Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

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.

Well, that's good--Novelli isn't a lawyer or a judge, so why he should be announcing Italian law is beyond comprehension.

Putting that aside, the Fifth section can deal with this whole issue by very simply noting that after 46 days, we see 4 guys' DNA on the clasp. Therefore, it's contaminated. Next issue.

 

[Grinder]

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?

But the sky is sometimes green and

 

[Desert Fox]

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?

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen Italian Supreme Court. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Bill Williams]

The point of law has been subscribed to by the Supreme Court.

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?

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen Italian Supreme Court. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

As Raffaele wrote, if the courts there say cows can fly, then what can you do?

Then again, even Machiavelli gets to pick and choose which ISC decision he'll obey and follow. After all, March 27, 2015, and all....... just saying.....

 

[Planigale]

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.

Mach's point is fair. The Italian legal system has a process the incidente probatorio through which evidence is 'developed'. As this is in origin an inquisitorial system this is perceived as a somewhat joint approach in which defence and prosecution are supposed to participate and a 'truth' is arrived at. We here have sometimes suggested the defence were insufficiently robust initially. The case may be that within the Italian system the defence should have been more active in challenging Stef at the incidente probatorio stage and not later once the evidence had been accepted into the record.

Nonetheless although this may have been an acceptable process when forensics were simpler, the move towards a more adversarial approach and highly technical analysis means that this process is probably insufficient to ensure justice.

It is generally accepted that the Italian legal system needs reform. This is one aspect that should be addressed. The idea of a joint approach to evidence analysis is not a bad one. It does need for the forensic scientist to be a neutral participant, difficult if the scientist as is the case for Stef is part of the police.

Mach may well be right that within the legal system the defence were at fault not the prosecution / forensic scientists. Others are I think correct in saying that the process denied natural justice even if it was technically within the rules of the Italian legal system.

 

[Grinder]

Mach's point is fair. The Italian legal system has a process the incidente probatorio through which evidence is 'developed'. As this is in origin an inquisitorial system this is perceived as a somewhat joint approach in which defence and prosecution are supposed to participate and a 'truth' is arrived at. We here have sometimes suggested the defence were insufficiently robust initially. The case may be that within the Italian system the defence should have been more active in challenging Stef at the incidente probatorio stage and not later once the evidence had been accepted into the record.

Nonetheless although this may have been an acceptable process when forensics were simpler, the move towards a more adversarial approach and highly technical analysis means that this process is probably insufficient to ensure justice.

It is generally accepted that the Italian legal system needs reform. This is one aspect that should be addressed. The idea of a joint approach to evidence analysis is not a bad one. It does need for the forensic scientist to be a neutral participant, difficult if the scientist as is the case for Stef is part of the police.

Mach may well be right that within the legal system the defence were at fault not the prosecution / forensic scientists. Others are I think correct in saying that the process denied natural justice even if it was technically within the rules of the Italian legal system.

Well put. In general with the "new" forensics I've suggested that every judicial system needs to reconsider how to handle them. I would suggest that a truly independent consultant be given the data and make an analysis without knowing what case they are working on.

If Mach believes that his judicial system was corrupt in this case, in particular with C&V, I wonder if he would support bringing in experts from Germany or some other country with no dog in the fight. I would welcome having a panel of DNA forensic scientists look into the DNA work done.

One thing that makes no sense in any system is why any court would say contamination must be proven or at least shown to be probable. This is where I get into the idea that the Italian mind just works differently than most of the rest of the world. When dealing with evidence that is circumstantial and so tiny that transfer is easily possible, it seems clear that procedures need to be in place that all but prove 100% that the results are accurate. If people understood that the sample was maybe 1/500,000 or even 1/10,000 of a grain of salt, they could see clearly the ease of contamination.

IIUC normal DNA can be tiny as well, and not considered LCN. When is a sample big enough to be regular DNA and what does size relate to for the general public.

 

[Numbers]

Mach's point is fair. The Italian legal system has a process the incidente probatorio through which evidence is 'developed'. As this is in origin an inquisitorial system this is perceived as a somewhat joint approach in which defence and prosecution are supposed to participate and a 'truth' is arrived at. We here have sometimes suggested the defence were insufficiently robust initially. The case may be that within the Italian system the defence should have been more active in challenging Stef at the incidente probatorio stage and not later once the evidence had been accepted into the record.

Nonetheless although this may have been an acceptable process when forensics were simpler, the move towards a more adversarial approach and highly technical analysis means that this process is probably insufficient to ensure justice.

