The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

That baloney originates from Garofano in "darkness descending"

Emphatically rubbished by Professor Dan Krane in Chris Halides' blog.

I'd be interested to know if you've got any other sources that back up Garofano's claims. What about professor Harry Rag for instance?

Hoots

Garofano was once head of the Forensic Police. Higher up than 'Prof Dan Krane' writing a blog.


It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing.

It is common sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly the point I was making about Knox' and Sollecito's numerous lies to the police. Sollecito never did retract his statement that Knox went out alone, not returning until one and that she had asked him to lie for her, hence why he told police a crock.

That is not true! Why do you flood this thread with such nonsense?

 

[Vixen]

That is not true! Why do you flood this thread with such nonsense?

Citation please, of the court document in which he retracted it.

 

[Stacyhs]

In a fair trial you can request whatever material you like be made evidence. There was absolutely nothing stopping Sollecito's lawyers from demanding the pillow be one of the issues.

Which they did in the Hellmann trial when his lawyers requested the suspected semen stain be tested.

One of the points of law on which you can bring an appeal is under the rubric of 'New Evidence'. However, for it to be classed as 'new evidence' it has to be evidence that was not known of as of the time of the trial. That is why, when Sollecito's team made an application to have it tested AFTER because it was not 'new evidence' as he had the opportunity to have all of that examined and cross-examined at the trial.

That is not how I read this:

PCC Article 603

Renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing

1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the court shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if it holds that it is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.

Sollecito did request in his Massei Appeal that the stain, evidence already gathered during the first instance trial, be tested .

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone more knowledgeable in reading law can clarify if I'm interpreting it correctly.

 

[Numbers]

Which they did in the Hellmann trial when his lawyers requested the suspected semen stain be tested.



That is not how I read this:



Sollecito did request in his Massei Appeal that the stain, evidence already gathered during the first instance trial, be tested .

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone more knowledgeable in reading law can clarify if I'm interpreting it correctly.

We do have an Italian law firm online to help understand the CPP and other Italian law codes.

For CPP Article 603, see the explanations of the CPP Article, which follow the text of the article, under the heading "Spiegazione dell'art. 603 Codice di procedura penale":

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-nono/titolo-ii/art603.html

From my reading of the Google translated text and the explanation, your understanding of CPP Article 603 is correct.

Is it correct that Sollecito appealed for the pillow's seeming semen stain to be DNA profile tested in his appeal to the Hellmann Court of Appeal, and Hellmann did not act on the request, and that Sollecito also appealed for the DNA profile test of the stain in his appeal to the Nencini Court of Appeal and Nencini did not act on the request? Did either of the courts' motivation report or trial transcript show a reason why the judge declined to order the test?

To answer my own questions, in part, here is an excerpt from the summary of Sollecito's appeal of the Nencini court conviction from the Marasca CSC panel motivation report (p. 11 - 12 of the translation*):

Not willing to follow the jurisprudential direction concerning the mandatory nature of the reopening of evidentiary hearings on appeal, in line with the evidence, the referral judge was, however, obliged to motivate the denial of the request for probative integration in a rational way coherent with the procedural record.

Among others, a request was made for a genetic testing of the stain (apparently left by sperm) on the victim's pillowcase, in order to verify its nature and possible attribution to an unknown person;

So Sollecito requested DNA testing of the seeming semen stain on the pillow in his appeal to the Nencini court and it was (according to Sollecito) denied by the judge without any rational coherent explanation.

* http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/marasca-bruno-motivations-report.pdf

One legalistic reason - not necessarily a rational or coherent reason - for the judge to deny the admission of new evidence is the requirement of CPP Article 603, paragraph 2 that the judge must follow the procedure of CPP Article 495, paragraph 1 before deciding on the admission. CPP 495, paragraph 1 requires the judge to hear all the parties to the case, including the prosecutor, before deciding on the admission. And that is how the judge, if he is biased or lacks courage and integrity, enables the prosecutor to decide that evidence favorable to the accused is not admitted into a trial in Italy.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Were those victims' DNA LCN or not? Did she have actual bodies/ body parts, to get the samples from? Drowning victims are usually intact. That would lead us to a logical answer of "No, not LCN"

She was brought bodies/body parts. Contamination was highly unlikely as tests could be repeated.

