Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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?

Yes, but the callunia case was not before the 5th section; only the aggravation was. They can't just re-open a case not before it. No court can do that.

As for the ECHR, they can, if asked and in very extraordinary circumstances get involved to the extent of making an order, for example, if an individual's life may be at risk from the consequences of a decision by a court, but not in this case. Even if the ISC had found A and R guilty, they could have done nothing to resist the attentions of the police parked outside R's house, waiting to take him to jail.

No, other than rare exceptions which don't apply here, you can only go to the ECHR when the case is closed and you have no further legal avenues available.

 

[sept79]

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…

This needs to be re-posted whenever anyone defends Stefanoni and the EDFs . . .

 

[Kauffer]

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

You should go on Saturday night live!

Give my friend Lorne Michaels a call and tell him I said he needs a new scriptwriter.

Hilarious.

 

[Numbers]

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.

To be more precise,"all possible avenues" includes only the realistic and regularly available avenues, and does not include any extraordinary measures such as, for example, applications for pardon or, perhaps, applications for revision.

 

[Kauffer]

To be more precise,"all possible avenues" includes only the realistic and regularly available avenues, and does not include any extraordinary measures such as, for example, applications for pardon or, perhaps, applications for revision.

Yes quite so. It doesn't include requests for pardons. And it doesn't include requests for revisions, but a revision in the callunia case would be impossible without an Art 6 violation ruling at the ECHR.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, but the callunia case was not before the 5th section; only the aggravation was. They can't just re-open a case not before it. No court can do that.

As for the ECHR, they can, if asked and in very extraordinary circumstances get involved to the extent of making an order, for example, if an individual's life may be at risk from the consequences of a decision by a court, but not in this case. Even if the ISC had found A and R guilty, they could have done nothing to resist the attentions of the police parked outside R's house, waiting to take him to jail.

No, other than rare exceptions which don't apply here, you can only go to the ECHR when the case is closed and you have no further legal avenues available.

I understand that normally, once cassation has finalized a verdict, its final. And that ECHR requires a final verdict from cassation before accepting a case.

I also understand that there is a process for a revision trial that can re-open a closed case in Italy. (Hence a revision trial might well affect a case submitted to and already excepted by ECHR, although such cases may be exceedingly rare if revision trials are a rarity.)

However, this case seems different. And the rules, as applied by the courts, seems to have been flexible in each of the courts.

Cassation ruled Amanda's statements couldn't be used against her, but they were.

You want to say this is a different case from the calunnia, that the only issue under consideration was the aggravated element. I'm not so sure.

Does cassation ruling that Amanda and Raf did not commit the act, make it impossible for Amanda to have "knowingly" blamed patrick? If Amanda was innocent and not there, how could she "know" Patrick was not? Cassation in 2013 annulled Hellman, in part, because the acquittal was inconsistent with simple calunnia, no? Cassation sent it back down to review the element aggravated calunnia, because calunnia was inconsistent with an acquittal, yes? (I'm asking). If this cassation panel views acquittal as appropriate, couldn't it view the calunnia conviction as also incompatible with their acquittal, just as cassation 2013 did so in rejecting Hellman? Cassatio 2013 chose to confirm calunnia conviction, and revisit the acquittal. But that's a choice. Couldn't the choice of acquittal also force a reconsideration of the calunnia conviction as well?
Mach has said this acquittal is a "conflict" with the cassation 2013 verdict of conviction for calunnia (I know, consider the source).

They have the case in front of them. Seems to me they could address the calunnia conviction if they wanted to. Not so much because it is legally supported by statute, but just because they want to get it right, and then they find a way to justify it.

You may be right as to the outcome here. But reaching for certainty, particularly in Italy, particularly in this case, seems unreliable.

double ninja'd - on revision trials

 

[Numbers]

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?

This is, I believe, a misquote of an excerpt from CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, letter l.

The actual text is in reference to matters that are brought before the CSC as an appeal.

