Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

O God.... you now want me to say something nice about Grinder! Talk about a Hobson's choice. Still, since the alternative is slipping between the sheets with M., bundling board firmly bolted to the mattress below, I may then risk having to buy coffee for that other young lad.

Sometimes you are really mean, A.L.

You mean a Morton's Fork or a dilemma?

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean a Morton's Fork or a dilemma?

Probably. But now you buy your own coffee!

 

[Mr Fied]

I was thinking that one could have even issues where due to little idiosyncrasies in language, even a British person could get in hot water in the United States as a result. . . . .Boot, flat, jab are all slang/terms we don't really use in the United States.

How well versed even was their translator come intercessor even?

I was quite disappointed when I actually saw a fanny pack

 

[acbytesla]

I was thinking that one could have even issues where due to little idiosyncrasies in language, even a British person could get in hot water in the United States as a result. . . . .Boot, flat, jab are all slang/terms we don't really use in the United States.

How well versed even was their translator come intercessor even?

You don't even have to go to different countries. Still ask a Brit, if they are going to wear their fanny pack? My friends in Canada say they were really pissed. To a Yank they might think they were angry about something but they mean they got drunk. There are a thousand of them.

"See you later" is just the tip of the iceberg

 

[Vixen]

This was actually a great discussion point in the Marsaca report. Marasca used this principle to discuss the DNA in the LCN context, where a partial profile is generated. Marasca stated, IIUC, that if a DNA profile only provides a partial profile, it lacks sufficient specificity to form a the basis of an acceptable fact in court. (But DNA tests are only partial tests anyway, right?).

I'm not sure Marasca "solved" the conundrum of how to deal with trace DNA at a crime scene, but I thought the discussion was a noble effort anyway.

Also interesting, was Marasca set Chieffi straight on this point. That in order to have confidence in a DNA result, it was the prosecution's burden to insure the DNA lab result was reliable. In cases of LCN, that required at least two if not 3 repeats. Since Stefanoni only had one non-repeatable event for both the bra and knife clasp, those results had to be rejected as evidence.

Marasca also dealt with the issue of importing results from Guede's trial, into the case against Amanda and Raf. This was hard to follow, but the sense I got was neither the findings from Guede's trial, nor the testimony of Guede, could be used against Amanda and Raf, since they didn't have a chance to fight it in the original setting. It was a weird position I thought, and I may not have understood it correctly. It seemed like the courts were free to establish these "facts", but the "facts" could not be used against other defendants in future cases. (Which btw, mirrors the principle of collateral estoppel in US courts).

Also, Marasca reasoned that Nencini was irrational for not suspecting Filomena and Laura, as much as Raffaele, since they also didn't know Rudy nor had ever met him, just like Raf. An unexpected flourish of rationality!

One of the most interesting points Marasca made, was that in a case with only circumstantial evidence such as this one, a motive is critical, and without which a guilty verdict cannot be sustained. Motive is what ties circumstantial evidence together into a coherent picture. Without a solid credible motive, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is precluded by law. (But crazy people think differently, so I don't know what to make of it, but there is a hint of sense in this thinking, no?)

Marasca listed all the issues on appeal at the outset of the opinion, and went through the issues methodically. I thought the discussion was really closely carefully reasoned. There were some unfortunate things, like saying there were multiple attackers - with no apparent evidence of any kind other than a previous judicial finding. And that as far as I can tell, the break-in was staged. (So Hellman said the break-in was real, and AK/RS not guilty because the crime did not occur. Marasca I think says the break-in was staged, but there is zero evidence it was staged by Amanda and Raf, so they are just not guilty of a crime that did occur, if I have it right).

I guess we desperately need a solid translation to really understand it. But I thought Marasca took on a lot of the logically flawed methods used by the lower courts, and did some heavy lifting in terms of getting Italy to resemble a modern judicial system again. On balance, I have to say I'm impressed with Marasca.

Oh, and referring to Dr Gill, as an expert in the field, who has written specifically on the failures in this case, is well within the traditions of courts citing expert scholarship to support their opinions. Happens all the time in the US.

If Marasca said that, then he's a bloody idiot, as it was a very strong DNA profile of Mez', 15 allelles, whilst ten is the legal standard in the USA. The defense expert was a witness, even if he deliberately made himself absent.

 

[acbytesla]

If Marasca said that, then he's a bloody idiot, as it was a very strong DNA profile of Mez', 15 allelles, whilst ten is the legal standard in the USA. The defense expert was a witness, even if he deliberately made himself absent.

Really? Since when did you become an expert in DNA? Why is it that this same sample is dismissed as unreliable by pretty much every DNA expert including Dr. GIll and Dr. Conti and Dr. Vechiotti and the DNA expert from the Carabanieri?

