Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Methos]

They were on the right track, because you can see the circle at the ball of the foot is the same size as that of the heel. Obviously, scale is everything. If the camera was just slightly out, it could account for the 1mm anomaly.

OTOH it's useful for determining which shoe would be incompatible. A size 46 would have been about 5mm larger (given the circles can only ever be as wide as the soles).

I wonder what you are basing that statement on ?
Shoe size is based on the lenght of the foot and has nothing to do with the width.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Professor-Vinci-Bathmat-and-Luminol-Print-Analysis-Italian.pdf#33
Sollecito's foot is 99 mm wide and his shoe size is 42, my shoe size is 49 and the with of my feet is 100 mm... hmm.

They weren't "on the right track" as you say. I'll take a closer look on what info those two had. It's frightening to watch so called "experts" matching a print made by a size 45/46 shoe, to a shoe sized 42.
Looks like an "the end justifies the means" approach to "fabricating evidence" to me...

 

[Numbers]

Vixen calls Bruno-Marasca wrong and incompetent in their evaluation of the DNA evidence, and then Vixen applies some arbitrary example of the number of alleles needed, in law, to be identified for a positive match. Vixen's claim is that Bruno-Marasca are incompetent for going beyond this (acc. to Vixen) simple guilt-marker.

To this, from Section 4.1 onwards, Bruno-Marasca write what the issues really are in this case. First and foremost, that when there's a rush to judgement because of, "the international nature of the story," it makes it all the more important to adhere to international Forensic-DNA standards..... because the world is watching.

​

Bruno-Marasca then go on (Sec 4.2ff) to show that the Nencini trial simply did not follow anything resembling the Scientific Method in evaluating the forensics.

In Sec 6.1 Bruno-Marasca start a discussion on the "trustworthiness of the evidence". In the section, they pair this trustworthiness, or lack of same, with a "motive" which both matches that evidence and converges on it. Their assessment of that is:

​

But back to the issue Vixen continually raises and refuses to engage in any discussion about - except to repeat the factoid about allele-level being the sole, revealing issue.

To this, Bruno-Marasca engage FULLY in Section 7 the real discussion a court should be having, one that the Nencini court did not have - therefore M/B annuled the Nencini verdict:

- a judge cannot substitute himself as a supra-expert over and above the real, scientific experts

- with that said, the judge must still sort out the conundrum of competing experts who often argue polar opposite things

- in sorting that out, the judge cannot simply rule in a vacuum as-if the judge was the sole arbiter, the judge must refer to some outside expertise acc. to "the bridging rule", which finds it's most concrete rendering from, "Section 1, no. 31456 of 21/05/2006. Franzioni, Rv. 240764".​

In Section 7.1 Marasca-Bruno then apply all this to the Nencini verdict in front of them. M/B first criticizes Nencini for not even trying to make his DNA judgments according to outside, scientific considerations.

​

Marasca-Bruno go on to say that Nencini's errors in the forensics include:

- mistaking compatibility with identity

- failing to take into account the shortcomings of the investigation-collection process of the evidence

- "Taking into account such considerations one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis – that were performed in violation of the recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage – can be considered endowed of the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness."​

Bruno-Marasca make considerable mention of the problems associated with improper storage of evidence. This alone challenges the "repeatability" issue required by the scientific method, so that the same item of evidence can produce the same result, thus bolstering confidence that it is meaningful, and not the result of a false positive. In the way the Kercher case was handled, this is totally absent, so says Bruno-Marasca (citing the Conte-Vecchiotti report).

The fate of the bra-clasp as yielding useful, repeatable evidence is cited.

Back to Vixen's point of the number of alleles. Bruno-Marasca then cite the Low Copy Number issues, meaning that it was not possible to repeat the amplification of the samples - and the protocols in the field require two and sometimes three repeats:

​

So Vixen can quote the number of alleles all she wants. The issue she'll avoid like the plague is the other issue more central to the scientific method itself. Repeatability.

​

Bill, thanks for providing this excellent post.

Also, although the Marasca CSC Panel MR may not mention this explicitly, Stefanoni's results were deficient in not providing detailed protocols of her methods and in not providing the raw electronic data of samples and controls (positive and negative). The final results she did provide showed contamination in several controls. For details, see:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

Stefanoni's intentional failure to provide the electronic raw data is a certain indication that she was aware of problems in her methods and results that would obliterate the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. In a letter to Judge Hellmann, she refused to turn over the raw electronic data that he had requested, responding that the request was essentially an accusation that she had cheated. And there is every possibility, without an independent or defense examination of the raw electronic data, that there is evidence of cheating or other misconduct or malpractice in the raw electronic data.

Stefanoni's refusal to provide the raw electronic data for examination by independent or defense examination is the equivalent of a store owner refusing to show a government tax authority the store's sales receipts during an audit of the sales taxes collected by the owner.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, thanks for providing this excellent post.

