Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

WTF! Friends of Amanda has gotten to Nature as well? Where is all of this PR money coming from?

Look, if FOA can rig the election as between Trump and Clinton, Nature journal is chicken feed......

 

[LondonJohn]

Far be it for me to say something nice about the PGP, but I don't think that this issue can be hung on them.

Judge Nencini writes in his 2014 motivations report, one that justifies convicting the pair, that Prof Novelli said that at one of the previous trials that Novelli had requested and received the negative controls from Stefanoni.

Whether that is true or not, that's what Judge Nencini writes. Nencini then goes further to issue a stern rebuke of Conti-Vecchiotti for not asking for them themselves. Paraphrase: "You can't see them if you don't ask!"

The problem here is not with the PGP - it is with Italian legal process. Stefanoni should have brought all her material to court, like the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial. And if she had brought the negative controls because Novelli requested them, where are they in the court record?

I don't think this one can be hung on the PGP.

Well, the facts that

a) Novelli was a prosecution expert, and

b) someone saying anecdotally that they'd once received a document is clearly no substitute for either i) proper verifiable evidence that they received the document, and/or ii) the actual document itself

should have raised huge red flags on this matter, not only for Nencini's court but also for any objective, neutral commentator. And the apparent fact that Nencini allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes (most likely owing to another manifestation of Italian courts' abject deference to all things prosecution) shouldn't really change things for any outside observer. The sad truth is that pro-guilt commentators need it to be a truth that Stefanoni passed all the relevant and necessary data to the courts, so that they (PG commentators) can maintain their staunch faith in the myth of Stefanoni's probity and honesty.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, the facts that

a) Novelli was a prosecution expert, and

b) someone saying anecdotally that they'd once received a document is clearly no substitute for either i) proper verifiable evidence that they received the document, and/or ii) the actual document itself

should have raised huge red flags on this matter, not only for Nencini's court but also for any objective, neutral commentator. And the apparent fact that Nencini allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes (most likely owing to another manifestation of Italian courts' abject deference to all things prosecution) shouldn't really change things for any outside observer. The sad truth is that pro-guilt commentators need it to be a truth that Stefanoni passed all the relevant and necessary data to the courts, so that they (PG commentators) can maintain their staunch faith in the myth of Stefanoni's probity and honesty.

The point is......

IT IS LUDICROUS IN THE EXTREME that an Italian trial judge, commenting on whether or not an item had been placed into evidence:

- would cite a witness who swears he saw it, rather than

- cite it by Exhibit #​

What if this had been a fight over whether or not the defence had been allowed to see the kitchen knife from Raffaele's? Would Nencini have had to have written:

- "Of course that knife was available to everyone; Prof Novelli says that Dr. Stefanoni supplied it to him because he asked nicely," or would he have wirtten.....

- "Exhibit 165 was entered into evidence in 2009."​

I let the PGP off the hook on this one. They simply believed what they were told because an Italian judge told them it was so. Who among us is prone to believe that a competent trial judge would willfully and with malice aforethought, misrepresent an item of evidence relevant to the case?

 

[Welshman]

Well, the facts that

a) Novelli was a prosecution expert, and

b) someone saying anecdotally that they'd once received a document is clearly no substitute for either i) proper verifiable evidence that they received the document, and/or ii) the actual document itself

should have raised huge red flags on this matter, not only for Nencini's court but also for any objective, neutral commentator. And the apparent fact that Nencini allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes (most likely owing to another manifestation of Italian courts' abject deference to all things prosecution) shouldn't really change things for any outside observer. The sad truth is that pro-guilt commentators need it to be a truth that Stefanoni passed all the relevant and necessary data to the courts, so that they (PG commentators) can maintain their staunch faith in the myth of Stefanoni's probity and honesty.

This goes back to my point I made in a previous that the prosecution's evidence has no credibility, is riddled with flaws and PGP have to resort to lying to cover up these flaws. The fact Stefanoni did not hand over the negative control tests is a sign which indicates the supposed DNA on the knife is highly suspect. PGP have to lie that Stefanoni handed in the negative control tests to make Stefanoni's work appear valid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini was wrong

In the story “Knox appeal: DNA experts to request more time” from the AFP on 20 May 2011, Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said “The experts asked the forensic police to hand over information essential to their report on the DNA. They still haven't received it and will therefore request a 40 days extension.” He added, “It's not the first time we've asked for the police to hand over this information,” He also said, “But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over.”