And Vixen knows better. Because she is a member of Mensa she is qualified to declare that all these learned men and womenwho studied for years are all idiots.

I thought you were just a bean counter?

 

[Numbers]

Here's one report the mere rabble have access to:

According to the court document, the main basis for the acquittal was that the police and prosecutors were responsible for "stunning weakness" and "investigative bouts of amnesia."

It also called to task the lack of biological evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the scene of the crime. As such, they should not have been held responsible for the killing.

"There was no shortage of glaring errors in the underlying fabric of the sentence in question," the court document read.

The court also found issue with the alleged murder weapon, which was a kitchen knife that was found in Sollecito's house contained in a cardboard box, and a bra clasp which was said to have carried DNA evidence but was left on the floor for 46 days.


and

The high court said: “The kitchen knife, found in Sollecito’s house and the supposed crime weapon, was kept in an ordinary cardboard box, like the kind that Christmas gadgets are packaged in”. In 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ruled that the case be returned for retrial.

and

It also wrote that the Florence appeals court which convicted them last year ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

"The kitchen knife, found in Sollecito's house and the supposed crime weapon, was kept in an ordinary cardboard box, like the kind that Christmas gadgets are packaged in," the Cassation judges noted. In any case, no traces of blood were found on it, they wrote.

Examples of investigative ineptitude abound in the report.

This is a good summary from what I understand of the MR so far.

The main point for the annulment of the Nencini verdict, however, was that legally the Nencini MR reasoning was logically defective, and misinterpreted what the obligations of the referral court (Nencini court) was supposed to do, which was to give a fair evaluation of all the evidence. Any mention by the Chieffi CSC panel MR of specific facts were to be treated as examples for additional evaluation rather than as givens, according to the Marasca CSC panel MR. The Marasca MR states, IIUC, that Italian jurisprudence is that points of law established by the CSC must be followed by the referral court, but that any finding of fact by the CSC is not definitive before the referral court, which must evaluate the entire body of evidence independently in accordance with Italian procedural law, including CPP Art. 192, para. 2, regarding circumstantial evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

If Marasca said that, then he's a bloody idiot, as it was a very strong DNA profile of Mez', 15 allelles, whilst ten is the legal standard in the USA. The defense expert was a witness, even if he deliberately made himself absent.

An unrepeatable test and no EDFs. The DNA does not exist; there is no DNA.

 

[Grinder]

There is nothing stronger than circumstantial evidence. Motive is nice to tidy up and make people feel better about why the crime, especially violent crime, was committed.

If Marasca said that circumstantial evidence requires a motive, he is another Italian idiot jurist.

Circumstantial evidence is far more reliable (when following protocol etc.) than direct evidence.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If Marasca said that, then he's a bloody idiot, as it was a very strong DNA profile of Mez', 15 allelles, whilst ten is the legal standard in the USA. The defense expert was a witness, even if he deliberately made himself absent.

Vixen, you really need to understand that the (lack of) size of the peaks corresponding to Meredith's alleles means that the probability the peaks were due to contamination is dramatically higher. i.e. it wasn't actually on the knife. This is why peaks below a certain size are discarded. Also, LCN protocol wasn't followed. Meaning the results weren't reliable. i.e. the DNA wasn't actually on the knife and was due to innocent transfer or lab contamination.

There was no blood on the knife. If the knife was used to kill Meredith and it was cleaned, it would have removed the DNA as well. i.e. we know it wasn't used to kill Meredith because there was no blood. There was starch on the knife. It wasn't cleaned. We therefore know the DNA was there due to contamination/innocent transfer. Every expert that has looked at this case has said the exact same thing. The knife doesn't even match the wounds. What on earth do you want? For god's sake, the top forensic geneticist in the world dedicated a chapter in his book to how the evidence didn't implicate Amanda and Raf because it was unreliable and misleading. If you don't understand the basic principles of forensic science, then there is no stronger evidence than the top forensic geneticist in the world (and every other expert who has looked at the case) saying the evidence against Amanda and Raf is bunk. If you do know molecular genetics, then you know it's bunk already.

Do you ever notice that every time you fact check your "sources" they are wrong, so maybe the top forensic geneticist in the world is a bit more reliable for information on molecular genetics?

 

[anglolawyer]

There is nothing stronger than circumstantial evidence. Motive is nice to tidy up and make people feel better about why the crime, especially violent crime, was committed.

If Marasca said that circumstantial evidence requires a motive, he is another Italian idiot jurist.

Circumstantial evidence is far more reliable (when following protocol etc.) than direct evidence.