Also, although the Marasca CSC Panel MR may not mention this explicitly, Stefanoni's results were deficient in not providing detailed protocols of her methods and in not providing the raw electronic data of samples and controls (positive and negative). The final results she did provide showed contamination in several controls. For details, see:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

Stefanoni's intentional failure to provide the electronic raw data is a certain indication that she was aware of problems in her methods and results that would obliterate the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. In a letter to Judge Hellmann, she refused to turn over the raw electronic data that he had requested, responding that the request was essentially an accusation that she had cheated. And there is every possibility, without an independent or defense examination of the raw electronic data, that there is evidence of cheating or other misconduct or malpractice in the raw electronic data.

Stefanoni's refusal to provide the raw electronic data for examination by independent or defense examination is the equivalent of a store owner refusing to show a government tax authority the store's sales receipts during an audit of the sales taxes collected by the owner.

Remember Bruno-Marasca's "synoptic" experiment in Section 9? It is not just Section 9.2 which sets it up. but Section 6.1 as well, when they assess the "trustworthiness of the evidence":

(It) cannot be maintained in the case at hand, in the face of a body of evidence which is ambiguous and intrinsically contradictory.
In particular, none of the possible motives out of the range of those indicated by the annulled ruling itself can be ascertained in the present case.​

B-M are talking about this ambiguous and contradictory evidence as early as Section 6.1, when showing how the almost random series of motives which the various courts/investigators applied to the murder never converged onto the evidence.

Add to this, as you say Numbers, the **fact** that Stefanoni did not hand over the EDF's, and the **fact** that no court (including Hellmann's) forced her to comply, and the **fact** that even B-M did not mention this at all.

Given Marasca-Bruno's sensitivity about adhering to international standards with the science, it is still at issue that **no court** in this case compelled simple discovery - disclosure of evidence to the defence - which is a bedrock of other, Western legal systems.

Bruno-Marasca talked about the anachronistic nature of an Italian judge being the expert of the experts in relation to forensic DNA, then omitted a role that Judges **should play** - insisting on proper application of legal procedure.....

..... and no one in Italy to this day seems terribly upset that basic disclosure/discovery was never made in the forensic-DNA work of the Scientific Police under Stefanoni.

 

[Numbers]

Remember Bruno-Marasca's "synoptic" experiment in Section 9? It is not just Section 9.2 which sets it up. but Section 6.1 as well, when they assess the "trustworthiness of the evidence":

​

B-M are talking about this ambiguous and contradictory evidence as early as Section 6.1, when showing how the almost random series of motives which the various courts/investigators applied to the murder never converged onto the evidence.

Add to this, as you say Numbers, the **fact** that Stefanoni did not hand over the EDF's, and the **fact** that no court (including Hellmann's) forced her to comply, and the **fact** that even B-M did not mention this at all.

Given Marasca-Bruno's sensitivity about adhering to international standards with the science, it is still at issue that **no court** in this case compelled simple discovery - disclosure of evidence to the defence - which is a bedrock of other, Western legal systems.

Bruno-Marasca talked about the anachronistic nature of an Italian judge being the expert of the experts in relation to forensic DNA, then omitted a role that Judges **should play** - insisting on proper application of legal procedure.....

..... and no one in Italy to this day seems terribly upset that basic disclosure/discovery was never made in the forensic-DNA work of the Scientific Police under Stefanoni.

Bill, again your post precisely points out prime problems in the judicial actions in this case.

We should recall the responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor according to Italian procedural law, CPP Article 358, include ascertaining evidence in favor of the suspected person as well as evidence against the suspected person.

CPP Article 358 Investigative activities of the Public Prosecutor

The Public Prosecutor shall carry out any activity necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 326 and shall also carry out ascertainments on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person.

CPP Article 326 Purposes of preliminary investigations

The Public Prosecutor and the criminal police, within their respective responsibilities, shall conduct the investigations necessary for the [decision*] on criminal prosecution.

* My reference, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, (c) 2014 Walters Kluwer Italia, has "for the decide on criminal prosecution"

There is a large body of potentially exculpatory evidence that the prosecution failed to provide to the defense, failed to bring before the courts, or presented in a misinterpreted or arbitrary manner with the apparent intent of fabricating a case. Here are some examples:

1. As early as the arrest justification hearing on Nov. 8, 2007, the prosecution should have known that Lumumba's DNA did not match the DNA from the rape kit, and that therefore Knox's coerced statement was untrue. Yet the prosecution did not inform the defense or the hearing magistrate of the DNA results.

2. The prosecution did not disclose the existence of Knox's Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6 or her Memoriale 2 to her lawyers or to the arrest hearing magistrate on Nov. 8. Those memoriales would have shown that Knox considered that her statement had been coerced under pressure and that she had fully withdrawn her statement against Lumumba as of Nov. 7. Because the prosecution denied Knox access to defense lawyers until, apparently, the very beginning of the arrest hearing, she likely would not have had adequate time, contrary to her Convention rights as defined by ECHR case-law (Dayanan v. Turkey), to discuss those or other details of her case.

3. The prosecution provided arbitrary misinterpretations of the text message on Knox's phone and other alleged evidence at the arrest hearing.

4. The prosecution never disclosed the DNA electronic raw data to the defense or to the independent experts. Nor did they provide any results from many of the controls.

