RWVBWL
Master Poster
Forgive me for intruding for a moment,
but 7 years of collecting evidence herself and then testing her work like this?
Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
- Status
Forgive me for intruding for a moment,
but 7 years of collecting evidence herself and then testing her work like this?
There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.
The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.
Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).
Here is a summary.
1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;
2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;
3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;
4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);
5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;
6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;
7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;
8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;
9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;
10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;
11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;
12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;
13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;
14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;
15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;
16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;
17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;
18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).
19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.
From ECHR case-law:
USHAKOV AND USHAKOVA v. UKRAINE 10705/12 18/06/2015
100. The Court reiterates that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 of that Article and thus they are to be examined together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999‑I). On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, § 25, 16 June 2005).
101. The Court emphasises that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001‑II). As a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, ECHR 2008). The right to defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (ibid).
102. The Court has consistently viewed early access to a lawyer as a procedural guarantee of the privilege against self-incrimination and a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment, noting the particular vulnerability of an accused at the early stages of the proceedings, when he is confronted with both the stress of the situation and the increasingly complex criminal legislation involved. Any exception to the enjoyment of this right should be clearly circumscribed and its application strictly limited in time. These principles are particularly called for in the case of serious charges, for it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies (see Salduz, cited above, § 54).
103. The aforementioned principles of the right to defence and the privilege against self-incrimination are in line with the generally recognised international human rights standards, which are at the core of the concept of a fair trial and whose rationale relates in particular to the protection of the accused against abusive coercion on the part of the authorities. They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused (see Salduz, cited above, § 53, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 92, 10 March 2009, with further references, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 68, 24 September 2009). The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006‑IX).
....
Note the ECHR statement: The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused.
That statement indicates that psychological methods of coercion or oppression to obtain false statements against the will of the person accused or suspected or being questioned for use to obtain a conviction of that person violates ECHR case-law. This statement is applicable to the interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on Nov. 5/6, 2007.
It is most specifically applicable to the use of false statements obtained from Knox and used to convict her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. Knox has lodged a complaint against Italy for violation of her rights with the ECHR, and case-law is very clear the statements obtained in questioning of a person without a lawyer may not be used to convict that person; see Ibrahim and others v the United Kingdom for an outline of the factors ECHR uses to evaluate such cases.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Interesting. Ok I'm game. What, according to you, are the "legal standards" of a profile? Do lay them out for us, citing the standards you refer to.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Does your reference to "shortcomings" in the first highlight indicate that you've learned something about unfairness in Italian trials? Prove to us that in Italian law an "incidente probatorio" is the "place where the work of the forensic examiner can be verified".
It does not seem credible that this is true and that the Italians are so esoteric. Firstly, the data dump was not part of an incidente probatorio, nor did Stefanoni in her letter to Micheli responding to the request for raw data use a procedural argument that the request should not be satisfied because it was not within the confines of an incidente probatorio. She used other, bogus arguments instead.
As for Novelli, we have discussed him. He was the guy who was able to access, he said, records in the case that were not released to the defence and made the astonishing argument that the defence needed to prove the existence of contamination yet the evidence of contamination was available in the records the defence were not given.
You have never been able to cite any evidence from any other criminal case involving the use of DNA, in which Novelli's position with regard to contamination has been supported by any other forensic scientist.
Furthermore, I draw your attention again to the evidence given by the 36I testing Carabinieri scientist, Berti, who, in evidence given in this case confirmed that data is an essential tool for verifying the efficacy of results. The Caribinieri report routinely disclosed the data, without being requested to do so, with regard to 36I, that Stefanoni and her lab did not do and stated that a request to see it was "unheard of". Kindly explain why there is such a difference in approach.
Ken Dine
Muse
In America, once a trial date has been set, the court mails the dates of filing deadlines to all parties. The filing deadlines are also posted on the court's webpage.
To use anything in court each side must provide the other side everything they may use at trial. Possible witness lists are also exchanged. Typically, an evidence list has items that many never come into play during trial, so many items and possible witnesses are routinely listed just in case the lawyer needs to use it.
If you fail to meet these filing deadlines, your evidence (or witnesses) cannot be used at trial.
Of course, if an attorney misses their filing deadline it wouldn't be fair to their client not to use exculpatory evidence, so typically the attorney would file a motion to still allow the evidence, which is routinely approved if the attorney admits they messed up by not filing on time.
