Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I can understand your caution, but the ECtHR is not one of the Italian courts that were in thrall to the Perugia prosecutorial gang. The application is so clear-cut that it must be nailed-on they will do the right thing.

More of a worry is that it may take years for the case to reach the top of the pile - if it ever does.

I would suggest that within eighteen months is a reasonable estimate.

 

[Strozzi]

The entire institute was shut down.
Vecchiotti performs autopsies, she's a forensic pathologists. Doesn't have a specialization in pathology, but in "legal medicine" (that means basically autopsies). Her laboratory doesn't have any kind of DNA analysis certification, nor any certification of other kind. She doesn't even have a thermometer in her refrigerator.

I wouldn't eat there, either.

 

[Antony]

I would suggest that within eighteen months is a reasonable estimate.

I'm pleased that you should think it will be that soon. What do you base your estimate on?

That would mean that the case could be concluded before the 10-year anniversary of the murder. One wonders whether it will put a stop to the malicious gossip online.

 

[acbytesla]

Is your last sentence supposed to read, "I'm not...."?

It is, of course, not an appeal of the verdict to the ECHR and the ECHR is not in a position to make an order with regard to the verdict. Nevertheless, Italy's own laws are entirely deferential to the case law of the court in this matter to ensure that the conviction cannot stand. The persistence of the Council of Europe in connection with the Dorigo case ensured that.

There is nothing in ECHR jurisprudence that would lend itself to support for a position which would hold Amanda's rights were not violated. The alleged violations are not stretches; they're rather textbook!

I understand you are disillusioned by the decisions of Italian courts. But the ECHR is a rigorous and responsible institution, which stands above ordinary Italian law.

Indeed, go and place a bet. Easy money!

My current bet with Vixen is that Italy won't overturn the innocent decisions. Vixen has suggested that will happen. I'm confident that that won't happen. And yes, I know, that ECHR is more predictable and values case law and precedent, still, there is a part of that thinks we still might be in Wonderland.

 

[Kauffer]

Stefanoni states her own result for the knife is not valid.

The negative controls issue is absolutely fundamental in Vecchiotti's conclusions for what concerns question of laboratory contamination of the knife.
Whatever your opinions are about crime scene processing, Conti & Vecchiotti use negative controls as key logical element in their report for what concerns laboratory contamination. Whether you deny it or not, and whatever you think about its being fundamental or peripheral in your view of reality, Vecchiotti uses that as a key logical element in her reasoning for a part if her conclusions.

She states that Stefanoni did not include the negative controls with the epgs. She's correct:

"employment of negative controls in the amplification procedure to check for the presence of contamination. In the attached eletropherograms, neither negative nor positive controls are reported."

If Stefanoni wished to demonstrate that her lab was contamination free, she had many opportunities to do so, but instead preferred to lobby to protect the release of the data. Why would she do this if she had nothing to hide? If there was no contamination, why would she not bend over backwards to demonstrate the fact?

Vechiotti derived her conclusions about the possibility of contamination from other observations, but she and her colleague were able to rubbish Stefanoni's work on multiple levels. For example:

"performing 2-3 replicate amplifications with the development of a consensus profile. In the case in question, the amplification was only performed once; therefore the lack of replicate amplification with the development of a consensus profile provides unreliable results (GUP hearing on 05.10.08, pages 21-22: to the question, “…the testing of a trace of this type should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?” The TC responds: “In theory yes”. To the question: “How many times did you do it?” she responds: “In this case only once”. Q: “Only once, and therefore in theory why ought it be considered more reliable if one does it several times?” A: Because reproducibility of the result is, so to speak, a good standard in any scientific experiment quite apart from forensic genetics, obviously in order to be considered valid a result must be repeatable”).

 

[Kauffer]

My current bet with Vixen is that Italy won't overturn the innocent decisions. Vixen has suggested that will happen. I'm confident that that won't happen. And yes, I know, that ECHR is more predictable and values case law and precedent, still, there is a part of that thinks we still might be in Wonderland.

Huh? Vixen thinks they'll reverse the 27th March decision? Really?

 

[carbonjam72]

I would suggest that within eighteen months is a reasonable estimate.

This is your estimate for ECHR to take action.

I wouldn't know how to estimate an ECHR timeframe. I think they have a prioritization system, that may or may not be subject to revision as events develop. And now that there's been an exoneration on the more serious charges of murder, and no one is sitting in jail, or threatening to go to jail, this case may have fallen quite low in the cue.