5. The prosecution never acknowledged that their DNA results showed contamination in several controls.

6. The prosecution did not disclose any test results for the presumed semen stains on the pillow found under Meredith Kercher's body. They should have determined by scientific testing whether or not the stains were indeed semen and, if they were, conducted DNA profile analysis on them. Because some of the stains had shoe prints partially in blood and matching others made in blood, the presumed semen stains could be dated to the time of the murder.

7. The prosecution attributed without credible evidence that the blood stains found in the downstairs flat to the bleeding ear of a cat. However, DNA samples from those stains replicated under PCR, indicating either that the blood was human or that the material under the stain had been inadvertently sampled with the blood and it contained human DNA. DNA profiles were not reported for these samples. If the DNA matched either Kercher or the rape-kit sample DNA (which was neither from Lumumba nor Sollecito) or a mixture of the two DNAs, this would be important exculpatory evidence.

The above list should not be considered all-inclusive; additions are welcome.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, again your post precisely points out prime problems in the judicial actions in this case.

We should recall the responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor according to Italian procedural law, CPP Article 358, include ascertaining evidence in favor of the suspected person as well as evidence against the suspected person.CPP Article 358 Investigative activities of the Public Prosecutor

The Public Prosecutor shall carry out any activity necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 326 and shall also carry out ascertainments on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person.

CPP Article 326 Purposes of preliminary investigations

The Public Prosecutor and the criminal police, within their respective responsibilities, shall conduct the investigations necessary for the [decision*] on criminal prosecution.

* My reference, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, (c) 2014 Walters Kluwer Italia, has "for the decide on criminal prosecution"

With all respect Numbers, you are forgetting something.

The issue here is **not** that the PM by statute is required to make disclosure (before the charge is formally submitted), it is only that the PM, "(ascertain) on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person", which assumes a wide level of discretion. That does not necessarily force disclosure (in the first year).

Indeed, the PM is not required to make any disclosure until the charge is formally laid in Italy, and that can be up to one year later.

In this case, that meant that the defence for 12 months relied upon the press leaks to even guess what direction things were going, or what evidence would be used. Most certainly Quintavalle, Toto, and Nara were offering "evidence" that didn't even exist for months after their arrest......

The only legal problem with disclosure, then, is perhaps the forensic-DNA stuff, the EDFs from Stefanoni - which should have been fully disclosed (EDFs and all, like what the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial with the 36I sample) once the charge was laid.

My intro to this stuff was in August 2011 when I was abroad and read in an English version of the local daily newspaper that, "The DNA case against Knox was falling apart," at the Hellmann trial, and the press-report speculated that this could lead to the American's release. This was in a major daily 9,000 kms from Perugia, on the front page, albeit below the fold.

The DNA-stuff was the core of the prosecution case. It is why they to this day they still are withholding the raw data files - and even in the face of the courts ordering their release, the refusal to so do put Italian courts in a bind which they never resolved.

No Italian court is going to charge a member of the prosecution team (or their experts) with a crime. The judges would rather just throw up their hands in exasperation...........

Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, and Bruno included. Those four could at least rest knowing they'd released innocent people - while still not calling their own to account.

 

[Welshman]

With all respect Numbers, you are forgetting something.

The issue here is **not** that the PM by statute is required to make disclosure (before the charge is formally submitted), it is only that the PM, "(ascertain) on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person", which assumes a wide level of discretion. That does not necessarily force disclosure (in the first year).

Indeed, the PM is not required to make any disclosure until the charge is formally laid in Italy, and that can be up to one year later.

In this case, that meant that the defence for 12 months relied upon the press leaks to even guess what direction things were going, or what evidence would be used. Most certainly Quintavalle, Toto, and Nara were offering "evidence" that didn't even exist for months after their arrest......

The only legal problem with disclosure, then, is perhaps the forensic-DNA stuff, the EDFs from Stefanoni - which should have been fully disclosed (EDFs and all, like what the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial with the 36I sample) once the charge was laid.

My intro to this stuff was in August 2011 when I was abroad and read in an English version of the local daily newspaper that, "The DNA case against Knox was falling apart," at the Hellmann trial, and the press-report speculated that this could lead to the American's release. This was in a major daily 9,000 kms from Perugia, on the front page, albeit below the fold.

The DNA-stuff was the core of the prosecution case. It is why they to this day they still are withholding the raw data files - and even in the face of the courts ordering their release, the refusal to so do put Italian courts in a bind which they never resolved.

No Italian court is going to charge a member of the prosecution team (or their experts) with a crime. The judges would rather just throw up their hands in exasperation...........

Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, and Bruno included. Those four could at least rest knowing they'd released innocent people - while still not calling their own to account.

There was a poster here called RandyN who was very outspoken about the corruption and misconduct of the prosecution. I recall him saying that Hellman tiptoed around Stefanoni and took no action over the supressing of evidence, falsifying documents and committing perjury.

 

[Numbers]

With all respect Numbers, you are forgetting something.

The issue here is **not** that the PM by statute is required to make disclosure (before the charge is formally submitted), it is only that the PM, "(ascertain) on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person", which assumes a wide level of discretion. That does not necessarily force disclosure (in the first year).