In this case, the Marasca CSC panel did not have the Hellmann court provisional conviction of "simple" calunnia before it, only the Nencini court provisional conviction of "aggravated" calunnia. They annulled the Nencini court conviction for "aggravated" calunnia and its sentence; they stated that the sentence for "simple" calunnia, already served by Amanda, stood.

The full text of the part of CPP Article 620 in question is:

1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:
(l) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

ETA: The point here is that the CSC only rules on matters brought before it; the "simple" calunnia provisional conviction could not have been brought before the Marasca CSC panel because it was already decided and finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel. It seems that only a revision trial in accordance with CPP Article 630 and the Italian Constitutional Court ruling on ECHR judgments could reverse the Chieffi CSC finalization.

 

[Kauffer]

I understand that normally, once cassation has finalized a verdict, its final. And that ECHR requires a final verdict from cassation before accepting a case.

I also understand that there is a process for a revision trial that can re-open a closed case in Italy. (Hence a revision trial might well affect a case submitted to and already excepted by ECHR, although such cases may be exceedingly rare if revision trials are a rarity.)

However, this case seems different. And the rules, as applied by the courts, seems to have been flexible in each of the courts.

Cassation ruled Amanda's statements couldn't be used against her, but they were.

You want to say this is a different case from the calunnia, that the only issue under consideration was the aggravated element. I'm not so sure.

Does cassation ruling that Amanda and Raf did not commit the act, make it impossible for Amanda to have "knowingly" blamed patrick? If Amanda was innocent and not there, how could she "know" Patrick was not?

Mach has said this acquittal is a "conflict" with the cassation 2013 verdict of conviction for calunnia (I know, consider the source).

They have the case in front of them. Seems to me they could address the calunnia conviction if they wanted to. Not so much because it is legally supported by statute, but just because they want to get it right, and then they find a way to justify it.

You may be right as to the outcome here. But reaching for certainty, particularly in Italy, particularly in this case, seems unreliable.

double ninja'd - on revision trials

Well, the 5th section you think might void callunia has already in the dispositivo, confirmed it, presumably so nobody was in any doubt that it still stood.

Hellmann's verdict, confirmed by Chieffi, essentially stated that Amanda should have known Lumumba was innocent. It would appear that Hellmann, from some of his later comments was in fact embracing Bill's 'olive branch' theory - trying not to eviscerate the police and the prosecutor completely, considering that he'd eviscerated them in every other section of his report.

Speculating, he might have thought the matter inconsequential as Amanda had already served longer than the three year sentence he gave her and wouldn't serve another day. He may also have known about the ECHR.

I'm willing to bet he wishes he had had more courage. After all, he was sent to Coventry by all his colleagues anyway.

 

[carbonjam72]

This is, I believe, a misquote of an excerpt from CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, letter l.

The actual text is in reference to matters that are brought before the CSC as an appeal.

In this case, the Marasca CSC panel did not have the Hellmann court provisional conviction of "simple" calunnia before it, only the Nencini court provisional conviction of "aggravated" calunnia. They annulled the Nencini court conviction for "aggravated" calunnia and its sentence; they stated that the sentence for "simple" calunnia, already served by Amanda, stood.

The full text of the part of CPP Article 620 in question is:

1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:
(l) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

ETA: The point here is that the CSC only rules on matters brought before it; the "simple" calunnia provisional conviction could not have been brought before the Marasca CSC panel because it was already decided and finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel. It seems that only a revision trial in accordance with CPP Article 630 and the Italian Constitutional Court ruling on ECHR judgments could reverse the Chieffi CSC finalization.

This is a good solid argument numbers. I'll continue to bet on my possibly off-the-reservation version of Italian "approximate jurisprudence", with the utmost respect to all who feel cassation will be strictly bound by its own rules, and previous statements.

The statement by cassation in reading the verdict, confirming the sentence of 3 years as time served, apparently squaring any debt to society and allowing everyone to walk away does trouble me, I admit.