Once the the late-filing attorney admits their error, typically the attorney would be fined (sanctioned) for wasting the court's time and accepts the late documents.
So true. That the average modern Italian brain operates much at all is doubtful?
Get your ear close to an Italian's head and I suspect you'll be able to hear the hamster wheel inside.
Seriously, obviously many Italians are highly intelligent (after all, the Renaissance started in Italy), so modern Italians seem to be suffering from their modern cultural imposed stupidity, perhaps due to leftover baggage from their Mussolini years?
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
With regard to ENFSI, please demonstrate with reference to their standards how the work done in this case by Stefanoni met those standards with regard to the collection, testing and storage of forensic evidence in this case. What does ENFSI say with regard to the importance or otherwise of the repeatability of tests, the disclosure of raw data and the dangers of contamination. Please demonstrate that in 2007, Stefanoni's lab, according to ENFSI standards was suitable for tge carrying out of LCN work.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
You are suggesting you have knowledge of Stefanoni's "extensive research experience". Please set out in detail for us what this is and demonstrate its relevance to her work in this case.
Last edited:
This assumes there is some sort of standard to belong to ENFSI. The operative words are National Forensic Science Institutes. Where there are 'national' institutes these are what are members. Universities are not members (with certain exceptions). Although ENFSI set standards they merely 'encourage' members to meet them. Attending ENFSI conferences is also about her education, learning about the standards expected, it can be interpreted more than one way!
An argument made by some is that Amanda Knox somehow "waived" her right to a lawyer during the interrogation. One cannot casually "waive" one's right to a Convention right, according to the ECHR.
Firstly, there is no document from the interrogation signed by Knox stating she was waiving her right to a lawyer. Secondly, there is no document signed by Knox from the interrogation stating that she had been informed of her rights to remain silent and not to incriminate herself, or of her responsibilities if she were to incriminate someone else. These warnings are required by Italian CPP Article 64. The Italian courts, including the CSC, recognized that there were violations of Italian procedural law in obtaining her statements and limited their use, but failed to exclude their use entirely, in violation of CPP Article 191 para. 1. CPP Art. 191 para. 1 states: Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
In terms of ECHR case-law, a person may not waive the benefit of representation of a lawyer during an interrogation or at any stage of a proceeding without full knowledge of the possible consequences, and without provision of minimum safeguards to protect their rights.
ECHR statements on waivers include:
OGORODNIK v. UKRAINE 29644/10 05/02/2015
104. Lastly, the Court reiterates that any waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention – in so far as it is permissible – must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with the waiver’s importance (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006‑II).
SEJDOVIC v. ITALY [GC] 56581/00 01/03/2006
86. Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000). However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see Poitrimol, cited above, § 31). Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
Wrong.
I think you refer to the pre-trial conference at which time the heads of argument are discussed for admission to the court roll. These "heads" (affidavits) are signed by both parties and entered into the court record.
The pre-trial conference has nothing to do with discovery. Discovery is a matter of duty on both sides to make ALL information/evidence that is intended to be used in the case available to the other side. This happens months before getting to court. Withholding of such discovery documents in South African Law (which is defined as Roman Dutch Law) is a criminal offence in itself.
Being a "newbie" I can't post a URL here but Google....
The "Daily Mail UK - 'Third day in court today. Let's see how much of my credibility is destroyed. After that, beer!' Glib Facebook post of 'expert witness' taken apart in Pistorius trial"
....to understand why full disclosure of experts qualifications and "discovery" are vital to a fair court hearing.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
In the UK, at least 10.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Shan't. You have been told already she spent 8 years as a research graduate at Napoli Uni.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
No citation, no link, no expertise, just a nonsense answer from you. A stand alone number! Good grief! What do you think this is? Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
Guilters' favourite, David Balding disagrees with you:
"Are there contributors other than Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Kercher to the autosomal profiles? If so, how does the presence of this additional DNA affect the bra clasp as evidence?"
"Yes, Conti-Vecchiotti identified a further 12 above-threshold peaks at alleles that could not have come from Sollecito or Kercher. They correctly criticised the scientific police for ignoring these: many do appear to be stutter peaks which are usually ignored, but 4 are not and definitely indicate DNA from another individual."
As usual, you come here to embarrass yourself by posting false claims.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
LOL! You were told that too, which is why you are parroting it.