Indeed, the PM is not required to make any disclosure until the charge is formally laid in Italy, and that can be up to one year later.

In this case, that meant that the defence for 12 months relied upon the press leaks to even guess what direction things were going, or what evidence would be used. Most certainly Quintavalle, Toto, and Nara were offering "evidence" that didn't even exist for months after their arrest......

The only legal problem with disclosure, then, is perhaps the forensic-DNA stuff, the EDFs from Stefanoni - which should have been fully disclosed (EDFs and all, like what the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial with the 36I sample) once the charge was laid.

My intro to this stuff was in August 2011 when I was abroad and read in an English version of the local daily newspaper that, "The DNA case against Knox was falling apart," at the Hellmann trial, and the press-report speculated that this could lead to the American's release. This was in a major daily 9,000 kms from Perugia, on the front page, albeit below the fold.

The DNA-stuff was the core of the prosecution case. It is why they to this day they still are withholding the raw data files - and even in the face of the courts ordering their release, the refusal to so do put Italian courts in a bind which they never resolved.

No Italian court is going to charge a member of the prosecution team (or their experts) with a crime. The judges would rather just throw up their hands in exasperation...........

Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, and Bruno included. Those four could at least rest knowing they'd released innocent people - while still not calling their own to account.

Italian law and legal practice must, according to Italy's solemn treaty obligation, follow the European Convention on Human Rights and the final rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, while you are correct that Italian domestic procedural law allows for the disclosure of information by the public prosecutor no later than the charging, which may be one year after the arrest, Italy must interpret its law in accordance ECHR case-law and the Italian Constitution. And that case-law and the Italian Constitution states that there defense must be allowed at every stage of a legal proceeding, and, according to ECHR case-law, that includes during interrogation and while a suspect or accused is in custody.

Furthermore, the ECHR case-law includes as part of defense "equality of arms" which includes full disclosure of information by the prosecution to the defense at each stage. The only information which may be withheld is that which might, for example, endanger a confidential informant or undercover police officer, and the withholding of information must be reviewed and approved by a judge.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen only makes reference to the Italian courts when it suits her PR agenda. The following is the **final**, definitive word of the Italian Supreme Court

​

You see - Marasca-Bruno made no rulings on any item within the corpus of evidence entered into the fray at the lower-court, evidentiary hearings. (This should put to rest ANY mention Vixen claims, "The Marasca-Bruno court found as factual that....."

What they ruled upon was that the Nencini court should not have convicted with what it had in front of it. Why?

​

And after a full discussion on the relationship, in Italian law, of judicial truth to objective truth, Marasca/Bruno concludes with a blistering attack on the Nencini court for assigning weight to genetic "evidence" which did not meet the lowest standards of scientific proof.

Re-read Section 7 of the M/B report for a very full and nuanced rationale for why the Nencini verdict was junk; and....

...... therefore eviscerated!

​

Nencini was junk? Hellmann wasn't crap? Marasca-Bruno wasn't what we in England poetically call bollocks?

"Nuanced"? LOL you mean a crock of ****, cut and pasted from Bongiorno, hence its lack of clear thinking, rationale, logic and zero comprehension of scientific priniciples.


It wasn't just the DNA that convicted the pair, it was the luminol, the staged burglary, the plethora of lies, lack of alibi, Raff's footprint on t
he bathmat in Mez' blood (the person who stabbed her would have been covered in her blood, when the knife was pulled out).

Admit it, the Marasca ruling was pure political expediency.

 

[Numbers]

Italian law and legal practice must, according to Italy's solemn treaty obligation, follow the European Convention on Human Rights and the final rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, while you are correct that Italian domestic procedural law allows for the disclosure of information by the public prosecutor no later than the charging, which may be one year after the arrest, Italy must interpret its law in accordance ECHR case-law and the Italian Constitution. And that case-law and the Italian Constitution states that there defense must be allowed at every stage of a legal proceeding, and, according to ECHR case-law, that includes during interrogation and while a suspect or accused is in custody.

Furthermore, the ECHR case-law includes as part of defense "equality of arms" which includes full disclosure of information by the prosecution to the defense at each stage. The only information which may be withheld is that which might, for example, endanger a confidential informant or undercover police officer, and the withholding of information must be reviewed and approved by a judge.

In partial support of the above statements, here is an excerpt from an ECHR judgment, finding a violation of the Convention when an accused and a court were not provided copies of the original tapes of phone intercepts but only of transcripts, which thus could not be compared to the raw data (the recordings of the phone intercepts); in this case, the accused was convicted:

64. In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition, Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all the material evidence in their possession for or against the accused (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000‑II, and Natunen v. Finland, no. 21022/04, § 39, 31 March 2009).

65. However, the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or to keep police methods of investigation of crime secret, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. However, only such measures restricting the rights of the defence which are strictly necessary are permissible under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, in order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see Rowe and Davis, cited above, § 61, Natunen, cited above, § 40, and Leas v. Estonia, no. 59577/08, § 78, 6 March 2012).