Still, I prefer to hold out irrationally for hope, while the absence of information allows us to fill in the blanks with our preferred outcome.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, the 5th section you think might void callunia has already in the dispositivo, confirmed it, presumably so nobody was in any doubt that it still stood.

Hellmann's verdict, confirmed by Chieffi, essentially stated that Amanda should have known Lumumba was innocent. It would appear that Hellmann, from some of his later comments was in fact embracing Bill's 'olive branch' theory - trying not to eviscerate the police and the prosecutor completely, considering that he'd eviscerated them in every other section of his report.

Speculating, he might have thought the matter inconsequential as Amanda had already served longer than the three year sentence he gave her and wouldn't serve another day. He may also have known about the ECHR.

I'm willing to bet he wishes he had had more courage. After all, he was sent to Coventry by all his colleagues anyway.

After Nencini's conviction, I believe Hellman said in an interview he wished he had acquitted Amanda on calunnia charge as well. And that he also thought the convictions would be upheld by cassation.

In an earlier interview, Hellman seemed to express the position that it was impossible for him to acquit Amanda on calunnia, because otherwise he would be calling the cops criminals.

Hellman also said that after he acquitted them and Girlanda made it political by filing a letter demanding an investigation, that he knew the acquittals would be overturned.

So justice doesn't really seem to be independent in Italy, and everyone in it seems to accept that reality pretty openly.

The point about cassation 2015 confirming the calunnia conviction and 3 years time served is worrying to my position, I admit, and as I said above as well.

I still choose to hold out hope that Marasca will do the right thing, and quash this crap. Failing that, I believe ECHR will, eventually.

 

[Bill Williams]

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…

This needs to be re-posted whenever anyone defends Stefanoni and the EDFs . . .

The only remaining issue. Why would Machiavelli lie about this on this forum? We are now waiting for Machiavelli to tell us why this does not say what it says. Why defend Stefanoni when she won't even defend herself? (At least she did not lie under oath, giver her that.)

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Straight from my version of dietrology. I'm trying to see if I can keep up with Machiavelli!

 

[Bill Williams]

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

I fear you could be right.

The "uncertainty" of that extradition process, now a distant memory, would have been how much some US Federal attorney would want to, in effect, retry the case inside the USA with the available evidence. Imagine a US attorney demanding the release of the EDFs, and that playing on CNN 24/7!!!!

If people are correct that Girlanda's actions following the 2011 acquittals in effect politicized the whole thing - Marasca's court had to weigh the internal political reality - saving the power of the PMs - versus having the actual evidence (or lack of same) aired on CNN 24/7 as "breaking news".

As mentioned before, Gloria Allred told then-CNN pundit Piers Morgan that she'd once tried to start a business in Italy; but ran smack into their dysfunctional judicial process. She said she and others always feared that relatively minor legal-scrapes always have the potential in Italy to run afoul of some unknown something, drag on for years, and never resolve. So she decided to cancel plans to open up business in Italy. Acquittals become convictions become acquittals become convictions become acquittals. The lawyers end up with a licence to print Euros.

These remarks were made following the 2013 ISC annulment of Hellmann's acquitals. She saw the Knox/Sollecito case as a cautionary tale for anyone wanting to do business there.

No one likes their dirty laundry aired in public. Regional loonies like Mignini charge everyone in sight with defamation or calunnia at the slightest provocation. Mignini's parasitical prosecutions are case-in-point as to what Allred was talking about.

Weighing all this, did the ISC really want to set up a situation where all this would be aired on American TV 24/7? So, sure, there's an element of this which is political, but it's a lot like the EU telling Greece to get its house in order, and the Greek PM tries his best to outmaneuvre Angela Merkel politically. At the end of the day, they simply needed the bailout as a financial reality.......

Similarly, the ISC had to concede that Italian judicial-secrets were threatening to be exposed and lead to more actions like Allred's.

 

[Planigale]

Yes in the lands of the Corgis.

What have you got against the Welsh?

 

[Planigale]

I fear you could be right.