If she is so professional, why did she "forget" about multiple significant pieces of evidence that she tested for blood with TMB? Why did she continually refer to them as "luminol revealed" which she had to have known implied blood was found when she knew damn well it wasn't?

It's plausible that Stefanoni had little to no training in LCN DNA analysis. If she had, the prosecution would have made sure to highlight that to raise her credibility. They did not. Hell, she couldn't even find her own 'striation' in the knife she claimed the DNA came from. Nor could anyone else.

The defence's expert forensic witness was there, some quite renowned fellow, whose name escapes me, but he witnessed Stefanoni's treatment of the DNA sample and he did not complain of any irregularities.

That has nothing to do with the tsumani victims' testing which were not LCN samples nor with Stefanoni's convenient memory loss regarding the negative TMB tests.

As for "The defence's expert forensic witness was there, some quite renowned fellow, whose name escapes me, but he witnessed Stefanoni's treatment of the DNA sample and he did not complain of any irregularities"

Please provide evidence that a defense expert witness observed Stefanoni's analysis of the alleged sample of Kercher on the knife. Considering the fact that Stefanoni kept receiving 'too low' results and repeatedly lowered the machine's parameters to well beyond unreliable levels, I highly doubt any expert witness would not notice and complain.

As for the striation on the knife, if you read Nencini, the defence concurred that there WAS a scratch on the knife. Settled.

I can find no such defense concurrence. Please quote.

 

[Stacyhs]

The eminent forensics expert for the defence who compulsorily attended Stefanoni's testing of the sample was entirely happy with it and did not demur at any point.

Who is this "eminent forensics expert for the defence" who allegedly attended the testing of the knife? How about a name?

As you ought to know, evidence is not looked at piecemeal. One piece of evidence on its own contributory to the case. What a court does is look at all of the evidence as a whole - some it will accept some it will reject - before it comes to a verdict.

True, some a court accepts and some it rejects. What Hellmann and the M-B SC accepted is that there was not a single trace of Knox in the bedroom, a lack of which impossible to attribute to a clean up, that the single piece of evidence of RS was not reliable due to the wholly unprofessional manner in which it was collected breaking numerous standard anti-contamination procedures, that the pair had no motive to kill Kercher. What they rejected was the sure attribution of the bloody footprint on the rug being made by RS and not Guede. What they also accepted was evidence of the police's amateur and biased investigation as a huge screw-up.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please provide the Richard Owen citation.

I already did.

He was an early reporter in the case and not a tabloid hack who would use corny memes. If he used the term 'drifter' it would have been within the context of his article and not as a ridiculous tabloid nickname or handy label.

Wrong again:


It was in his headline:

Rudy Guede: engaging drifter who boasted ‘I will drink your blood’
Richard Owen
Tuesday October 28 2008, 10.06pm GMT, The Times

As I recall, Guede was on the run in Germany and was apprehended in Dortmund where he had been sleeping rough along the canal so that was probably the context, and not just a lazy racist trope.

Nope.

"racist trope"....how is being described as a "drifter" racist? I guess that makes Manuela Comodi a racist, too? You really have dug into this whole 'racist" thing. I suggest you put down the shovel; it's not working.

 

[Numbers]

That used to be the case. However, in EU countries the concept that you cannot be tried again once acquitted no longer applies.
Some guy in the UK who was tried and acquitted for the murder of two little girls dubbed 'Babes in the Wood' was recently re-tried after many years because new DNA evidence showed that his DNA was on their jumpers.

Vixen, the balderdash in your post suggests that you are very uninformed as to the law and its history in the UK and the EU.