It is generally accepted that the Italian legal system needs reform. This is one aspect that should be addressed. The idea of a joint approach to evidence analysis is not a bad one. It does need for the forensic scientist to be a neutral participant, difficult if the scientist as is the case for Stef is part of the police.

Mach may well be right that within the legal system the defence were at fault not the prosecution / forensic scientists. Others are I think correct in saying that the process denied natural justice even if it was technically within the rules of the Italian legal system.

The pretended use of an allegedly "joint" investigative method is not fair. The misstatements or misrepresentations of what the "incidente probatorio" (translated into English as "special evidentiary hearing" by Gialuz et al. in their text, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure) consists of, or how it was supposedly conducted, should not be mistaken for the actual process as conducted in this case, and the limitations and flaws of the incidente probatorio when applied to a forensic science investigation.

The incidente probatorio is covered under CPP Articles 392 - 404.

Under CPP Art. 392 para. 1f, a special evidentiary hearing may be requested by prosecutor and the suspect if an expert report is to be generated based on evidence that concerns an object subject to unavoidable modification.

Under CPP Art. 403 para 1, during the trial, evidence gathered during a special evidentialry hearing may only be used against an accused whose lawyers have participated in the evidence gathering.

The problem with the forensic work, including the DNA testing, is that it began before the suspects were arrested or had lawyers. Their lawyers and technical consultants were thus not present for the technical work that happened before the lawyers and technical consultants were in place. Furthermore, there are indications within the data provided to the defense that DNA testing of critical evidence was done in secret, after the defense lawyers and technical consultants were in place, without any prior notification or later explicit acknowledgment to the defense. Furthermore, the actual data, which consists solely of the contemporary electronic records on CD, including data of the controls, were denied to the defense and to the Hellmann court independent DNA consultants. Those electropherograms that were supplied must be considered subjective interpretations by the police forensic lab and prosecuton of the actual data. Thus, the incidente prebatorio was conducted in an unfair manner, and the entire DNA forensic methodology should be considered unfair due to failure to supply the actual data to the defense. This failure was a blatant violation of equality of arms.

 

[Ken Dine]

Oh, I've called Mach a liar before. But it's been a very long time. Not short term. But that of course is a subjective term.

By "short term" Grinder was referring to your apparent short term memory loss since he thought you had recently called Machiavelli a LIAR too.

Grinder promptly issued a mea culpa when it was pointed out what your "Pants on fire" statement actually referred to. Good for Grinder.

Since Machiavelli has been proven wrong multiple times daily here, has Machiavelli ever issued a mea culpa?

I'm guessing NO?

Maybe, it's an Italian thing being unable to quickly admit an obvious error – this case reeks with that!

I really feel sorry for Mach. It's incredibly clear that Amanda and Raffaele are not only innocent but good people. I don't think they are perfect but who is? His suggestion that they aren't is born out of ignorance and stubborn confirmation bias. The police don't come to their homes for domestic violence or drunk and disorderly. No one has ever complained that either of them are violent in any way.

Both completed their studies. Both speak multiple languages.

While I do agree with Grinder that this alone doesn't make them innocent. The evidence does. Nevertheless it shows that they are good people.

Since Machiavelli appears to be an Italian with skin in this game, that likely accounts for his stubbornness as he doggedly defends EVERY aspect of Italian culture, as well as the creaky Italian legal system.

No country is perfect ...I'm certainly not happy with every aspect of America's legal system, which has some of the same problems exhibited in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

By "short term" Grinder was referring to your apparent short term memory loss since he thought you had recently called Machiavelli a LIAR too.

Grinder promptly issued a mea culpa when it was pointed out what your "Pants on fire" statement actually referred to. Good for Grinder.

Since Machiavelli has been proven wrong multiple times daily here, has Machiavelli ever issued a mea culpa?

I'm guessing NO?

Maybe, it's an Italian thing being unable to quickly admit an obvious error – this case reeks with that!




Since Machiavelli appears to be an Italian with skin in this game, that likely accounts for his stubbornness as he doggedly defends EVERY aspect of Italian culture, as well as the creaky Italian legal system.

No country is perfect ...I'm certainly not happy with every aspect of America's legal system, which has some of the same problems exhibited in this case.

The proof of confirmation bias on Machiavelli's part. When ISC or lower court makes a decision he likes, he quotes it back to us as dogmatic, narrow truth which is unamendable. It is also unambiguous to those who "truly" understand Italian law.