But that's not a response to the information requested of you to substantiate your claim that Stefanoni has "extensive research experience".
You know nothing whatsoever of any substance related to Stefanoni's work outside this case.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Let us assume that she really is some super genius with regards to a new LCN technique, wouldn't it have been validated by others by now?
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
No, it's an unacceptable inference. And the word "Italian" here is particularly unacceptable.
Every trial procedure can be subjected to criticism (and would be better if that's done by people ancknowledged with the system). As for me I always pointed out that - I've not "learned" anything new at all. But this has nothing remotely to do with what the pro-Knoxes do. The pro-Knoxes accuse people of conspiracy, and attempt to place witness under trial and by that way mean to claim "innocence" of the accused.
The pro-Knoxes are delusional and lying on a factual level. It has nothing to do with expressing technical opinions about procedure.
What you say hardly makes sense. Your problems with "credibility" of such things are essentially a problem with your prejudice.
First of all should be remided that Stefanoni wrote to the judge she was ready to release raw data if the judge ordered so (never said "should not be satisfied"); then, indeed she made procedural arguments, she pointed out that the defence experts were able to witness the tests that were conducted within a transparent adversarial procedure (and in her testimony, Stefanoni pointed out that they had been invited to the laboratory if they wanted to access data); therefore, Stefanoni implies a late complaint about lack of documentation could be used as an argument to attack her.
Not just Novelli made the point that evidence of specific contamination must be given by those who claim it: this was also a point of law decided by the Chieffi court on the case; and such point of law is definitive on the case, as for art. 628, it cannot be changed by Marasca/Bruno panel.
To investigate files, Novelli simply did what Pascali did not do, and what defence experts Gino & Tagliabracci also didn't do when evidence was re-opened on appeal, that is go to Stefanoni's laboratory and access the files.
Let's point out that also Vecchiotti & Conti declined the option of having raw data. Vecchiotti explicitly stated so in court, explaining that they would be not interesting to her work.
Acctually, and astonishingly given Vecchiotti's subsequent behaviour, Conti & Vecchiotti didn't even ask for negative controls, diden't even find them within the file (albeit they had been deposited with the preliminary court in Oct. 2008, and their deposit was in the record).
The point of law has been subscribed to by the Supreme Court.
It is just met by rationality. Whenever one claims the occurrance of some event is probable, is supposed to bring evidence about that.
Berti said that it can be useful, not that it is essential. But still this doesn't change the fact that Vecchiotti stated that it is useless; and doesn't change that the defence didn't request them, certainly not with arguments that could convince a judge.
On the contrary, the records say tha they were requested so. Yet you should understand that what the Carabinieir did in 2013 is no argument.
On the Parolisi case, the Carabinieri destroyed the evidence items immediately right away after testing them in the incidente probatorio. On the Peruzzi case, Vecchiotti withold parts of the DNA profiles from the knowledge of other parties and she used the lack of discovery of the other party in order to lead them into a trap. Speculations about alleged "different approaches" in different situations are completely pointless.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
So Mach, what's going to happen now? Will the Italian system have yet another trial?
When was Stef's lab certified for LCN DNA work? Do you have a cite for whatever answer you make?
ETA - Here in the US we believe that a defendant deserves a robust defense. Cases are thrown back to the lower court if it is shown that the lawyer(s) did not provide an acceptable level of service. This could be literally or figuratively sleeping in court. In this case you seem to be saying that the defense made massive errors in not requesting certain data and not going for every test. Don't you think that the kids deserved a robust defense?
If the Italians ruled the earth is flat and the center of the solar system would that stand for all of time?
When was Stef's lab certified for LCN DNA work? Do you have a cite for whatever answer you make?
ETA - Here in the US we believe that a defendant deserves a robust defense. Cases are thrown back to the lower court if it is shown that the lawyer(s) did not provide an acceptable level of service. This could be literally or figuratively sleeping in court. In this case you seem to be saying that the defense made massive errors in not requesting certain data and not going for every test. Don't you think that the kids deserved a robust defense?
If the Italians ruled the earth is flat and the center of the solar system would that stand for all of time?
Last edited:
zotz
Thinker
If the Italian Supreme Court says that the sky is green and water runs uphill does that mean that that is the official truth? When the ISC says something ludicrous, it is still ludicrous. Is it a "judicial truth" in Italy that women wearing tight jeans cannot be raped?
Last edited:
- Status