped her roommate.

Was Mignini polite to Amanda on the stand? Lying about a lab test in a murder case is a serious allegation. Stefanoni's reputation will never recover from this, which is a good thing.

Civilization 1
Fascism 0

 

[Vixen]

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.

Either side can apply for disclosure. Ultimately, it's the judge who gives the direction. Obviously, the judge was satisfied, full stop.

 

[davefoc]

Stefanoni made a long and detailed description of DNA testing in her lab.

Why would she discuss her education?

Qualifications are relevant at entry level. After that, it is a level playing field based on your performance and capability.

I know guys who have dreadful education records (and also there's Sir Cohen, founder of Tesco, the Beatles, Richard Branson) and yet are extraordinarily successful. It would be utterly pointless to ask Macca how many O Levels he has (2) as it is completely irrelevant.

So what would Steff's PhD tell you? Next you would be whinning you don't like the title of her dissertation.

I am not sure what the value of a response to this post is. It seems strange on several levels.

Obviously, it is reasonable to expect that a detailed report does not selectively contain only the details that support the premise of the report writer. Did Stefanoni include the fact that there was DNA on the clasp from males other than Sollecito? If she didn't include that fact then it is reasonable to assume that Stefanoni wrote a biased report with the goal of making her results support a particular point of view. That is not an appropriate goal for a forensic examiner as I understand it. The standard idea is that they are a neutral party analyzing the evidence and presenting the results objectively without being influenced by a particular agenda.

Even if Stefanoni wrote a detailed report, so what? A case where the verdict is to be decided on an objective basis requires that the raw results that underlie the report be available for analysis so that the work of the forensic examiner can be verified. Before this case, I thought that would have been a requirement for forensic examiners in all parts of the world where western style court procedures are in force.

Can you point to where in Stefanoni's report she describes the control tests she did for the concentration of the DNA sample she did on the knife? What does it matter if a report is detailed if the most important details are not present and those details can't be validated with underlying data if the details are challenged?

As to why she should discuss her education:
Wow, do you and I live on the same planet? Do you think expert witnesses walk in to court and take the stand and start testifying about their conclusions without their qualifications being described? Do you think their education isn't one of the factors in their qualification as an expert witness?

As to the issue of whether Stefanoni had a PhD:
This has never been much of an issue to me. It seems like a bit of an issue that nobody can point to a document or testimony that clearly states the nature of her higher education.

The bigger issue for me is whether Stefanoni's results are reliable and not tainted by an unidentified agenda and/or incompetence. IMO, Stefanoni's actions suggest both an unidentified agenda and less than normal competence for a forensic examiner specializing in DNA collection and analysis. So even if Stefanoni had a PhD, I would still hold a low opinion of her actions with regard to this case.

 

[Kauffer]

For the record, Hellmann's report, and in particular Vecchiotti and Conti's contribution, was expunged, excoriated, extinguished, expired, is no more. It is as dead as a dodo.

No, actually. The Conti/Vechiotti report was not expunged. Why on earth do you believe that?

 

[Machiavelli]

On March 27, 2015, Marasca's Supreme Court of Cassation retrieved it from the trash bin where it had been mistakenly placed . . .

This would be a violation of art. 628 hence I consider it impossible.

*edited to add: anyway, let's point out that the Conti-Vecchiotti report doesn't contain any new information nor opinion that was not already submitted by defence experts.

 

[Kauffer]

Either side can apply for disclosure. Ultimately, it's the judge who gives the direction. Obviously, the judge was satisfied, full stop.

Maybe "the judge" didn't read the Italian Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights. If he had, he would have realised the limitations on his discretion to refuse discovery requests, which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

 

[Vixen]

It's called "discovery" where I come from. It's incumbant upon both prosecution and defence to "discover" all evidence to be used in pleadings. Any conflict arising during argument between opposing advocates (barristers?) regarding expert evidence invariably results in calculations and raw data being disclosed as a matter of procedure. Non disclosure of "discovery" documents is criminal and refusing to present data would be contempt of court.

It appears Dr.(?) Stef. is in contempt of court.

South African Law is "Roman Dutch" in origin which draws from obvious legal regions.

Is Italian (Roman?) Law so different?

Parties don't have an unlimited right to disclosure. They have to justify how it is relevant to the case. It is quite usual for unreasonable requests for reams of data, in the hope of spotting an error, to be refused as being a fishing expedition.

Part of a judge's duty is to rein in the evidence and this is decided by a list of issues agreed by both parties usually at a preliminary hearing.

If Potenza negligently failed to turn up, why should he expect disclosure of the rough notes after the event of the prima facie evidence having been adduced?

 

[Machiavelli]

Was Mignini polite to Amanda on the stand? Lying about a lab test in a murder case is a serious allegation. Stefanoni's reputation will never recover from this, which is a good thing.

Civilization 1
Fascism 0

what lie?

 

[Machiavelli]

This "legal truth" can be reversed by the Supreme Court, obviously because that is what, in effect, happened. So if Guede's trial decisions are binding on Knox and Sollecito, perhaps the ISC's acquittal will alter Guede's final conviction.

No it can't.

And it didn't happen.

It's only two conflicting findings on the same level.
But it's actually 3 vs. 1., because we have Guede, Chieffi on points of law (art.628), and Hellmann on calunnia.
By now.

 

[Vixen]

It seems to me that there are only a few remaining questions to be answered:

Did Stefanoni manufacture fraudulent evidence against Knox/Sollecito on her own or was she pressured into manufacturing evidence in order for 'Italian Justice' to convict the two defendants?

In either case, why is Stefanoni not being prosecuted? Maybe it's an attempt to save some Italian face?

Raff is Italian, is he not? Are you seriously claiming Amanda was a high profile American statesman and those barbarians who brought you pizza, remembering the war, saw it as a chance to improve their self esteem?

 

[Vixen]

I want to thank all of you who posted the evidence regarding the requests made for the raw data and Hellman requesting that Stefanoni produce them. It was bothersome having Machiavelli committing callunia or is it calumny against me.

I refuse to call him a liar as he has called me. He lost and truth and humanity won out. All that is left for him is slander...that is until his hero Mignini finds another innocent victim to put behind bars. How many is it now Mach? About 20 in the MOF case and 2 in this one? The real monsters are Mignini and the cabal of sycophants that enable him.

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?