1. UK law historically did not allow double jeopardy (retrial after an acquittal) with few exceptions.

This law changed for England and Wales with passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. That law allows the prosecution to request and obtain a retrial after an acquittal for certain serious crimes (for example, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and rape) with no constraint from the statute of limitations provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions approves the request and that the Court of Appeal agrees to quash the original acquittal on the basis of new and compelling evidence. There is a similar law for Northern Ireland that was also enacted in 2003.

A 2011 law changed the prohibition on double jeopardy in Scotland by allowing retrials after acquittals if there was new evidence, the acquittal was corrupted by a perversion of justice, or the acquitted person admitted guilt after acquittal.

All of the above has no bearing on the Knox - Sollecito case, which was conducted in Italy under Italian (and ECHR) law.

2. Under Italian law and the law of many European states, double jeopardy is defined differently than in common law states (UK, US, etc.). Italian law allows for a series of trials - potentially, an infinite series - consisting of appeals by the prosecution and the accused of acquittals and convictions - as long as a final judgment is not delivered. Italy has a statute of limitations that includes, for most crimes with the exception of (for example) murder, a limit that is in effect even after a trial begins, in order to avoid an "infinite series" of trials.

No trial on the same facts or crime is allowed after the final judgment is delivered, with the exception that under some circumstances defined under law, a conviction - but never an acquittal - may be subject to a revision trial.

A final judgment is delivered if neither the prosecution nor the accused appeal a judgment of a first-instance or appeal court within the legally allowed time limit. Also, a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Cassation is a final judgment. (Referral judgments by the Supreme Court of Cassation are, of course, not final judgments, since referral means there is another trial in a Court of Appeal.)

The Italian laws on these matters are in CPP Articles 648, 649, 629, 630, and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011.

Source for UK law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_Kingdom

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear. Defendant X was an example to illustrate the point are was making. It was purely academic, as I made clear.

Uh huh, sure, you betcha, right........... a purely academic illustration.....if you say so...

 

[Stacyhs]

That baloney originates from Garofano in "darkness descending"

Emphatically rubbished by Professor Dan Krane in Chris Halides' blog.

I'd be interested to know if you've got any other sources that back up Garofano's claims. What about professor Harry Rag for instance?

Hoots

Oh, Tom! Don't you know that any expert not agreeing with all things 'guilt' is bent, incompetent, or paid off?

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly the point I was making about Knox' Knox's and Sollecito's numerous lies to the police. Sollecito never did retract his statement that Knox went out alone, not returning until one and that she had asked him to lie for her, hence why he told police a crock.

Nah, that wasn't the point you were making at all:

I haven't demanded 'Amanda' takes a lie detector test. I agree with the Italians, criminals are gonna lie.

You agree that a defendant on trial is a 'criminal' before they are convicted? Revealing. :eye-p

BTW I am not under arrest so it matters diddly squat whether I lie or not.

But it does. If you a poster is caught here on ISF lying, misrepresenting and dishonestly twisting things, s/he's going to get a reputation for being totally full of it. Someone might keep count of all of them like The WAPO did with all Trump's lies, and post them periodically.

 

[Stacyhs]

Louisiana, for a start. I believe it is one of a small handful or remaining states that hasn't repealed Amendment 13 and prisoners are deemed slaves.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that's a rather dishonest twist. Prisoners can be forced to work, but they cannot be sold or bought and are not the property of the State of Louisiana. They have rights which slaves do not.

Answer me this, if three people are in a room and the DNA collected, Is it probable that the DNA of two of them has been

collected corruptly and incompetently and completely contaminated, whilst at the same time the DNA of the third person is all perfectly done and accurate ceteris paribus?

Classic intellectual dishonesty there, Vix.

1. The DNA of three people was not collect in a room. Only two people's was. Therefore, we can removed one person from your hypothesis.

2. One person's DNA is collected twice and neither is Low Copy number making analysis straightforward. That this is the person's DNA is never contested, even by the person's own lawyer or the person himself.