On the other hand, I doubt as many cases have this high a level of profile, and ECHR just looks slow footed and ineffective the longer this albatross is tied around their neck waiting for them to act on an obvious & egregious violation.

My own prediction, and I can't wait to be proven wrong, is that Marasca will reach into cassation's bag of tricks to vacate the calunnia conviction, when it issues its motivation report on the march 2015 acquittals. I think there are some squirrely statutes that basically let cassation do whatever it wants or needs to do to make things right.

Perhaps they'll say the new verdict of definitive acquittal is a logical conflict with the conviction for calunnia, and therefore, the official record has to be put in harmony, and the only way to do so is to toss the conviction?

All speculative I know. But that's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I say Marasca sorts out the calunnia conviction, and saves ECHR the trouble.

 

[Strozzi]

It is not just the different sized knife wounds that indicate more than one person (= two knives) it is the pathologist fact that one knife came directionally from the left and one from the right. This could suggest someone behind Mez and someone in front, if all are right-handed (bioarchealogical studies show that persons dying in conflict or as a massacre tend to have injuries consistent with right-handed assailants).

Imagine you are attacking someone, you would not suddenly change hand or direction of your blows.

Given the evidence Mez was forcibly restrained, from her shoulder injury, the bruising around her elbows and at her wrists, together with knife blows coming from both left and right by different knives, and lack of defence wounds, the courts (plural) were correct to infer more than one attacker.

Vixen, there is a very simple explanation for why Meredith had knife wounds on different sides all inflicted by one single assailant holding his knife in one (same) preferred hand. At one point Rudy was behind her and cut her with his knife. She in struggling turned her body to face towards him and Rudi's same knife-hand (coming at her from the same general direction) cut her again on her opposite side. That produces knife wounds on different sides of the body.

Why do you want to believe that Meredith stood basically still for Rudi? I think she twisted and turned to escape his attack.

 

[acbytesla]

Huh? Vixen thinks they'll reverse the 27th March decision? Really?

Yes.

 

[Numbers]

Actually , IIRC the ISC does have the jurisdiction. Maybe Numbers can help, since he has done a lot of work researching the ISC. Whatis happens in Italy after the ECHR rules that a member state has violated a convicted defendant's rights?

But still, the overwhelming issue here is that Vixen and Machiavelli are wrong and Amanda and Raffaele are both innocent. Not Guilty. PERIOD.

The Marasca CSC panel has already stated that they have annulled the Nencini court aggravated calunnia conviction and that the Hellmann court conviction sentence of 3 years for "simple" calunnia of Patrick Lumumba stands.

I am not sure how the Marasca CSC panel will handle the calunnia issue in their motivation report, but unless they acknowledge that the police and prosecution violated Italian procedural law or committed a violation of criminal law in the course of the creation or trial of the crime, it will remain unchallenged in their MR. Without that acknowledgement, there would not be any immediate legally binding justification for a revision trial under CPP Article 630.

Unless Amanda's defense team has sufficient evidence of police or prosecution violations of Italian law, such as evidence of perjury, to request a revision trial, she will no doubt await the judgment of the ECHR on her claim that her Convention rights were violated. (The Italian criminal courts are obviously deficient and neglectful with regard to obeying the Convention and ECHR case-law.)

When her case comes before the ECHR, it will, according to its well-established case-law, find that Italy violated her Convention rights and did not provide her with a fair trial under Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c. (This proposition is very close to being certain, because the ECHR strictly adheres to precedent, following common law principles.) According to Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011, a revision trial may be requested when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR. Thus, under the guidance of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Italy's criminal courts will be forced to reopen the calunnia proceedings but without any evidence derived contrary to the Convention or Italian procedural law, or otherwise immediately vacate the calunnia judgment. Thus, the calunnia judgment will be vacated, since there would be no evidence of the alleged calunnia admissible.

 

[acbytesla]

This is your estimate for ECHR to take action.

I wouldn't know how to estimate an ECHR timeframe. I think they have a prioritization system, that may or may not be subject to revision as events develop. And now that there's been an exoneration on the more serious charges of murder, and no one is sitting in jail, or threatening to go to jail, this case may have fallen quite low in the cue.

