Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

As Stefanoni testified they did not touch the clasp itself.

Bruno-Marasca state very clearly that the DNA of Rudy specifically on the sweater is incontrovertible proof of his presence.

But the sweater was also collected after 46 days by the exact same team and the exact same lab conditions.

LOL!

Is this a lie or just ignorance?

Stefanoni testfied that she could not remember if she touched it or not. Then she testified that an underling of hers also handled it!

Hoots!

 

[Methos]

Thanks for your €0.02 worth. Looks like Bruno-Marasca don't have a clue about criminal law.

They seem to know the words of the c.p.p. well enough to play wordgames

 

[Vixen]

Why? Could she see the DNA on the clasp and not the fabric?

Something and fishy come to mind. Methinks Stef. tells fibs.

Her response was under cross-examination at the trial.

 

[acbytesla]

Her response was under cross-examination at the trial.

Sooooooo? And your point is?

 

[acbytesla]

They seem to know the words of the c.p.p. well enough to play wordgames

Can you or anyone provide a link to an English translation to the pertinent Italian law articles?

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed. Hoist on her own petard.

The actual truth is that Stefanoni and the other goons in white suits passed that clasp among themselves - with visibly dirty gloves - like it was some sort of party curiosity. They clearly handled it all over the item: on the fabric, on the metal, everywhere. Then they placed it back down onto another (still dirty and blood-spattered/smeared) part of the bedroom floor to photograph it!

You couldn't make this sort of **** up. It's all captured on their "how not to process a crime scene" video. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so disgustingly unprofessional and incompetent, and if it hadn't had such an egregiously destructive effect on the lives of innocent people.

It's really great that the Italians chose to video record their incompetence. Too bad they didn't do that with the interrogation.

 

[Planigale]

There is absolutely no evidence the evidence was collected outside of the bounds of scientifically acceptable practice.

This was something Bruno-Marasca made up off the tops of their heads.

There is a truism in law that if it was not documented it did not happen. If there is no evidence the evidence was correctly collected and tested then it should be assumed not to be.

So the bra strap.

Left lying around on the floor for weeks and not collected immediately.
Picked up in gloves that had not been changed after handling other objects.
Not bagged immediately but handed around then dropped back on the floor.

Then LCN DNA testing in a lab not set up for this.
No documentation of contamination and cleaning.
The lab technician was untruthful when saying internationally recognised protocols were utilised to interpret mixed DNA.

The knife was even worse.

 

[Planigale]

There were some errors, but they were hardly fatal. DNA lying on an item will still be there years later, albeit, possibly deteriorated in quality. It's a red herring to imagine the DNA arrived out of nowhere during the time the room was sealed off by the police before they collected various items, including the sweater which Bruno-Marasca state is firm evidence.

Go figure.

DNA evidence was unnecessary for Guede's conviction. His hand print in the victim's blood. Places him in the room at the time of the murder.

Even if the murderer was unknown the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is still lacking.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sooooooo? And your point is?

It was so funny (and disgusting in equal measure). It was the CLASSIC (and trained/learned) technique of the non-denial denial. It goes along these lines:

"I don't recall having done/said/heard/seen that......"

It's a weasel technique that has been used by unscrupulous cheats and liars in a judicial context for centuries now. It beautifully conveys the sense of a negative response (e.g. "No I didn't do/say/hear/see that...") while allowing a watertight loophole by way of "Oops my faulty memory! Silly forgetful me! Sorry " if contradictory evidence shows up.

In my opinion, Stefanoni lied repeatedly in court, as did Comodi. Mignini at the very least made gross misrepresentations, but (probably owing to his immense practice and experience in this whole area) it's impossible to tell whether those were willful or "accidental". For the sake of justice in general, as well as for the sake of Italian criminal justice, and for the sake of Knox, Sollecito and the Kercher family, I hope that all these characters are properly held up to the light and held properly to account for these actions.

Italy being Italy, though, I somehow doubt it. And that, of course, is symptomatic of the whole root problem here: Italy is incapable of administering criminal justice fairly, justly and properly, and there is apparently virtually zero system of accountability, oversight and regulation. The censure of Mignini on the "counsel for Sollecito" affair was an interesting and anhydrous development in this area, and a clear move in the right direction. But I am not holding my breath for more - and much more serious - repercussions to follow, as they surely ought to.

 

[LondonJohn]

DNA evidence was unnecessary for Guede's conviction. His hand print in the victim's blood. Places him in the room at the time of the murder.

Even if the murderer was unknown the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is still lacking.

Absolutely correct.