3. One person's two non-LCN DNA is mixed with the victim's blood and no DNA of another person is detected in it.

4. One person's DNA is not found mixed in blood and is shown on video being directly touched by a visibly dirty glove that was admittedly not changed after handling other objects and the DNA of multiple other people is found within the sample.

Yet there are people who are absolutely certain this is the case even though a fair and lengthy merits court found otherwise.

Yet there are people who continue to deny there are critical differences between the one sample of one person and the two samples of another. There are people who ignore the multiple other pieces of forensic evidence placing the one person in the room at the time of the murder and that there is no similar evidence of the other person being in the room before, during, or after the murder. There are people who continue to claim "a fair and lengthy merits court" despite that court being annulled due to numerous errors made.

 

[Bill Williams]

Citation please, of the court document in which he retracted it.

No.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Louisiana, for a start. I believe it is one of a small handful or remaining states that hasn't repealed Amendment 13 and prisoners are deemed slaves.

Nope. That isn't what I asked for even if it were true, which it isn't.

Louisiana does not allow slavery. The 13th Amendment is the amendment which explicitly bans slavery across the entire USA.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Indentured servitude is a vile practice to be sure, and that it is used on prisoners makes it especially heinous, but it is not slavery. Even if it was slavery, it is not a racist policy because it does not specify the race of those involved. Whatever your opinion of the usage of prisoners to do unpaid (or barely paid) labour is (and I think it's disgusting) it is not a racist policy.

So come on, show me an explicitly or implicitly racist law or statute from the USA. You claimed they had it so show it.

If you want to discussion colonialism and its effects, I would suggest starting a new thread.

You brought it up. But it is true that it should really be taken to another thread except in the limited scope in which it applies here.

Answer me this, if three people are in a room and the DNA collected, Is it probable that the DNA of two of them has been collected corruptly and incompetently and completely contaminated, whilst at the same time the DNA of the third person is all perfectly done and accurate ceteris paribus?

Pretentious use of Latin aside, yes. That's entirely possible. Why wouldn't it be?

Yet there are people who are absolutely certain this is the case even though a fair and lengthy merits court found otherwise.

Mhmm. Ok. Here's the thing though, even if you are 100% correct about this and your opinion on this case, which you are pretty obviously not, that is not what I was arguing nor asking about. I understand that is certainly a part of the overarching thread topic and quite worthy of discussion here, but it is not what I was discussing.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen, the balderdash in your post suggests that you are very uninformed as to the law and its history in the UK and the EU.

1. UK law historically did not allow double jeopardy (retrial after an acquittal) with few exceptions.

This law changed for England and Wales with passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. That law allows the prosecution to request and obtain a retrial after an acquittal for certain serious crimes (for example, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and rape) with no constraint from the statute of limitations provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions approves the request and that the Court of Appeal agrees to quash the original acquittal on the basis of new and compelling evidence. There is a similar law for Northern Ireland that was also enacted in 2003.

A 2011 law changed the prohibition on double jeopardy in Scotland by allowing retrials after acquittals if there was new evidence, the acquittal was corrupted by a perversion of justice, or the acquitted person admitted guilt after acquittal.

All of the above has no bearing on the Knox - Sollecito case, which was conducted in Italy under Italian (and ECHR) law.

2. Under Italian law and the law of many European states, double jeopardy is defined differently than in common law states (UK, US, etc.). Italian law allows for a series of trials - potentially, an infinite series - consisting of appeals by the prosecution and the accused of acquittals and convictions - as long as a final judgment is not delivered. Italy has a statute of limitations that includes, for most crimes with the exception of (for example) murder, a limit that is in effect even after a trial begins, in order to avoid an "infinite series" of trials.

No trial on the same facts or crime is allowed after the final judgment is delivered, with the exception that under some circumstances defined under law, a conviction - but never an acquittal - may be subject to a revision trial.

A final judgment is delivered if neither the prosecution nor the accused appeal a judgment of a first-instance or appeal court within the legally allowed time limit. Also, a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Cassation is a final judgment. (Referral judgments by the Supreme Court of Cassation are, of course, not final judgments, since referral means there is another trial in a Court of Appeal.)