On the other hand, I doubt as many cases have this high a level of profile, and ECHR just looks slow footed and ineffective the longer this albatross is tied around their neck waiting for them to act on an obvious & egregious violation.

My own prediction, and I can't wait to be proven wrong, is that Marasca will reach into cassation's bag of tricks to vacate the calunnia conviction, when it issues its motivation report on the march 2015 acquittals. I think there are some squirrely statutes that basically let cassation do whatever it wants or needs to do to make things right.

Perhaps they'll say the new verdict of definitive acquittal is a logical conflict with the conviction for calunnia, and therefore, the official record has to be put in harmony, and the only way to do so is to toss the conviction?

All speculative I know. But that's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I say Marasca sorts out the calunnia conviction, and saves ECHR the trouble.

That doesn't seem realistic given the announcement on the 27th. But what do I know.

 

[Kauffer]

This is your estimate for ECHR to take action.

I wouldn't know how to estimate an ECHR timeframe. I think they have a prioritization system, that may or may not be subject to revision as events develop. And now that there's been an exoneration on the more serious charges of murder, and no one is sitting in jail, or threatening to go to jail, this case may have fallen quite low in the cue.

On the other hand, I doubt as many cases have this high a level of profile, and ECHR just looks slow footed and ineffective the longer this albatross is tied around their neck waiting for them to act on an obvious & egregious violation.

My own prediction, and I can't wait to be proven wrong, is that Marasca will reach into cassation's bag of tricks to vacate the calunnia conviction, when it issues its motivation report on the march 2015 acquittals. I think there are some squirrely statutes that basically let cassation do whatever it wants or needs to do to make things right.

Perhaps they'll say the new verdict of definitive acquittal is a logical conflict with the conviction for calunnia, and therefore, the official record has to be put in harmony, and the only way to do so is to toss the conviction?

All speculative I know. But that's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I say Marasca sorts out the calunnia conviction, and saves ECHR the trouble.

If you can find something in the codes to permit ISC to act sua sponte - ie to do something without anyone asking them to do it and particularly when a case has been finally judged - res judicata, I'd love to see it.

Also, I cannot find one case in the ECHR records where an application has been made because of res judicata in a domestic court, only for it to be pulled because the domestic court has vacated the case after later reflection.

Applications can only be made to the ECHR after all possible avenues have been closed in the domestic courts. If there was some opportunity to rescind callunia, then the ECHR case could not have proceeded.

 

[Bill Williams]

My own prediction, and I can't wait to be proven wrong, is that Marasca will reach into cassation's bag of tricks to vacate the calunnia conviction, when it issues its motivation report on the march 2015 acquittals. I think there are some squirrely statutes that basically let cassation do whatever it wants or needs to do to make things right.

Perhaps they'll say the new verdict of definitive acquittal is a logical conflict with the conviction for calunnia, and therefore, the official record has to be put in harmony, and the only way to do so is to toss the conviction?

All speculative I know. But that's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I say Marasca sorts out the calunnia conviction, and saves ECHR the trouble.

That doesn't seem realistic given the announcement on the 27th. But what do I know.

Given my own totally pitiful record in predicting things......

I, too, do not think carbonjam's speculation is realistic. IIUC the issue of calunnia was not in front of Section 5 of the ISC, except for mitigating circumstances. IIAAUC all they would do is revert to Hellmann's version of calunnia and the subsequent sentencing.

I am also not confident that ECHR will sort it out either. Numbers has done a fantastic job of putting the stuff in front of us, but this also seems to be the one olive-branch they will let the Italian judiciary have.

 

[carbonjam72]

If you can find something in the codes to permit ISC to act sua sponte - ie to do something without anyone asking them to do it and particularly when a case has been finally judged - res judicata, I'd love to see it.

Also, I cannot find one case in the ECHR records where an application has been made because of res judicata in a domestic court, only for it to be pulled because the domestic court has vacated the case after later reflection.

Applications can only be made to the ECHR after all possible avenues have been closed in the domestic courts. If there was some opportunity to rescind callunia, then the ECHR case could not have proceeded.

Not positive I understood your comment about res judicata. ECHR normally requires judgements and processes to be final in the country of origin, as I understand it. However, they can intervene sooner if they want to.

The list of avenues of action that cassation can take was provided by Numbers I believe somewhere upthread. I think one of the statutes said, and it looked like it got tossed on top at the end, was something like, "can take any action deemed necessary". Hate to go from memory, but that's all I got right now.