Motive is a form of circumstantial evidence. It's a circumstance from which a fact may be inferred, which is what all circumstantial evidence is.

 

[Grinder]

Vixen, you really need to understand that the (lack of) size of the peaks corresponding to Meredith's alleles means that the probability the peaks were due to contamination is dramatically higher. i.e. it wasn't actually on the knife. This is why peaks below a certain size are discarded. Also, LCN protocol wasn't followed. Meaning the results weren't reliable. i.e. the DNA wasn't actually on the knife and was due to innocent transfer or lab contamination.

There was no blood on the knife. If the knife was used to kill Meredith and it was cleaned, it would have removed the DNA as well. i.e. we know it wasn't used to kill Meredith because there was no blood. There was starch on the knife. It wasn't cleaned. We therefore know the DNA was there due to contamination/innocent transfer. Every expert that has looked at this case has said the exact same thing. The knife doesn't even match the wounds. What on earth do you want? For god's sake, the top forensic geneticist in the world dedicated a chapter in his book to how the evidence didn't implicate Amanda and Raf because it was unreliable and misleading. If you don't understand the basic principles of forensic science, then there is no stronger evidence than the top forensic geneticist in the world (and every other expert who has looked at the case) saying the evidence against Amanda and Raf is bunk. If you do know molecular genetics, then you know it's bunk already.

This is why I keep asking and Vixen keeps demurring in providing an example of a murder knife with DNA but no blood on it.

I have also tried to point out that the amount of material Steffi found was incredibly small, the reason it couldn't be tested twice AIUI. I calculated the amount to be less than 1/100,000 of a grain of salt.

 

[JihadJane]

Motive is a form of circumstantial evidence. It's a circumstance from which a fact may be inferred, which is what all circumstantial evidence is.

Phew! That was pleasantly concise.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This is why I keep asking and Vixen keeps demurring in providing an example of a murder knife with DNA but no blood on it.

I have also tried to point out that the amount of material Steffi found was incredibly small, the reason it couldn't be tested twice AIUI. I calculated the amount to be less than 1/100,000 of a grain of salt.

This is all exactly right. The reason Vixen doesn't address it is because it is logically air-tight proof that a core piece of evidence used against Amanda and Raf is entirely fabricated and has no connection to the crime.

 

[Vixen]

Out of curiosity Vixen. What do you think the Cheiffi and Nencini courts did? And btw, the Nencini court had a DNA expert from the Rome Carabinieri lab who basically said that Stefanoni's methods were unreliable because she didn't perform multiple tests.

But my guess is that doesn't matter to you because it's not the result you want. Right?

C&V failed to test sample 36(i), as they were instructed by the court, falsely claimed it was "too LCN", falsely claimed it was vegetable starch and the guys from Rome demonstrated they were a couple of fraudsters, as it was testable - and with new technology, replicable - and was the DNA of Amanda.

It was C&V who had their knuckles rapped, not Dr.Stefanoni.

 

[acbytesla]

This is all exactly right. The reason Vixen doesn't address it is because it is logically air-tight proof that a core piece of evidence used against Amanda and Raf is entirely fabricated and has no connection to the crime.

I still don't understand why she he insists that Gill and CV are corrupt and Marasca is an idiot? The point isn't that it's a match, but how it came to be a match. This is why repeatability and the electronic files are so important. Contamination and corruption DO happen. Both in labs in the US. Without scientific protocols the tests are worthless.

 

[Vixen]

No, I get it. I too expect the ECHR will slap down the callunia ruling, but how long till that happens? Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Really? Bruno-Marasca are such incompetent bungling buffoons, they've left it to ECHR to rectify their train crash?

Now the wheels are really coming off.

 

[Vixen]

Marasca cited Hellman's acquittal to illustrate that different courts came to different conclusions, hence there had to be some element of uncertainty, as a matter of common sense.

The idea you're expressing, that Hellman was "spiked", appears to be an exaggeration you and others have magnified in your own thinking, but to which cassation does not, and did not, feel obligated to subscribe.

'Spiked' is an absolute and therefore cannot be modified as 'an exaggeration'. The report either is, or it isn't, and it is.

 

[anglolawyer]

Phew! That was pleasantly concise.

Thanks JJ. I hope you are getting on well with your reading.

 

[Numbers]

Motive is a form of circumstantial evidence. It's a circumstance from which a fact may be inferred, which is what all circumstantial evidence is.

1. Motive is typically an inference derived from circumstantial evidence or testimonial evidence.

2. Circumstantial evidence, as I understand it, is evidence that is not derived from testimony, which is, of course, testimonial evidence.