Many pro-acquittal commentators (including you and I) have long argued that Guede could have been safely convicted based upon only a handful of items of evidence: his own statements - on Skype, and to police, and his subsequent and consequent confession to being at the scene; his statement that he was scared, that he tried to help Kercher, and that he then went back to his apartment in fear and panic; his palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase that the killer had placed under Kercher; his proven DNA (at reliable normal-template PCR levels, and as swabbed by the pathologist) around Kercher's vagina; his proven appearance at several city-centre bars/clubs in the small hours of the morning, merely hours after the murder (when, remember, he had claimed to be traumatised and in fear of his own safety); and his proven flight to Germany by train within 48 hours of the murder.

Personally, I have little idea just how reliable the DNA traces allegedly discovered upon Kercher's sweat jacket and handbag (purse) were. I've never investigated them in any detail. Because a) the other evidence already safely convicts Guede (and there's more besides, particularly the shoe prints, to look at long before getting to the jacket and handbag), and b) I was primarily interested in the trial process against Knox and Sollecito, together with an attempt to get closer to the truth of what actually happened. On the former, I'm overwhelmingly - and safely - satisfied that Knox and Sollecito were correctly acquitted. On the latter, I'm absolutely satisfied that the murder was almost certainly committed by Guede, acting alone, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it.

So yeah - throw out the DNA on the sweat jacket and handbag if you like. It wouldn't change either of my conclusions one iota. That's why, in the wider scheme of things, these items carry extremely low relevance or importance.

 

[acbytesla]

It was so funny (and disgusting in equal measure). It was the CLASSIC (and trained/learned) technique of the non-denial denial. It goes along these lines:

"I don't recall having done/said/heard/seen that......"

It's a weasel technique that has been used by unscrupulous cheats and liars in a judicial context for centuries now. It beautifully conveys the sense of a negative response (e.g. "No I didn't do/say/hear/see that...") while allowing a watertight loophole by way of "Oops my faulty memory! Silly forgetful me! Sorry " if contradictory evidence shows up.

In my opinion, Stefanoni lied repeatedly in court, as did Comodi. Mignini at the very least made gross misrepresentations, but (probably owing to his immense practice and experience in this whole area) it's impossible to tell whether those were willful or "accidental". For the sake of justice in general, as well as for the sake of Italian criminal justice, and for the sake of Knox, Sollecito and the Kercher family, I hope that all these characters are properly held up to the light and held properly to account for these actions.

Italy being Italy, though, I somehow doubt it. And that, of course, is symptomatic of the whole root problem here: Italy is incapable of administering criminal justice fairly, justly and properly, and there is apparently virtually zero system of accountability, oversight and regulation. The censure of Mignini on the "counsel for Sollecito" affair was an interesting and anhydrous development in this area, and a clear move in the right direction. But I am not holding my breath for more - and much more serious - repercussions to follow, as they surely ought to.

Saying what was the prosecution's worst offense is like picking the best movies of all time. (There are so many to choose) My personal favorite was Stefanoni not mentioning that the luminol positive samples had been tested with TMB and were negative. Ooooops.

 

[Planigale]

The DNA of Hanratty and Richard III were matched many years after their deaths.

There was a case in the US of a young lad whose DNA was matched 14 years later to a fingerprint or something similar at a murder scene.

The idea DNA has to be collected by a sell by date is a hoax designed by defence lawyers to get their client off.

This is a good example of the difference between conventional DNA testing and trace DNA testing.

In the case of richard III there were bones. Big lumps of a person. The question was whether they might be compatible with the king. The DNA was extracted from the bone (no doubt where it came from). The DNA was compared with descendants to confirm a relationship.

Trace DNA is different. There is no identifiable source. It is a swab from a surface with no blood or semen stain. Particularly when detecting very low levels with LCN techniques, we do not know if this DNA originated from a cough or a sneeze, direct touch or secondary or tertiary transfer from another person or object.

 

[Grinder]

Italy being Italy, though, I somehow doubt it. And that, of course, is symptomatic of the whole root problem here: Italy is incapable of administering criminal justice fairly, justly and properly, and there is apparently virtually zero system of accountability, oversight and regulation. The censure of Mignini on the "counsel for Sollecito" affair was an interesting and anhydrous development in this area, and a clear move in the right direction. But I am not holding my breath for more - and much more serious - repercussions to follow, as they surely ought to.

From reading Frank back in the day as well as other cases along the way, it appears getting to court is a plus. Once the police have allowed the person to survive to go to court, the defendant can count on endless trials and for most remain out during most or all the judicial procedures.