67. The Court further observes that the applicant attempted to challenge the lawfulness of the phone tapping, the authenticity of the audiotapes and the reliability of the transcripts in the case file before the Ankara State Security Court. To this end, on at least ten occasions his lawyer filed petitions and made oral submissions to the trial court .... However, an examination of the question as to whether the transcripts included in the case file by the public prosecutor and those prepared by Mr L.B., the expert, were consistent with the content of the audiotapes was not carried out. ... Besides, the applicant was not provided an opportunity to get of hold of all the elements that would have enabled him to challenge the reliability of the transcripts. ... In addition, the court did not play the audiotapes at the hearings in the presence of the applicant or his lawyer. As a result, the applicant’s inability to have access to the originals of those audiotapes prevented him from effectively challenging the reliability of the transcripts. Moreover, as the applicant was not informed of the reason why the court considered it necessary to restrict his rights, he had no opportunity to argue against any such considerations. Lastly, the Court notes that the Court of Cassation also failed to consider the applicant’s arguments concerning his inability to have access to evidence which had been used to secure his conviction.

68. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the decision‑making procedure applied in the present case failed to comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, or to incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The case is CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY 17362/03 23/09/2014

 

[Vixen]

I wonder what you are basing that statement on ?
Shoe size is based on the lenght of the foot and has nothing to do with the width.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Professor-Vinci-Bathmat-and-Luminol-Print-Analysis-Italian.pdf#33
Sollecito's foot is 99 mm wide and his shoe size is 42, my shoe size is 49 and the with of my feet is 100 mm... hmm.

They weren't "on the right track" as you say. I'll take a closer look on what info those two had. It's frightening to watch so called "experts" matching a print made by a size 45/46 shoe, to a shoe sized 42.
Looks like an "the end justifies the means" approach to "fabricating evidence" to me...

Size 49? Heck, you could be a policeman . A size 14 will get you in the Met where you have to be super tall.

Seriously, though haven't you just disproved your own point? With Raff's footprint being size 42 and 100mm broad, and yours size 49 and also 100mm broad it proves decisively that each of us has a unique footprint (as we do a fingerprint). The footprint on the bathmat would match almost nobody, but its owner, and quelle surprise it is established the footprint is 'highly compatible' with Raff.

And not at all 'compatible' with Amanda or Rudy.

Q.E.D.::

 

[Vixen]

Waiting to be Heard, Chapter 6:

Looks like she was allowed to retrieve her jacket from the house after it was sealed since she's wearing it in this picture:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1247&pictureid=10874[/qimg]
Must be after this (iconic) one was taken:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1247&pictureid=10875[/qimg]

For someone who claims she slept 11 hours she looks pretty wrecked.

Is that how she sneaked out the key to Mez' room? She had the chance to take with her all her bits and pieces when she collected her fleece top, which looks nothing like a coat which would protect one from a chilly November morning in Italy.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen calls Bruno-Marasca wrong and incompetent in their evaluation of the DNA evidence, and then Vixen applies some arbitrary example of the number of alleles needed, in law, to be identified for a positive match. Vixen's claim is that Bruno-Marasca are incompetent for going beyond this (acc. to Vixen) simple guilt-marker.

To this, from Section 4.1 onwards, Bruno-Marasca write what the issues really are in this case. First and foremost, that when there's a rush to judgement because of, "the international nature of the story," it makes it all the more important to adhere to international Forensic-DNA standards..... because the world is watching.

​

Bruno-Marasca then go on (Sec 4.2ff) to show that the Nencini trial simply did not follow anything resembling the Scientific Method in evaluating the forensics.

In Sec 6.1 Bruno-Marasca start a discussion on the "trustworthiness of the evidence". In the section, they pair this trustworthiness, or lack of same, with a "motive" which both matches that evidence and converges on it. Their assessment of that is:

​

But back to the issue Vixen continually raises and refuses to engage in any discussion about - except to repeat the factoid about allele-level being the sole, revealing issue.

To this, Bruno-Marasca engage FULLY in Section 7 the real discussion a court should be having, one that the Nencini court did not have - therefore M/B annuled the Nencini verdict:

- a judge cannot substitute himself as a supra-expert over and above the real, scientific experts

- with that said, the judge must still sort out the conundrum of competing experts who often argue polar opposite things

- in sorting that out, the judge cannot simply rule in a vacuum as-if the judge was the sole arbiter, the judge must refer to some outside expertise acc. to "the bridging rule", which finds it's most concrete rendering from, "Section 1, no. 31456 of 21/05/2006. Franzioni, Rv. 240764".​

In Section 7.1 Marasca-Bruno then apply all this to the Nencini verdict in front of them. M/B first criticizes Nencini for not even trying to make his DNA judgments according to outside, scientific considerations.

​

Marasca-Bruno go on to say that Nencini's errors in the forensics include:

- mistaking compatibility with identity

- failing to take into account the shortcomings of the investigation-collection process of the evidence

- "Taking into account such considerations one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis – that were performed in violation of the recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage – can be considered endowed of the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness."​

Bruno-Marasca make considerable mention of the problems associated with improper storage of evidence. This alone challenges the "repeatability" issue required by the scientific method, so that the same item of evidence can produce the same result, thus bolstering confidence that it is meaningful, and not the result of a false positive. In the way the Kercher case was handled, this is totally absent, so says Bruno-Marasca (citing the Conte-Vecchiotti report).