I may be as much in denial about this as guilters are over the acquittals. But it sure looks like cassation wanted to climb down off this horse. They have a chance now to make up for all the crazy crap they've supported in the past.

That Italian article that described Marasca saying they aren't bound by cassation 2013 says a lot.

Guess we'll know soon enough. I'm hoping they vacate the calunnia and stop futzing around and pretending like this wasn't a major screw-up from the earliest moments of the investigation. I've heard about Italian "face" and all that. But you can't put lipstick on a pig. They have to criticize ISC 2013, if for no other reason that it contradicts the science by claiming 'contamination must be proven'. Why try to defend the indefensible, when they have a chance to get it right?

 

[TruthCalls]

There is full evidence from Vecchiotti's own words that Stefanoni complied with all her requests (says Stefanoni complied to the point of providing ever more documentation than she requested), that Vecchiotti had all what she requested, that the Scientific Police never refused, she objecting to the judge by pointing out she asked other things (not rae data) and that all that could be interesting is what she has, and - as acknowledged by the judge - we have Vecchiotti basically declining the suggestion that she may ask something else.

After that, we would see Vecchiotti drawing inferences from the absence of negative controls.

Let's point out - should be unnecessary since it's obvious - that there is no evidence Vecchiotti requested raw data at all. The only "evidence" of expert mentioning raw data is Conti's letter to Hellmann, where he asks the judge to see what's in the file, and intercede for what's missing. Then we have Hellmann's response, acknowledged generic, urging parties and Stefanoni to take contact and cooperate directly.

After that, we have Vecchiotti's testimony of May, where she recollects steps of cooperation and says she obtained complete cooperation.

Where are those "repeated requests" by C&V and "plenty of documentation?". There is nothing.
The documentation says Stefanoni said "yes" to Pascali if the judge thought so, and that the defence did not make any request during the Hellman trial (they backtracked at the preliminary hearing already).

Why do you feel the need to lie, Mach?

7th April 2011 – message from Stefano Conti to the Judges of the Court:
For the kind attention of the illustrious Mr. President Dr. Hellmann and the illustrious Mr. advisor Dr. Zanetti

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

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

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

Thank-you for your kind attention,

On behalf of the assessors,
(Professor Stefano Conti)

20th April 2011 – message from Dr. Stefanoni to Judge Hellmann:
On 7th April 2011 the expert assessors, as signed by Professor Stefano CONTI, you received a request to authorize the handing over of technical documents relating to the findings on the subject of forensic analysis performed by yours truly and documented in the report dated 12th June 2008.

The request that you received (which I attach for ease of reference), authorizes the expert assessors for this acquisition, even in the case of documents not produced at that time and so not available in the court records.

Among the documents requested, that which specifically interests the technical activities performed at the laboratories of this office, are found to be the following:

CD of the electropherograms;
CD RAW DATA (data relating to the electropherogram runs generated by the automatic sequencer).

In relation to the request to receive the CD containing a collection of DNA profiles (in the form of electropherograms), we wish to inform that a copy has already been submitted to the court records on 25th September 2008 to the preliminary trial of Dr. Paolo Micheli of the Tribunal of Perugia and all the electropherograms relating to the genetic profiles extrapolated from the technical analysis were collated in a separate attachment from the main body of report.

In relation to the request to receive the CD RAW DATA, we are obliged to report that the information in the form of files present in the sequencer are never an integral part of the technical report, in that the evaluation by the forensic scientist, and therefore the DNA profile, is already represented by the printed electropherogram, attached to the technical report on which all the usable data for an evaluation of a genetic profile.

In addition it should be remembered that the files contained in the sequencer named “Sample File.fsa” contain sub-folders named “Info”, “Raw Data” and “EPT Data”, that don’t permit any kind of human intervention to modify and/or add data, and therefore, their viewing, does not contribute in providing additional elements for the evaluation of the genetic data.

Finally, we would inform that the request made by the expert assessors relating to the handover of the CD RAW DATA is incomplete in that the name of the “sample file” requested has not been specified, without which it’s not possible to precisely identify the documentation being requested for handover.

Remaining at your disposal for any clarification on the matter, with best regards,

Technical Consultant,

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni.