When the ISC or lower court makes a decision he doesn't like, it's conspiracy.

The key to his discernment is the conclusion reached, not the reasoning or the law.

AKA confirmation bias.

 

[Mike1711]

How any court, lower or not, can establish a "judicial fact" (wtmb) is a total mystery. It flies in the face of both logic and progress.

Surely Galileo put an end to this absurd notion?

 

[Ken Dine]

In response to Machiavelli claim that the RDFs were never requested by the defense, Kauffer asks why then would the defense claim in their appeal that the defense is still awaiting delivery of the RDFs if the defense never asked for the RFDs?

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.

Here's Raffaele's 2014 appeal which you cite above:

Resume of Sollecito’s New Reasons of Appeal

Miscarriages of justice may happen when DNA analysis is too concerned in finding matching profiles and neglects how and when the DNA was deposited. The book also stresses the importance of strict controls on every link of the chain of recovery and custody of the evidence and also of a complete documentation, while in these proceedings we are still waiting for the Raw Data Files pertaining to the original 2007-2008 tests. Therefore a judge cannot accept a given test result without having before ascertained the quality of the evidence, with a particular attention to determine “how, where and when” a given DNA was laid down.

Chapter Five of Gill’s work deals with the DNA in the Kercher case and his analysis fully supports the conclusions of the defense with respect to the lack of evidentiary value against the defendant of the DNA evidence collected and analyzed in this case.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Summary-Sollecito-New-Reasons-of-Appeal.pdf

For his own mental health, I would like to see Machiavelli issue at least one mea culpa since he's clearly been getting his a$$ handed to him.

C'mon, Machiavelli you can do it, admitting when you're wrong is also good for the soul.

But, if you insist on walking down your same foolhardy path while ignoring all the evidence, then don't let me stop you since your mental meltdown is rather interesting to watch from a safe distance.

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

It appears to be an Italian cultural thing which requires overly polite and diplomatic exchanges between the judge and the players on the prosecution side. Such obsequious behavior to the prosecution in most western courts would be considered to be improper.

Interesting, Italian judges had no problems with attorneys openly calling Amanda a "She-Devil" in court, so their overly polite behavior apparently doesn't apply to the defendants.

In an American court if an attorney called a defendant a "She-Devil" in open court in front of the jurors, that could trigger an immediate mistrial (or be grounds for an appeal), and the judge would likely skin that attorney alive for ruining his trial.

 

[Numbers]

Ken Dine,

Thanks for reminding us of Raffaele Sollecito's appeal to the CSC which mentions the continuing failure of the police and prosecutor to turn over fair copies of the raw (electronic) data files of the DNA work.

It is important to understand that the entire case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is based upon official misconduct, including violations of Italian procedural laws by the police, prosecution, and some judges, and the suppression of exculpatory evidence, coupled with some fraudulent conduct in misrepresenting the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on Nov. 5/6, 2007 by the prosecution, and in manipulation of tests by officials, specifically including Stefanoni.

Resume of Sollecito’s New Reasons of Appeal

Miscarriages of justice may happen when DNA analysis is too concerned in finding matching profiles and neglects how and when the DNA was deposited. The book also stresses the importance of strict controls on every link of the chain of recovery and custody of the evidence and also of a complete documentation, while in these proceedings we are still waiting for the Raw Data Files pertaining to the original 2007-2008 tests. Therefore a judge cannot accept a given test result without having before ascertained the quality of the evidence, with a particular attention to determine “how, where and when” a given DNA was laid down.

Chapter Five of Gill’s work deals with the DNA in the Kercher case and his analysis fully supports the conclusions of the defense with respect to the lack of evidentiary value against the defendant of the DNA evidence collected and analyzed in this case.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...-of-Appeal.pdf

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

It should also be mentioned that a lot of DNA testing was done BEFORE Amanda & Raffaele were even charged, and after they were arrested, it took several days to meet with their lawyers for the first time, but that was a hasty meeting minutes before their first court hearing, so there just wasn't any chance to have defense experts at early DNA testing events.

According to Machiavelli if the defense neglects to have their experts in the lab as the DNA tests are conducted, the defense will thus lose any right to challenge the veracity of the DNA testing. That may seem plausible at first blush, but how many tests were run BEFORE the defense had a chance to hire their experts? Where are the RDFs for those early tests?

Also, having experts sit for days and weeks in a police lab would be prohibitively expensive, and there's just no reason to do such a thing if the police eventually had to cough up their EDFs, as the law requires.