The fate of the bra-clasp as yielding useful, repeatable evidence is cited.

Back to Vixen's point of the number of alleles. Bruno-Marasca then cite the Low Copy Number issues, meaning that it was not possible to repeat the amplification of the samples - and the protocols in the field require two and sometimes three repeats:

​

So Vixen can quote the number of alleles all she wants. The issue she'll avoid like the plague is the other issue more central to the scientific method itself. Repeatability.

​

Do you honestly think someone like Nencini - with years behind him as a successful barrister - doesn't understand the rules of evidence? One minute he's criticised as being defective in the scientific method, next he excoriated for substituting himself as the expert, which is unfair, as he never did anything of the sort.


As to 'rush to judgment'; there was none. The kids were arrested 5 Nov 2007, the trial wasn't until 2009. It is not at all unusual for police to pick up the suspects fast. In the recent Olsson case - the American found murdered in Italy - the police apprehended a guy within days, after capturing his image on cctv and matching it to person attending the same nightclub as Ms Olsson.

In fact, if anything, the longer a case remains unsolved, the lesser the likelihood of it ever being solved. However there was a recent case in England about a girl murdered in 1982, Yiannoulla Yianni, whose killer, James Warnock, was only very recently caught and jailed for life, when by chance, police matched his DNA. Do you really think the police should be expected to replicate the DNA test, when all that is left is the PCR reading of the DNA. The chances of the sequence of loci being the same by sheer random accident is about three billion to one against. The perp, being sly, tried to make out she was in an affair with him, behind her strict Greek Cypriot parents' back to explain the DNA he left behind.

You then quickstep into 'international protocols'. Marasca court lies when it claims these were not followed, proving they simply cut and pasted from Bongiorno's opportunistic ravings.


You claim forensic police should not be allowed to test LCN. Do be sure to tell murderers and rapists it's OK to leave behind LCN as they will be immune from prosecution.

Stefanoni is to be applauded she captured the LCN, yes, but near full profile of Mez DNA from tissue left in the knife striation, despite intense scrubbing of it. This wasn't the only evidence against the pair, but part of the whole gestalt. Once again, the machine doesn't lie. The odds of getting a sequence of fifteen alleles that match any individual in the correct order is literally billions to one against.

The defense forensic witness was there to observe it.

One has to admire your persistence, Bill.

Nothing could make that ram scram, he kept butting that dam.

https://youtu.be/S94Bh3Qez9o


Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

 

[Vixen]

Remember Bruno-Marasca's "synoptic" experiment in Section 9? It is not just Section 9.2 which sets it up. but Section 6.1 as well, when they assess the "trustworthiness of the evidence":

​

B-M are talking about this ambiguous and contradictory evidence as early as Section 6.1, when showing how the almost random series of motives which the various courts/investigators applied to the murder never converged onto the evidence.

Add to this, as you say Numbers, the **fact** that Stefanoni did not hand over the EDF's, and the **fact** that no court (including Hellmann's) forced her to comply, and the **fact** that even B-M did not mention this at all.

Given Marasca-Bruno's sensitivity about adhering to international standards with the science, it is still at issue that **no court** in this case compelled simple discovery - disclosure of evidence to the defence - which is a bedrock of other, Western legal systems.

Bruno-Marasca talked about the anachronistic nature of an Italian judge being the expert of the experts in relation to forensic DNA, then omitted a role that Judges **should play** - insisting on proper application of legal procedure.....

..... and no one in Italy to this day seems terribly upset that basic disclosure/discovery was never made in the forensic-DNA work of the Scientific Police under Stefanoni.

It is within the remit of a judge to refuse a submission for disclosure.


Bruno-Marasca are quite wrong in claiming Stefanoni should have been forced to disclose any document beyond what is reasonable and conventional.

 

[Vixen]

With all respect Numbers, you are forgetting something.

The issue here is **not** that the PM by statute is required to make disclosure (before the charge is formally submitted), it is only that the PM, "(ascertain) on the on the facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person", which assumes a wide level of discretion. That does not necessarily force disclosure (in the first year).

Indeed, the PM is not required to make any disclosure until the charge is formally laid in Italy, and that can be up to one year later.

In this case, that meant that the defence for 12 months relied upon the press leaks to even guess what direction things were going, or what evidence would be used. Most certainly Quintavalle, Toto, and Nara were offering "evidence" that didn't even exist for months after their arrest......

The only legal problem with disclosure, then, is perhaps the forensic-DNA stuff, the EDFs from Stefanoni - which should have been fully disclosed (EDFs and all, like what the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial with the 36I sample) once the charge was laid.

My intro to this stuff was in August 2011 when I was abroad and read in an English version of the local daily newspaper that, "The DNA case against Knox was falling apart," at the Hellmann trial, and the press-report speculated that this could lead to the American's release. This was in a major daily 9,000 kms from Perugia, on the front page, albeit below the fold.