I have no idea why Judge Nencini would wrongly criticize Conti and Vecchiotti. IMO this quote also ended the debate about whether or not the forensic files were ever released to the defense during the trial of the first instance.

 

[Numbers]

This goes back to my point I made in a previous that the prosecution's evidence has no credibility, is riddled with flaws and PGP have to resort to lying to cover up these flaws. The fact Stefanoni did not hand over the negative control tests is a sign which indicates the supposed DNA on the knife is highly suspect. PGP have to lie that Stefanoni handed in the negative control tests to make Stefanoni's work appear valid.

In the story “Knox appeal: DNA experts to request more time” from the AFP on 20 May 2011, Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said “The experts asked the forensic police to hand over information essential to their report on the DNA. They still haven't received it and will therefore request a 40 days extension.” He added, “It's not the first time we've asked for the police to hand over this information,” He also said, “But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over.”

I have no idea why Judge Nencini would wrongly criticize Conti and Vecchiotti. IMO this quote also ended the debate about whether or not the forensic files were ever released to the defense during the trial of the first instance.

I would maintain that without the raw data of the DNA runs in true copies of the originals (electronic data files, EDF) including all the results from the negative and the positive controls, and with Stefanoni writing, in response to Judge Hellmann's request for the data, that she did not make a practice of providing such data and that to request it was equivalent to an accusation that she had committed fraud, that any alleged LCN result from her lab in the case could not be used for as evidence for conviction, since such use would violate Italian procedural law.

CPP Article 192.2 requires that: The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent. This article was part of the defense appeals against the Nencini court conviction and the Marasca CSC agreed the evidence could not be used.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the story “Knox appeal: DNA experts to request more time” from the AFP on 20 May 2011, Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said “The experts asked the forensic police to hand over information essential to their report on the DNA. They still haven't received it and will therefore request a 40 days extension.” He added, “It's not the first time we've asked for the police to hand over this information,” He also said, “But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over.”

I have no idea why Judge Nencini would wrongly criticize Conti and Vecchiotti. IMO this quote also ended the debate about whether or not the forensic files were ever released to the defense during the trial of the first instance.

Nencini takes Novelli at his word that he (Novelli) saw them, through a simple request. Nencini added that C-V should be criticized for saying they weren't available but only had to ask.

What do you make of this?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am not sure

Nencini takes Novelli at his word that he (Novelli) saw them, through a simple request. Nencini added that C-V should be criticized for saying they weren't available but only had to ask.

What do you make of this?

It is difficult to say. My surmise is that Nencini assumed that Conti and Vecchiotti did not ask for all of the data, but my view is that he assumed wrongly.

 

[bagels]

Nencini takes Novelli at his word that he (Novelli) saw them, through a simple request. Nencini added that C-V should be criticized for saying they weren't available but only had to ask.

What do you make of this?

Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…

Conti S: They were requested twice.

Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…

Conti s: In fact we asked for them twice.


What I make of it is Nencini is an idiot but that's well known to anyone who who has read his report.

I wonder how many Egyptian excerebration tools I would have to shove up my nose before I started to think Nencini made a coherent, sound, accurate report. I could become a genuine PGP.

 

[LondonJohn]

Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…

Conti S: They were requested twice.

Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…

Conti s: In fact we asked for them twice.


What I make of it is Nencini is an idiot but that's well known to anyone who who has read his report.

I wonder how many Egyptian excerebration tools I would have to shove up my nose before I started to think Nencini made a coherent, sound, accurate report. I could become a genuine PGP.

Exactly. And in addition to this testimony on the stand, there is documentary evidence of C/V asking a number of times for the data, and even a note from Hellmann to the prosecutors asking them to compel Stefanoni to comply.