The "uncertainty" of that extradition process, now a distant memory, would have been how much some US Federal attorney would want to, in effect, retry the case inside the USA with the available evidence. Imagine a US attorney demanding the release of the EDFs, and that playing on CNN 24/7!!!!

If people are correct that Girlanda's actions following the 2011 acquittals in effect politicized the whole thing - Marasca's court had to weigh the internal political reality - saving the power of the PMs - versus having the actual evidence (or lack of same) aired on CNN 24/7 as "breaking news".

As mentioned before, Gloria Allred told then-CNN pundit Piers Morgan that she'd once tried to start a business in Italy; but ran smack into their dysfunctional judicial process. She said she and others always feared that relatively minor legal-scrapes always have the potential in Italy to run afoul of some unknown something, drag on for years, and never resolve. So she decided to cancel plans to open up business in Italy. Acquittals become convictions become acquittals become convictions become acquittals. The lawyers end up with a licence to print Euros.

These remarks were made following the 2013 ISC annulment of Hellmann's acquitals. She saw the Knox/Sollecito case as a cautionary tale for anyone wanting to do business there.

No one likes their dirty laundry aired in public. Regional loonies like Mignini charge everyone in sight with defamation or calunnia at the slightest provocation. Mignini's parasitical prosecutions are case-in-point as to what Allred was talking about.

Weighing all this, did the ISC really want to set up a situation where all this would be aired on American TV 24/7? So, sure, there's an element of this which is political, but it's a lot like the EU telling Greece to get its house in order, and the Greek PM tries his best to outmaneuvre Angela Merkel politically. At the end of the day, they simply needed the bailout as a financial reality.......

Similarly, the ISC had to concede that Italian judicial-secrets were threatening to be exposed and lead to more actions like Allred's.

The economist seems to agree with you.

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...laws-italys-criminal-justice-system-innocente

 

[Mike1711]

Sorry - see next post

 

[Mike1711]

So obvious she doesn't need raw data with negative controls, right?

(the negative controls which are an argument fundamental to a main part of her deductions...)

Machiavelli.

I am so tired of this incessant mantra of yours, regarding the raw data and its "was needed, wasn't needed" nonsense.

Let's get it straight, and hopefully put this non sequitur logic to rest.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that V did NOT need the raw data to demonstrate to HERSELF that the interpolation of the data was JUNK.

V needed the data to demonstrate to THE COURT why the interpolation was junk. In court cases experts often need to get nonsense data revealed not because the expert needs the data but because the expert needs to discredit the evidence in the most conclusive of ways to the layman, one of whom is the Judge.

 

[Ken Dine]

There is no "can of worms". The idea Stefanoni "fiddled" the DNA results is a fantasy. Does that mean the results for Rudy are also invalid? The sweater was also not collected until 18th December 2007. Rudy's DNA was found on the cuffs.

Guede's DNA was ample (not LCN-DNA) and likely didn't need to be processed ("fiddled" with) to the degree that 36B and the bra-clasp had to be "fiddled" with.

When analyzing LCN-DNA not only extra care must be taken to avoid contamination, after the raw data is fed into a computer program to analyze it, as a matter of course the technician must "fiddled" around with the DNA results much more than when processing samples with ample amounts of DNA, which is why many courts reject LCN-DNA evidence.

I guess that was due to corruption, and contamination from dirty gloves and DNA transfer from the door knob, too.

As I recall, Guede admitted to being in Meredith's bedroom as she bled to death. Guede also left bloody prints in Meredith's bedroom.

Stefanoni admitted on the stand that her analysis of 36B (the KNIFE) wasn't done by scientific standards, which leaves the bra-clasp as the only DNA potentially linking either Raffaele or Amanda to Meredith's bedroom.

It's preposterous (loony thinking) that Raffaele could have helped Guede to murder Meredith, and then left only a cell or two of touch DNA on her bra's metal clasp, but not a speck of DNA on anything else, such as the cloth of the bra itself.