The DNA-stuff was the core of the prosecution case. It is why they to this day they still are withholding the raw data files - and even in the face of the courts ordering their release, the refusal to so do put Italian courts in a bind which they never resolved.

No Italian court is going to charge a member of the prosecution team (or their experts) with a crime. The judges would rather just throw up their hands in exasperation...........

Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, and Bruno included. Those four could at least rest knowing they'd released innocent people - while still not calling their own to account.

If you only came to the case in 2011 with the Hellmann trial, you were probably inculcated with the ROLLING STONE -style "American railroaded by Italian pigs'.

Problem with all of this, they only gave you half the story.

No wonder you are all mixed up and confused.


Fact is, in most countries, I know it's the case in the UK, police are secretive. They don't give anyone a blow by blow account of how the investgiation is going. Victims and families of victims' often know nothing about the details until the case comes to trial. At a school reunion, I asked my old chum who was now a police chief in charge of a whole region, why police have this attitude and she just said its always been the way. Police will work on a 'need to know' basis. It is no indication of the Italian police being any different from police forces elsewhere. To claim Mignini should be arrested for failing to appraise the kids of how their investigations were progressing is laughable and betrays a lack of understanding of how police forces work.

 

[Vixen]

There was a poster here called RandyN who was very outspoken about the corruption and misconduct of the prosecution. I recall him saying that Hellman tiptoed around Stefanoni and took no action over the supressing of evidence, falsifying documents and committing perjury.

This is because Hellmann perceived none of these things.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is within the remit of a judge to refuse a submission for disclosure.


Bruno-Marasca are quite wrong in claiming Stefanoni should have been forced to disclose any document beyond what is reasonable and conventional.

Vixen, step back for a minute. Reread the thread. Do this for your own sake if you at all wish to be taken seriously.

B/M made no such claim about disclosure. My review of the B/M report notes this. Yet you make a badly informed opinion based on..... a complete misreading of the last day of discussion here.

It's amazing you're not embarrassed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Italian law and legal practice must, according to Italy's solemn treaty obligation, follow the European Convention on Human Rights and the final rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, while you are correct that Italian domestic procedural law allows for the disclosure of information by the public prosecutor no later than the charging, which may be one year after the arrest, Italy must interpret its law in accordance ECHR case-law and the Italian Constitution. And that case-law and the Italian Constitution states that there defense must be allowed at every stage of a legal proceeding, and, according to ECHR case-law, that includes during interrogation and while a suspect or accused is in custody.

Furthermore, the ECHR case-law includes as part of defense "equality of arms" which includes full disclosure of information by the prosecution to the defense at each stage. The only information which may be withheld is that which might, for example, endanger a confidential informant or undercover police officer, and the withholding of information must be reviewed and approved by a judge.

Again, with due respect, you're missing a lot here.

First and foremost, the compelling issue about ECHR and issues of equality of arms and full disclosure at all stages of the process, etc., ignores that the ECHR deals with complaint driven processes.

Meaning that the ECHR has no internal investigative force which on its own investigates these things.

That fact alone puts people whose rights have been trampled on at a disadvantage. Esp. in Italy, where one can be tied up in court for up to a decade paying for competent defence - and often being billed for the prosecution's analysis of some factoid.

One can quickly run out of money - so I would argue that these ECHR rights fast become meaningless if unavailable at a practical level. Most certainly Italy would not be in a hurry to conform to ECHR standards if people like Mignini knew their abuses would often never see the light of day.

Marasca-Bruno have a long discussion in their Sept 2015 report about one item of appeal from (I think it was Sollecito) where the length of the trial-process from charge to ISC-final disposition was itself flagged. (In Canada here, it is the Askov ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Askov , in the ECHR it is Article 6). I would suggest that that is an even bigger human rights concern than full disclosure, but even B/M makes an impassioned defence of why the unwieldy Italian process does not violate it.

Still - with it being a complaint driven process, totally dependent on remaining resources of a complainant, it is not as simply as your post implies.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you only came to the case in 2011 with the Hellmann trial, you were probably inculcated with the ROLLING STONE -style "American railroaded by Italian pigs'. Problem with all of this, they only gave you half the story. No wonder you are all mixed up and confused.

Fact is, in most countries, I know it's the case in the UK, police are secretive. They don't give anyone a blow by blow account of how the investgiation is going. Victims and families of victims' often know nothing about the details until the case comes to trial. At a school reunion, I asked my old chum who was now a police chief in charge of a whole region, why police have this attitude and she just said its always been the way. Police will work on a 'need to know' basis. It is no indication of the Italian police being any different from police forces elsewhere. To claim Mignini should be arrested for failing to appraise the kids of how their investigations were progressing is laughable and betrays a lack of understanding of how police forces work.

I was confused and mixed up all right. I'd not run across the Rolling Stone version of this until a lot later......

So here's your "own goal" Vixen. Once again, a Vixen own-goal. I was confused and mixed up because I spent the first while almost solely dependent on TJMK and the PMF's!!! I did not know the IIP website existed, and did not know that at that time the Wiki page was going through a major transition ordered by Jimbo Wales himself - to free it from the Non-neutral point of view of the rabid guilters.