This is a vivid illustration of just how broken the Italian system is, in respect (this time) of the sheer deference that judges pay to the prosecution side of the case. There appears to be a clear prevailing view that prosecutors (and their agents) are fine, upstanding public servants who a) would never lie or misrepresent, and b) would always act scrupulously neutrally, in a noble quest for "the truth". And at the same time, the corollary opinion among judges seems to be that defence teams should be viewed through a hyper-cynical lens, insomuch as they will do and say anything to try to get their client acquitted regardless of veracity or honesty.

And nobody in Italy has the will, the power or the accountability to enforce the root-and-branch reform that is so clearly desperately needed. That's Italy for you, folks. A shambles of a nation, riven with corruption, patronage, personal fiefdoms, total non-accountability, nasty hangovers of fascism and black marketeering. But the architecture, scenery, opera and food are SO lovely

 

[Vixen]

It never was the case that a party could have unlimited access to every scrap of paper. A party can submit an application for disclosure, which the defence did, and the judge dismissed it. End of. Take it on the chin.

Name any other case the defence could override the court? It is the tail wagging the dog. However, as Stefanoni points out, the defence demands go beyond the bounds of reasonableness, and is just a fishing expedition.

There is no conspiracy.

 

[bagels]

It never was the case that a party could have unlimited access to every scrap of paper. A party can submit an application for disclosure, which the defence did, and the judge dismissed it. End of. Take it on the chin.

Name any other case the defence could override the court? It is the tail wagging the dog. However, as Stefanoni points out, the defence demands go beyond the bounds of reasonableness, and is just a fishing expedition.

There is no conspiracy.

If the defense and the DNA experts didn't legally need the files they requested, why did the prosecution and the judges lie and said they already had them, or never asked for them?

Have you ever analyzed this case outside of your fantasy?

 

[recursive prophet]

Welcome back my friends, to the thread that never ends. At this point I'm pretty sure if someone came forward and confessed to the murder you folks would still keep arguing about this case. Certainly Vixen would never accept it unless the confessor was Amanda, lol.

Are any of the posters here familiar with the backfire effect

 

[bagels]

Welcome back my friends, to the thread that never ends. At this point I'm pretty sure if someone came forward and confessed to the murder you folks would still keep arguing about this case. Certainly Vixen would never accept it unless the confessor was Amanda, lol.

Are any of the posters here familiar with the backfire effect

BTW at the end of the article it suggests approaching the argument as a partnership. I've tried this but it's futile with the PGP, they don't just think Amanda is guilty, they truly believe the case against her was as solid as the case against Ted Bundy, so there's little room to reach common ground.

I still believe this case acts as a filter for a certain type of irrational thinker. Plenty of people have suspected Amanda Knox and assumed where there's smoke, there's fire. And plenty of them probably weren't satisfied that she was completely innocent of any knowledge about what happened at all. But when they examined the case they realized that regardless, there was no legal case to be made against her. So it filters out all the rational thinkers. And what you have left over is people like Vixen who are capable of holding simultaneously contradictory beliefs at the same time (for example the CCTV clock was keeping accurate time - and Meredith arrived home after 8:55)

We're all mad for continuing to post here

 

[Bill Williams]

It never was the case that a party could have unlimited access to every scrap of paper. A party can submit an application for disclosure, which the defence did, and the judge dismissed it. End of. Take it on the chin.

Name any other case the defence could override the court? It is the tail wagging the dog. However, as Stefanoni points out, the defence demands go beyond the bounds of reasonableness, and is just a fishing expedition.

There is no conspiracy.

It says all anyone needs to hear, that you believe the negative controls are "any scrap of paper"!

The RIS Carabinieri in 2013 handed the court their complete file. Why did they do that? It appears that the Carabinieri believe in the rule of law in Italy.

The route of contamination became a main point in this case, and the defence was deprived of the main means for examining that - the negative controls.

What you call a fishing trip sounds like normal due process - a process you are eager to deny.

 

[Bill Williams]

We're all mad for continuing to post here

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Welshman]

It never was the case that a party could have unlimited access to every scrap of paper. A party can submit an application for disclosure, which the defence did, and the judge dismissed it. End of. Take it on the chin.