Then many escape because statutes run out or eventually the system becomes tired of the case and they are set free. So either the suspect dies in jail or eventually is let out, keeping the incarceration rate low.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a good example of the difference between conventional DNA testing and trace DNA testing.

In the case of richard III there were bones. Big lumps of a person. The question was whether they might be compatible with the king. The DNA was extracted from the bone (no doubt where it came from). The DNA was compared with descendants to confirm a relationship.

Trace DNA is different. There is no identifiable source. It is a swab from a surface with no blood or semen stain. Particularly when detecting very low levels with LCN techniques, we do not know if this DNA originated from a cough or a sneeze, direct touch or secondary or tertiary transfer from another person or object.

Quite.

And just to illustrate another of Vixen's inappropriate comparators, Hanratty's DNA was extracted from semen DNA. The killer of Michael Gregsten had also raped Gregson's girlfriend Valerie Storie, and left significant amounts of his semen on Storie's underwear. IN addition, the police had mucus on a handkerchief in which the murder weapon had been wrapped. At the time (1961/62) it was only possible to do very basic blood and serum typing from semen of course. The handkerchief and a sample of Storie's underwear containing a semen stain were kept as exhibits, in sealed, sterile conditions. Over 30 years later, the case was reopened on appeal, and the handkerchief and underwear both easily yielded a full DNA profile which was reliable and readily testable. The same profile was found on both items, and the profile exactly matched Hanratty (whose body was exhumed for the purpose of DNA comparison).

The situation in the Hanratty case - as with the situations in all the other cases that Vixen listed - is laughably incomparable with the DNA "evidence" in the Knox/Sollecito case, most notably the bra clasp. And anyone who tries to use the old "Yeah, you're saying that 46 days is too long to get a reliable result, when convictions from DNA have been generated from tests performed decades after the crime" bs is either stunningly ignorant of the science, or willfully trying to deceive/misdirect. Or both, of course. There is no other alternative

 

[LondonJohn]

From reading Frank back in the day as well as other cases along the way, it appears getting to court is a plus. Once the police have allowed the person to survive to go to court, the defendant can count on endless trials and for most remain out during most or all the judicial procedures.

Then many escape because statutes run out or eventually the system becomes tired of the case and they are set free. So either the suspect dies in jail or eventually is let out, keeping the incarceration rate low.

Haha yeah. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. The whole thing needs top-to-bottom reform, repair and reconstruction. But Italy as a whole is such a shambles that it's hugely unlikely that anything even approaching a proper reform will ever happen. Maybe the excoriation of Italy by the ECHR over the Knox application will make a tiny dent. Who knows. We'll see.

 

[Grinder]

This is a good example of the difference between conventional DNA testing and trace DNA testing.

In the case of richard III there were bones. Big lumps of a person. The question was whether they might be compatible with the king. The DNA was extracted from the bone (no doubt where it came from). The DNA was compared with descendants to confirm a relationship.

Trace DNA is different. There is no identifiable source. It is a swab from a surface with no blood or semen stain. Particularly when detecting very low levels with LCN techniques, we do not know if this DNA originated from a cough or a sneeze, direct touch or secondary or tertiary transfer from another person or object.

Certainly LCN DNA tested with proper protocols and in the right circumstances could be very solid evidence. For example, finding any of Rudi's in the cottage's upper floor NOT on Meredith's clothing but on her person would be damning. Finding it on a knife at the cottage would be damning. You get the point.

But LCN testing should be used very carefully.

 

[Numbers]

We were't talking about appeal. The issue at hand is the implication of "dropping the charges" per Article 530 para II.

IMV it highlights the erroneous application of Article 530 para II by Bruno-Marasca, as it leads to a legal absurdity.

Please explain in detail the mechanism of whatever it is your post is stating. If you agree that the CSC decision can not be appealed, what difference in a practical sense is suggested by your absurd misrepresentation regarding CPP Article 530.2? The CSC decision of acquittal is final because it cannot be appealed, in accordance with CPP Article 648.

And, as previously pointed out, the word "acquittal" has the meaning of dropping charges.

Full Definition of acquittal

: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquittal

On the highlighted part: No.

On the question about the use of "proscioglimento" instead of "assoluzione":
I think Machiavelli is refering to article 469 cpp, which reads:

and indeed refers to the "dropping of the charges" before trial.

The thing is, that the now standing "assoluzione" was according to article 530.2 cpp (not article 469 cpp so any speculation about the consequences of an article 469 cpp "proscioglimento" are useless because article 469 cpp wasn't applied)

Article 530 ccp is headlined "Sentenza di assoluzione" so there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about what a verdict according to article 530 means...