On TJMK I followed specifically Kermits powerpoints, one about the "impossibility of Rudy breaking in", as well as, "The 150 questions Amanda Knox won't answer."

Do you wish to know how you've booted the ball into your own net with stupid remarks about my own beginnings here?

Kermit's "impossibility of the break-in through Filomena's window" was passed to a friend who worked as a tech in police forensics. He laughed at the analysis.

"The 150 questions Amanda Knox won't answer," contained one question which was, "Why won't Knox tell us the phase of the moon from Nov 1?" Her silence on that issue for Kermit was a key to unlocking the case's secrets.

Once again you do not do your homework. You make "probably" statements without knowing a scintilla of what you're talking about.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, step back for a minute. Reread the thread. Do this for your own sake if you at all wish to be taken seriously.

B/M made no such claim about disclosure. My review of the B/M report notes this. Yet you make a badly informed opinion based on..... a complete misreading of the last day of discussion here.

It's amazing you're not embarrassed.

You didn't read my pointing out that a judge has the power to dismiss an application for disclosure.

The defence applied. The judge realising this was just a time-wasting ploy by the defence - which judges see all the time: unreasonable attempts to stall proceedings by demanding ever more bits of information - no doubt said, 'Enough, already.'


Remember: it is the defendants on trial, not the police.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen calls Bruno-Marasca wrong and incompetent in their evaluation of the DNA evidence, and then Vixen applies some arbitrary example of the number of alleles needed, in law, to be identified for a positive match. Vixen's claim is that Bruno-Marasca are incompetent for going beyond this (acc. to Vixen) simple guilt-marker.

To this, from Section 4.1 onwards, Bruno-Marasca write what the issues really are in this case. First and foremost, that when there's a rush to judgement because of, "the international nature of the story," it makes it all the more important to adhere to international Forensic-DNA standards..... because the world is watching.

​

Bruno-Marasca then go on (Sec 4.2ff) to show that the Nencini trial simply did not follow anything resembling the Scientific Method in evaluating the forensics.

In Sec 6.1 Bruno-Marasca start a discussion on the "trustworthiness of the evidence". In the section, they pair this trustworthiness, or lack of same, with a "motive" which both matches that evidence and converges on it. Their assessment of that is:

​

But back to the issue Vixen continually raises and refuses to engage in any discussion about - except to repeat the factoid about allele-level being the sole, revealing issue.

To this, Bruno-Marasca engage FULLY in Section 7 the real discussion a court should be having, one that the Nencini court did not have - therefore M/B annuled the Nencini verdict:

- a judge cannot substitute himself as a supra-expert over and above the real, scientific experts

- with that said, the judge must still sort out the conundrum of competing experts who often argue polar opposite things

- in sorting that out, the judge cannot simply rule in a vacuum as-if the judge was the sole arbiter, the judge must refer to some outside expertise acc. to "the bridging rule", which finds it's most concrete rendering from, "Section 1, no. 31456 of 21/05/2006. Franzioni, Rv. 240764".​

In Section 7.1 Marasca-Bruno then apply all this to the Nencini verdict in front of them. M/B first criticizes Nencini for not even trying to make his DNA judgments according to outside, scientific considerations.

​

Marasca-Bruno go on to say that Nencini's errors in the forensics include:

- mistaking compatibility with identity - failing to take into account the shortcomings of the investigation-collection process of the evidence

- "Taking into account such considerations one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis – that were performed in violation of the recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage – can be considered endowed of the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness."​

Bruno-Marasca make considerable mention of the problems associated with improper storage of evidence. This alone challenges the "repeatability" issue required by the scientific method, so that the same item of evidence can produce the same result, thus bolstering confidence that it is meaningful, and not the result of a false positive. In the way the Kercher case was handled, this is totally absent, so says Bruno-Marasca (citing the Conte-Vecchiotti report).

The fate of the bra-clasp as yielding useful, repeatable evidence is cited.

Back to Vixen's point of the number of alleles. Bruno-Marasca then cite the Low Copy Number issues, meaning that it was not possible to repeat the amplification of the samples - and the protocols in the field require two and sometimes three repeats:

​

So Vixen can quote the number of alleles all she wants. The issue she'll avoid like the plague is the other issue more central to the scientific method itself. Repeatability.

​

Oh, and this bit. This is a particularly ignorant observation by the Marasca court. This is because all forensic science is based on 'compatible with', whether it be fingerprints, footprints, DNA, blood group, haplotype, etc. For example, in fingerprint analysis, typically, in England & Wales, only eighteen points of 'compatibility with' are need for it to be a legal identification.

Some woman recently challenged a finding that showed fingerprints 'compatible with' hers. She disputed that some of the points used to match, where incorrect.

What I do not get is how seemingly intelligent and trained judges can accept fingerprint compatibilty but seem to believe DNA compatibility is done differently.

Even if compatibility is three billion to one against - as in the case of Raff's DNA on the bra clasp - it will be presented in the report as exactly that: 'compatible with'.


So, Marasca Court is just third grade rubbish.