July 25, 2011, Vecchiotti Testimony p128
Prosecutor: So, do you think this is enough time to avoid the risk of contamination in the laboratory, the fact that for 12 days no sample had been analyzed, no sample containing Sollecito’s DNA had been analyzed?
Vecchiotti: It’s enough time
Prosecutor: Did you examine the negative controls relating to this sample?
Vecchiotti: They were not attached.
Prosecutor: To what?
Defense Ghirga: We continue to say, excuse me…
Vecchiotti: The negative controls were not attached.
Prosecutor: What were they not attached to?
Defense Ghirga: Your honour if you’ll let me speak…
Vecchiotti: To the electropherograms
Defense Ghirga: … if they are the negative controls from this morning, we still don’t find them eh.
Prosecutor: What do you mean from this morning?
Judge Hellmann: Yes we checked for them at the hearing on this matter…
Defense Ghirga: We didn’t find them there either your honour.
Judge Hellmann: Which was the 8th October if I’ve understood.
Vecchiotti: I have the electropherograms that were sent to me on the 8th October and they’re not there…
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 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 should be produced by the 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.

September 06, 2011, Stefanoni admits she didn’t provide the raw data to the independent experts. p253
Dalla Vedova: The raw data, several times our consultant asked us to request for them to be submitted and we did so, can you tell us in a few words what this raw data is and if this data is available today in the case files?
Stefanoni: So, the raw data is not available in the case files, because they were never, let’s say, handed over. I can explain what they are…

 

[sept79]

My thoughts on the Marasca CSC panel:

--The primary reason for the Marasca CSC panel's acquittal was because of the uncertainty of the extradition of Amanda Knox while Italy would be imprisoning one of its own, Raffaele Sollecito

--The Marasca CSC panel (at the direction of the Italian powers that be?) was fearful of the U.S. extradition process which would have focused unwanted scrutiny on the questionable Italian trial process of Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

--Marasca's motivation report will be brief/generic with no mention of Stefanoni's 'scientific evidence' for fear of jeopardizing Italian DNA cases since 1986

 

[Kauffer]

Given my own totally pitiful record in predicting things......

I, too, do not think carbonjam's speculation is realistic. IIUC the issue of calunnia was not in front of Section 5 of the ISC, except for mitigating circumstances. IIAAUC all they would do is revert to Hellmann's version of calunnia and the subsequent sentencing.

I am also not confident that ECHR will sort it out either. Numbers has done a fantastic job of putting the stuff in front of us, but this also seems to be the one olive-branch they will let the Italian judiciary have.

Where do you come up with the "olive branch" theory from?

 

[Diocletus]

The negative controls issue is absolutely fundamental in Vecchiotti's conclusions for what concerns question of laboratory contamination of the knife.
Whatever your opinions are about crime scene processing, Conti & Vecchiotti use negative controls as key logical element in their report for what concerns laboratory contamination. Whether you deny it or not, and whatever you think about its being fundamental or peripheral in your view of reality, Vecchiotti uses that as a key logical element in her reasoning for a part if her conclusions.

Well, since you're mesmerized by the negative control issue that you have fabricated, I suggest that you forget the whole thing.

In that case, Stefanoni's results are still bunk, because of 1) clown-like crime scene processing, 2) failure to quantify or conduct morphology on a sample before amplifying, and 3) failure to generate a consensus profile of an LCN sample.

The negative control issue proves to the rest of the world that Stefanoni is a crook, but you're free to continue believing that it's fine to hide data from defendants.

 

[Diocletus]

Where do you come up with the "olive branch" theory from?

Makes no sense, unless an olive branch is what they use for a switch in that part of the world.

switch 

A flimsy tree branch used for whoopin' kids asses! Usually picked by the person who is about to get the ass whoopin'. Switch's grow on all trees and can be used if there is no belt or shoe around.

1. Grandma: Get yo' ass outside and go pick a switch cuz I'm bout to whip your ass for actin' a fool at school today.

2. You better not pick a small switch for your whoopin' becuz she'll send you back out to pick a bigger one.

3. Boy 1: What happen your your legs??
Boy 2: I got a whoppin' last night with a switch.
Boy 1: Damn, is that abuse?
Boy 2: Apparently my Mom does not think so.

 

[TruthCalls]

So one minute you are complaining the police took evidence before charging the kids and now you are saying they took evidence after charging them.

What the hell are you talking about? No one ever questions evidence was collected beginning 2 Nov and continued through 18 Dec. What does that have to do with the reliability of the evidence collected?