The judges use of "proscioglimento" (the word for "acquittal" used in Art. 469 c.p.p.) looks like a thinly veiled criticism of the whole process to me. It looks like these judges are saying: "This should have ended 6 years ago with the application of Art. 469 cpp, it didn't so we had to use Art. 530.2 cpp to put an end to this farce." This would be in line with them telling the judges that they are not allowed to fill the holes in the prosecutions case with their own speculations and them saying that the judges have to acquit when the the prosecution isn't able to make a case BARD, no matter how much the judges themselves want to convict. (my 0.02 Euro)

Looking at the above posts, I see that there is some need to clarify Italian procedural law and legal definitions.

First, in Italian legalese, as translated to English, "dropping charges", "acquittal", "dismissing charges", and similar terminology are equivalent.

What is important for a criminal case is whether the dismissal of charges or acquittal may be appealed by the prosecutor or not.

Cases in the lower courts that are judged as acquittals may be appealed by the prosecution; the appeal must be lodged before a time limit set by law. In certain cases of dismissal before trial because prosecution should not have been started (due to lack of evidence or other reasons), as provided for in CPP Article 469, the judge's decision to dismiss charges may not be lawfully appealed. That means that the judgment is final, and that means that no new trial of the same person for the same charge may be held, CPP Articles 648 and 649.

If neither the prosecution nor the accused appeal a case before the time limit, the judgment is final. However, if there is a series of appeals, and the the case is decided by the CSC, that CSC judgment is final unless it is a conviction. A conviction by the CSC may be subject to a revision trial under certain conditions, such as the finding of new evidence or a judgment of unfair trial by the ECHR, as provided by CPP Articles 629 and 630, and Constitutional Court judgment no. 113/2011. The person acquitted by a final judgment of a lower court (that is, if the deadline for appeals has passed and there was no appeal) or by a judgment of the CSC (which can never be lawfully appealed and is thus final) can never be lawfully tried again on the same charge.

The concept of "double jeopardy" applies to any attempt to retry someone on the same charge after a final judgment of acquittal.

Here are the English translations of texts of relevant Italian procedural laws that may help to clarify the legal terminology and logic:

CPP Article 648 Irrevocability of judgments and criminal decrees

1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appellate remedy other than revision are final.

2. If an appellate remedy may be invoked, the judgment becomes final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge the remedy or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility. In case of an appeal in Cassation, the judgment becomes final from the day of delivery of the order or judgment rejecting the appeal or declaring it inadmissible.

3. The criminal decree of conviction is final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge an opposition or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility.

CPP Article 649 Ne bis in idem (Double jeopardy not allowed)

1. The accused person who has been dismissed or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offence, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offence or circumstances, without prejudice to Articles 69.2 and 345.

2. If, however, the criminal proceedings are started again, the judge shall deliver a judgment of dismissal or of no grounds to proceed at any stage and instance of the proceedings, specifying the cause in the operative part of the judgment.
____

Summary: Trial judgment cannot be appealed lawfully = final judgment = no new trial ever for that person under those charges; any such trial if begun is unlawful and the judge must halt it (by a dismissal of charges).

 

[truethat]

Cleaners, my foot. You could have the Italian army in there and yet the DNA still matches Raff with a probabilty of >3billion to one against it could be anyone else's.

I think the point is, even if it did, Raff was IN the apartment with everyone else walking around. Had he never been in the apartment then you might have a case but they'd argue cross contamination.

But being in the apartment the day of the murder? Then the clasp sitting there for days. Think of how DNA can get on something. Shedding skin cells etc. Think of what dust is?

And for such a tiny amount? Oh come now.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the point is, even if it did, Raff was IN the apartment with everyone else walking around. Had he never been in the apartment then you might have a case but they'd argue cross contamination.

But being in the apartment the day of the murder? Then the clasp sitting there for days. Think of how DNA can get on something. Shedding skin cells etc. Think of what dust is?

And for such a tiny amount? Oh come now.

And as a passing note, Vixen's probability numbers for the Sollecito DNA on the clasp are several orders of magnitude out. Unfortunately, Vixen regularly appears to fall down on the sort of exhaustive anhydrous research and fact-checking that she says she's famous for. It's hard to conduct any sort of decent debate with anyone who pulls "facts" out of thin air.......

 

[bagels]

The DNA profile attributed to Raff was allegedly generated from the bra clasp which nobody but the questionable forensic scientist in charge of the investigation can confirm as it was subsequently destroyed and rendered unusable under mysterious circumstances.