Are you capable of standing back and looking at this scenario in a rational way? Maybe you should, because you're just embarrassing yourself using childish logic and arguments.

Go get a life!

 

[Diocletus]

Well, the 5th section you think might void callunia has already in the dispositivo, confirmed it, presumably so nobody was in any doubt that it still stood.

Hellmann's verdict, confirmed by Chieffi, essentially stated that Amanda should have known Lumumba was innocent. It would appear that Hellmann, from some of his later comments was in fact embracing Bill's 'olive branch' theory - trying not to eviscerate the police and the prosecutor completely, considering that he'd eviscerated them in every other section of his report.

Speculating, he might have thought the matter inconsequential as Amanda had already served longer than the three year sentence he gave her and wouldn't serve another day. He may also have known about the ECHR.

I'm willing to bet he wishes he had had more courage. After all, he was sent to Coventry by all his colleagues anyway.

Well, may have convicted them, but he also planted the seeds of the destruction of the conviction: his own words about the interrogation render the conviction unsustainable under Art 6. I think he knew that.

 

[Welshman]

• If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk as claimed by Machiavelli why is that the conduct of the prosecution is exactly what you would expect from
prosecutors with a weak case :-

* If the laws of a country say suspects should be provided with lawyers, interrogations need to be taped and suspects told their rights, the police should have no problem
doing these things if they have a strong case. If the police have built up
evidence and a strong case, the police should present the suspect with this
evidence and act the suspect to explain it.

• If the police have a weak case, they will
violate the rights of suspects in interrogations. If the police have a weak
case, they will have no evidence to present suspects during interrogations.

What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
rights of Amanda and Raffaele were violated. They were not officially told they
were suspects, their interrogations were not taped and they were denied access
to lawyers. Why did the police have to resort to underhand and illegal tactics
if they had a strong case? The police wrote out statements for Amanda and
Raffaele to sign. As the statements were prepared by the police, the statements
are false evidence. Why did the police have to resort to using false evidence
against Amanda and Raffaele if they had a mountain of solid evidence? If there
was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were Amanda and Raffaele
not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it?
No questions were asked about their behaviour in the three day period prior to
the murder and they were not presented with any forensic evidence. Why did the
police who according to the haters had a mountain of evidence not use this
evidence in the interrogations?

When the police interrogated Raffaele, the
evidence suggests Raffaele was not directly accused of killing Meredith but the
police were simply trying to get him to drop Amanda's alibi. The statement
prepared by the police made no mention of Raffaele directly taking part in
Meredith's murder. The two statements the police prepared for Amanda were very
short and made no mention of Amanda directly taking part in Meredith's killing
simply she met Lumumba and he killed Meredith. How is this explained if there
was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should never have to resort to lying about the evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack
of evidence, they will resort to lying about non existent evidence or
distorting the evidence.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution lied on numerous occasions. The details of the lies can be found by
searching "Amanda Knox wordpress press prosecution lies"
"Injustice in Perugia lies and misinformation" and the website
Amandaknoxcase.com has details of the lies told by the prosecution.
The prosecution lied about evidence which did
not exist. The prosecution feed false stories to the media about the purchase
of bleach receipts and the washing machine running. Mignini lied in court
documents that attempts had been made in Raffaele's apartment to clean up
incriminating blood evidence when no such evidence existed. Mignini also lied
that the cottage had been cleaned with bleach. The prosecution claimed
footprints in Meredith's room matched Raffaele's shoes when the number of rings
in the footprints did not match Raffaele's shoes. It is hard to believe the
police could make this mistake which indicates the police deliberately lied about
the footprints.

There were instances when the prosecution
distorted the evidence. The prosecution argued Amanda showered in a bloody
bathroom when she returned to the cottage. To support this argument the
prosecution released a photograph of the bathroom being bloody but the bathroom
only looked this way after being sprayed with a chemical and it was not how the
bathroom looked to the naked eye. The prosecution did not say this when the
photograph was released. Prosecutor Comodi accused Amanda of calling her mother
before anything had happened. To support this argument Comodi lied about the
time call saying Amanda phoned her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records showed
Amanda called her mother at 12.47 pm. The prosecution claimed Raffaele called
the postal police after they arrived. To support this idea the police lied
about their time of arrival by 20 minutes which was proven on video. During the
Nencini trial prosecutor Crini claimed the knife matched the imprint on the bed
which was not true and the prosecution had not made this claim before.