It's the EDFs which keeps the system honest and not defense experts monitoring the analysis, and likely the experts must observe from a distance to avoid any contamination by these experts.

 

[Ken Dine]

The funny thing is that Vecchiotti testified (on May 21.) almost the opposite of that, that is, she testified that she didn't request the electronic raw data to Stefanoni, she explicitly stated before judge Hellmann that the raw data are something unnecessary.

Do you have an actual citation supporting your claims?

If Vecchiotti testified that the EDFs were unnecessary for her analysis of the DNA in the case, then Vecchiotti would be a FOOL!

I seriously find it difficult to believe that Vecchiotti testified to such a thing as you claim?

She also praised Stefanoni because she was completely cooperative, and said more than once that she fulfilled all the requests and gave her "even more" things than she requested.

I understand that what I am saying about Vecchiotti's statements seems strange, but there's a reason why I regard her as a fraud.

Everything you report as fact is very strange and illogical, and since you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong on many of your claims, I tend to doubt this latest claim of yours, too.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you have an actual citation supporting your claims?

If Vecchiotti testified that the EDFs were unnecessary for her analysis of the DNA in the case, then Vecchiotti would be a FOOL!

She probably said she didn't need to see the EDFs to know that Stefanoni's work was bunk, but she would have needed to see them to confirm her results.

Machiavelli will twist anything to get the results he wants.

 

[Antony]

The funny thing is that Vecchiotti testified (on May 21.) almost the opposite of that, that is, she testified that she didn't request the electronic raw data to Stefanoni, she explicitly stated before judge Hellmann that the raw data are something unnecessary.

Do you have an actual citation supporting your claims?

If Vecchiotti testified that the EDFs were unnecessary for her analysis of the DNA in the case, then Vecchiotti would be a FOOL!

I seriously find it difficult to believe that Vecchiotti testified to such a thing as you claim?

From what I recall, Stefanoni provided printouts derived from the EDFs, but not the actual EDF raw data as instructed by Hellmann. It turned out that the limited information provided by Stefanoni was enough to invalidate her claimed results even without the raw data, which is why C&V told Hellmann that the raw data wasn't needed for the purposes of this case.

So it's a misrepresentation to say that C&V ever stated that the raw data was unnecessary in principle.

She also praised Stefanoni because she was completely cooperative, and said more than once that she fulfilled all the requests and gave her "even more" things than she requested.

I understand that what I am saying about Vecchiotti's statements seems strange, but there's a reason why I regard her as a fraud.

Everything you report as fact is very strange and illogical, and since you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong on many of your claims, I tend to doubt this latest claim of yours, too.

This claim is certainly something made up by Machiavelli - or perhaps another misrepresentation of what Vecchiotti actually said.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.

You told me she provided them, not that she said she would. Don't make me go back and find all your quotes, because I will. I know you argued that the raw data files were provided. Is this really you or did you forget what you've written in the past?

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).

Cite please. Vecchiotti never said the raw data files would not be interesting to her work.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you have an actual citation supporting your claims?

If Vecchiotti testified that the EDFs were unnecessary for her analysis of the DNA in the case, then Vecchiotti would be a FOOL!

I seriously find it difficult to believe that Vecchiotti testified to such a thing as you claim?

Vecchiotti is not a fool - she is a fraud. Of course it is possible to quote her own answers.
Seems rather clear, from her words - and those of Hellmann - that she claims she had all what she requested, that she did not request raw data (and she points out "I requested the electropherograms"), and she is not interested in having raw data (those are not data that have an interest to her):

Everything you report as fact is very strange and illogical, and since you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong on many of your claims, I tend to doubt this latest claim of yours, too.

Oh no I have not been proven wrong on anything of any relevance, certainly not over the last week.
I don't know why the folks here suffer of this hallucinatory problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vecchiotti is not a fool - she is a fraud. Of course it is possible to quote her own answers.
Seems rather clear, from her words - and those of Hellmann - that she claims she had all what she requested, that she did not request raw data (and she points out "I requested the electropherograms"), and she is not interested in having raw data (those are not data that have an interest to her):

What you are failing to address is this:

1) she does not need the EDFs to know that Stefanoni's work was substandard.
2) however, to validate Stefanoni's work, she would have to have access to the EDFs, because otherwise all she could do is repeat Stefanoni's conclusions without know how she got there. Vecchiotti already knew the work was substandard.​

Unless you address both of these issues, Machiavelli your views on this do not make any sense. Your confirmation bias is blinding you to the distinction.