Name any other case the defence could override the court? It is the tail wagging the dog. However, as Stefanoni points out, the defence demands go beyond the bounds of reasonableness, and is just a fishing expedition.

There is no conspiracy.

Acccording to the prosecution Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith and Meredith's DNA was on the knife. If Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty on the basis of this evidence, they could spend decades in prison. According to Vixen the defence have no right to ask for documentation from the prosecution and the prosecution should not hand over documents. How on earth can Amanda and Raffaele defend themselves if they can't see the prosecution's documents? I wonder if Vixen would be keen if she was being tried for a crime and the prosecution refused to hand over evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Acccording to the prosecution Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith and Meredith's DNA was on the knife. If Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty on the basis of this evidence, they could spend decades in prison. According to Vixen the defence have no right to ask for documentation from the prosecution and the prosecution should not hand over documents. How on earth can Amanda and Raffaele defend themselves if they can't see the prosecution's documents? I wonder if Vixen would be keen if she was being tried for a crime and the prosecution refused to hand over evidence.

As co-prosecutor Commodi said, "We decide if the defence needs to see something." Or words to that effect.

I'm with Commodi on that. There's no telling what the defence would do if they were allowed to mount a case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ain't that the truth!

Well perhaps, in a way.....

....but (as has been pointed out many times before) there are still some live, interesting and significant topics to discuss and debate here. Notably the fallout from the satellite trials, the progression of the ECHR application, and any potential wider ramifications for the likes of Mignini, Comodi, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Profazio, the Italian State Police and the Italian criminal justice system.

However, yes it's fair to say IMO that the (rational) debate on the murder-related charges against Knox and Sollecito is well and truly over. The vindictive, ill-informed and dishonest "arguments" against Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals within this thread are an irrelevance. But I can't help but be drawn to their amusement value, their "Baghdad Bob" levels of sheer chutzpah and denial, and their occasional nasty (and very telling) hyperbolic bitterness.

So, to me, this thread is a combination of an ongoing search for enlightenment, education and debate, coupled with a rich source of amusement. Of course, my very use of the word "amusement" in respect of this thread is almost certain to draw howls of self-righteous protest from a certain quarter about how disgusting it is that I derive amusement from a thread discussing the horrific murder of a world-class, beautiful woman who, had she lived, would have become a world-renowned figure of greatness.... and that I derive amusement from my "hero-worship" of the people who held that beautiful woman down, tortured and killed her, then had sex over her dead/dying body......

 

[LondonJohn]

Acccording to the prosecution Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith and Meredith's DNA was on the knife. If Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty on the basis of this evidence, they could spend decades in prison. According to Vixen the defence have no right to ask for documentation from the prosecution and the prosecution should not hand over documents. How on earth can Amanda and Raffaele defend themselves if they can't see the prosecution's documents? I wonder if Vixen would be keen if she was being tried for a crime and the prosecution refused to hand over evidence.

A lot of all this derives, IMO, from a fundamental ignorance (among the convicting judges and the pro-guilt commentators alike) about the huge importance of access to the source electronic data files in low-template DNA analysis. Many scientifically barely-literate individuals hear the words "DNA profile" and assume that it's always a black-and-white binary choice: the profile of the suspect(s) was either found in the sample from the crime scene, or it was not. But of course this is very far from the case, most especially when the crime scene sample contains only minuscule levels of DNA. It becomes increasingly difficult (and, to an extent, subjective) to separate signal from noise - to determine what is a genuine peak from DNA and what is a stutter or another type of noise, and to determine where to draw the line (in amplitude terms) between signal and noise.

In the instance of the samples that were relevant for Knox and Sollecito - those from the bra clasp and the kitchen knife - the "results" presented by Stefanoni had already undergone her own subjective filtering. We already know that she had casually disregarded a number of key analysis criteria, notably pushing the machine beyond its recommended limits, failing to perform proper quantifications, and failing to adhere to internationally-accepted principles regarding peak heights. It's therefore all the more important that others, particularly within the defence teams and within the courts own experts, should have been able to see the source data, in order to be able to make a proper evaluation of Stefanoni's work.