The prosecution also lied by omitting facts.
Amanda said she read a German Harry Potter book at Raffaele's apartment. The
police claimed there was only one copy at the cottage. Police video showed
there was a German Harry Potter at Raffaele's apartment.

The haters constantly boast about how much
evidence there was against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was the case, why did
the prosecution on numerous occasions have to resort to lying about non
existent evidence, distorting facts and omitting facts. If the prosecution had
such a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to making new lies
up six years after Meredith's murder in the Nencini trial?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to covering up things and are happy to have
everything out in the open.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they will
lie to cover things up because the evidence does not support their case.

What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: Stefanoni
said the footprints tested with luminol were not tested with TMB. The defense
found Stefanoni had tested the footprints with TMB which turned out be negative
and Stefanoni had lied. Stefanoni claimed contamination had not occurred in the
lab when it was found contamination had occurred in the lab. Stefanoni claimed
she had changed gloves when collecting evidence. It was shown on video
Stefanoni did not change gloves.

If the prosecution had a strong case why did
the prosecution have to lie to cover things up?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, the
evidence should be solid, reliable and credible. The prosecution should not
have to resort to using dubious evidence with no credibility if their case is a
slam dunk and they have a mountain of solid evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
solid and credible evidence, they may resort to using dubious evidence with no
credibility as they have nothing better they can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious with no
credibility. The knife illustrates this :-
Not matching the wounds. The knife was too big
to have caused the wounds
It did not match a bloody outline on the bed
It had no blood
• When C + V tested the knife it was negative for
the human species which meant the knife did not contain Meredith's biological
material.
The circumstances surrounding the collection of
the knife are highly suspect. The knife was picked at random from Raffaele's
kitchen with no other knives taken from the kitchen or the cottage. How were
the police were able to tell this knife was the murder weapon without
collecting the other knives? When the knife was collected, the police officers
who took the knife had no information on the size of the knife wounds and the
knife was not measured prior to collection to compare the knife with wounds on
Meredith. A justification used for taking this knife was that it was unusually
clean. C + V found starch on the knife which demolished the argument the knife
was unusually clean.
• A factor which is often overlooked is that the
when Amanda was being interrogated, she was not accused of stabbing Meredith
and in the statements the police prepared for Amanda, no mention was made of
Amanda stabbing Meredith. Amanda never said she stabbed Meredith in the
statement she made after the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was
supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
The prosecution claimed two knives were used.
There were numerous problems with this claim. Why were the prosecution only
claiming this when it was shown the knife did not match the wounds and not
claiming this from the beginning? Why were the prosecution unable to show how
Meredith's wounds were compatible with the use of two knives? How could
Raffaele's knife be one of two knives when it was not compatible with any of
the stab wounds?
If the knife was used in Meredith's murder, why
did the prosecution oppose opening the knife and the defense teams of Amanda
and Raffaele had no objection to opening the knife?
• In an interview Mignini was asked how Amanda
could have carried out the murder without leaving forensic traces. He said
Amanda directed the murder from outside the room. How was Amanda was supposed
to have stabbed Meredith if directing the murder from the corridor?
How was a knife from Raffaele's apartment used
in the murder if the crime was not pre-meditated. Massei argued that Meredith's
murder was not pre-meditated. To explain how the knife was used, Massei argued
the knife was carried out by Amanda in her handbag. There were no cuts in
Amanda's handbag which carrying the knife would have caused. No one heard
Amanda mention she was carrying a knife and no witnesses saw this knife.
If the knife was used to stab Meredith, why did
the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele want to see Stefanoni's files and
wanted independent experts to examine the knife?
The alleged DNA on the knife was extremely
dubious
• The length of the blade was 17cm and length of
the fatal wound was 8cm. The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele argued the
knife was plunged several times to inflict the fatal wound and it is highly
unlikely that in a frenzy a 17 cm knife would go exactly 8 cm several times.
There were other instances where the
prosecution used evidence with no credibility. For instance, at the time of the
Nencini trial the prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who was not Amanda. If
you search "Groundreport Amanda Knox the vendetta continues" this provides
details. If the prosecution had a strong case and a mountain of solid evidence
against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using
evidence totally lacking in credibility? The knife clearly could not have been
used to kill Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the
prosecution have to resort to using evidence which could not have been used in
Meredith's murder? If the prosecution had so much solid evidence, why did the
prosecution feel it necessary to release a CCTV of someone who was not Amanda
six years after Meredith's murder?

* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should not have to resort to smear tactics
If the prosecution have a lack of evidence, the
prosecution may resort to smear tactics and character assassination to
compensate for this.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution lied to Amanda by telling her she had HIV. wrote a list of sexual
partners which the prosecution leaked to the media. Before anyone says the test
was a false positive, no evidence has ever emerged an actual test was done. No
details have been given of time, date and location for Amanda's blood being
tested. No documents have emerged for blood tests on Amanda. Why would the the
prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
will want the evidence tested and investigated or have no objection if other
parties want the evidence tested.
A prosecution with a weak case will not want
the tested because they know the results will not support their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There
were numerous occasions when the prosecution objected to the evidence being
tested :-
The prosecution opposed opening the knife
Only 5 samples were taken from Filomena's room
The area outside Filomena's room was not
investigated
The prosecution claimed the window in
Filomena's room was broken from the inside. The prosecution did not carry out
tests to support their theory
The bra clasp was allowed to deteriorate making
it useless for testing
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did
they not want the evidence tested or investigated?

* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should not have to rely on using irrelevant things as
evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
evidence, they will often resort to using irrelevant things as evidence.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: During
the Hellman trial the prosecution showed a photo of Meredith's body. This photo
did not provide any evidence and was utterly irrelevant in proving the guilt of
Amanda and Raffaele. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if
they had a strong case?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they should
have no problems in answering questions and should be confident when
testifying.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they will
often be evasive and unable to answer questions.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: This is
Stefanoni's testimony where she says she can't remember how much DNA was on the
knife :-
DEFENSE Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION “ One last question precisely in
relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe,
had said that you dont remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from
the scratches.
ANSWER “ No.
QUESTION Is it possible to check the extraction log.
• ANSWER Â Yes, one can check.
QUESTION “ Is it a number that can be
acquired?
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ One can obtain the extraction in the
extraction log as you say.
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ But you do not remember, correct,
how much DNA you extracted
ANSWER One can obtain the true extraction
amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION “ But you do not remember now?
ANSWER No, here, no..
• QUESTION “ Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION While you confirm then how much was
how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do
ANSWER Yes, it was concentrated in the first
sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10
microlitres.
QUESTION Now, being interested in the exact
quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, lets say in the
court files, is that so?
ANSWER Yes.
DEFENSE “ Attorney Ghirga “ Thank you
If the prosecution had a strong case, why were
prosecution witnesses evasive in court and unable to answer questions?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to using evidence which has been discredited as they
should have plenty of other evidence to use.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they may
have to continue using discredited evidence as they have no other evidence they
can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution claimed Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived. The
defense conclusively demonstrated Raffaele called the postal police before
their arrival. Despite this the prosecution were still claiming Raffaele called
the postal police after they arrived at the Hellman trial. If the prosecution
had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did they have to rely on
discredited evidence?

* If the
prosecution have solid evidence, they should not have to resort to making
claims with no evidence to back them.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
evidence, they may have to resort to making unsupported claims.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There
were instances when the prosecution made claims for which there was no
evidence. Massei made the claim Amanda carried Raffaele's knife in her handbag
which explains how the knife was used in a murder that was not pre-meditated.
No one saw Amanda with this knife. No heard Amanda mention this knife. Carrying
a large knife would have caused cuts in her bag. There were no cuts in her bag.
Mignini claimed Amanda had a hatred for Meredith. There was no evidence Amanda
had a hatred of Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the
prosecution have to resort to making claims with no evidence to support them?
* If the a country's legal system say judges
should write motivation reports explaining their decisions, these reports
should not have to resort to using falsehoods.

• If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack
of evidence, motivation reports may have to report to using falsehoods.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
Chieffi report written to annull Hellman's aquittal and the Nencini report were
riddled with falsehoods. These falsehoods can be found by searching
"Injustice Anywhere Chieffi report errors" and "Injustice
anywhere Nencini stupid mistakes". If the case against Amanda and Raffaele
was so strong, why did two motivation reports have to resort to using
falsehoods?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, their
arguments should be solid and believable. The prosecution should not have to
resort to using stupid arguments to argue their case.
If the prosecution have a weak case and the
evidence does not support their case, they may have to resort to ridiculous and
nonsensical arguments.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
arguments used by the prosecution were ridiculous. To explain why Amanda and
Raffaele left no forensic traces in Meredith's room, the prosecution argued
Amanda and Raffaele carried out a selective clean up. Amanda and Raffaele were
able to tell whose forensic traces belonged to who, cleaned up their own traces
whilst leaving Guede's which is impossible. During the Nencini trial,
prosecutor Crini argued Amanda killed Meredith because Guede did not flush the
toilet. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using utterly ridiculous
arguments if they had a strong case?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to using evidence which undermines their case.
If the prosecution have a lack of evidence,
they may resort to using evidence which undermines their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution used the testimony of Curalto who said Amanda and Raffaele were in
a square at the time of the murder which provides Amanda and Raffaele with an
alibi. If the prosecution had so much solid evidence and a strong case against
Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the prosecution were so desperate they were
prepared to use evidence which undermined their case?

* A prosecution with a strong case, should
never have to resort to using false documents.
A prosecution with a weak may have to resort to
using false evidence because there are problems with their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
defense team of Raffaele found Steffanoni tried to introduce documents from
another case. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using false documents
if they had a strong case?

* A prosecution with a strong case and a
mountain of hard evidence, they should not have to resort to manufacturing
evidence.
A prosecution with a weak case and a lack of
evidence may resort to manufacturing evidence because they have no genuine
evidence they can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution alleged that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra clasp. The
circumstances surrounding the collection of the bra clasp are highly suspect.
The prosecution initially claimed footprints in Meredith's room matched
Raffaele's shoes. Raffaele's family proved this was not the case. It is highly
suspect the bra clasp conveniently turns up six weeks later when a piece of
evidence collapses. The conduct of the prosecution is highly suspicious. Why
did they only collect the clasp and no other items? Why did the prosecution
make such a big drama of the clasp on video? This makes the claim the DNA on
the bra clasp was planted credible. If the prosecution had a strong case and a
mountain of evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing
evidence?

* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should never have to suppress evidence and will have no problem handing
evidence over.
A prosecution with a weak case will withhold
evidence because the evidence does not support their case.
What happened with Amand and Raffaele: The
prosecution suppressed on a massive scale. Below is just a small example of the
evidence suppressed by the prosecution :-
The prosecution hid the results of early and
decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant,
securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox
(and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;
The prosecution concealed the initial results
for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife
(Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the
results of suspicious do over tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from
the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were do overs
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen
knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results
have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe
contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;
The prosecution has withheld the results from a
massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory
profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;
The prosecution has hidden all of the records
of the DNA amplification process the most likely place for laboratory
contamination to have occurred.
The website Amandaknoxcase.com gives full
details of the evidence suppressed by the prosecution. Why did the prosecution
have to engage in the massive suppression of evidence if they had a strong
case?