The Italian laws on these matters are in CPP Articles 648, 649, 629, 630, and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011.

Source for UK law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_Kingdom

I left out one legal issue associated with this - that is, CSC (Supreme Court of Cassation) actions. If an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court of Cassation and it rules that the appeal is inadmissible or is rejected (for example, for not satisfying the requirements of CPP Article 606), the appealed judgment becomes final on the day that the CSC rejection or inadmissibility ruling is delivered (CPP Article 648). For criminal cases, there are tens of thousands of such CSC rulings of inadmissibility or rejection each year. For the years 2011 to 2021, the number of appeals to the CSC ruled inadmissible ranged from a minimum of about 26,700 to a maximum of about 40,000, while the number of appeals rejected ranged from a minimum of about 3,700 to a maximum of about 8,600.

Source for the statistics on inadmissibility and rejection:
https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf
Table 5.4

 

[TomG]

Garofano was once head of the Forensic Police. Higher up than 'Prof Dan Krane' writing a blog.


It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing.

It is common sense.

Here is more on the subject of DNA and tissue source.

The relationship between DNA testing and confirmatory blood testing (Prof. Chris Halkides):

Although DNA typing is a powerful tool in forensics, it is not a test for blood. The National Forensic Science Technology Center said, “For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn? The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood.”

And more

In response to a question of mine, Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev concurred: “It is correct to assume that DNA profiling is not a confirmatory test for blood because it can be found in so many other things. Just confirming the presence of the victim or suspect's DNA has absolutely no bearing on what type of tissue or fluid it is. There could have been skin cells scattered in a pile of ketchup that would match a person's DNA, but that doesn't make it blood.”

Please cite sources to back up Garofano's claim.

 

[Numbers]

Many Italian acquittals are based upon CPP Article 530 paragraph 2.

Large numbers of cases appealed to the CSC are annulled without referral every year.

"Annullamento senza rinvio" (annulled without referral) cases number from a minimum of about 2600 to a maximum of about 7300 for the years 2011 to 2021.

See: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

Some PGP, including IIUC Vixen, maintain that the Marasca CSC panel judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case of annulment without referral was highly unusual and perhaps even contrary to law.

Since the CSC publishes outcome statistics in a report available online, it would be of interest to see the details of annulments with referral compared to annulments without referral for the two years in which a CSC panel reviewed a judgment of a Court of Appeal that had tried Knox and Sollecito.

In 2013, the Chieffi CSC panel reviewed the Hellmann Court of Appeal judgment. The prosecutor had appealed the acquittal on the murder/rape charges, and one of the accused (Knox) had appealed the conviction for calunnia.

The Chieffi CSC panel judgment annulled with referral the Hellmann court judgment with respect to the acquittal for the murder/rape charges for both accused and for the aggravating factor for the calunnia charge against Knox, but confirmed Knox's conviction for calunnia - that is, it rejected her appeal.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2013:

Annulment with referral: 5,205 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,108 cases (No new trial, acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,980 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 8,421 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appealed judgment accepted.)

In 2015, the Marasca CSC panel reviewed the Nencini Appeal Court judgment. Both accused had appealed the conviction on the murder/rape charges and Knox had appealed the aggravating factor added to the calunnia final conviction.

The Marasca CSC panel judgment annulled without referral the conviction on the murder/rape charges, and acquitted the accused as not having committed the act of the crime; this invalidated the aggravating factor for calunnia; another charge (carrying a knife) was dismissed as past the statute of limitations.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2015:

Annulment with referral: 5,383 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,530 cases (No new trial; acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,071 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 7,389 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appeal judgment accepted.)

Bottom line: Annulment without referral is not unusual and is a common lawful CSC judgment (CPP Articles 620 and 621). All annulments without referral are accompanied by a dismissal of some form, such as, for example, the statute of limitations was exceeded, there was a nullity (a severe lapse in the judicial procedure), or the appealed judgment should have been an acquittal based on the errors in logic or grounds of the judgment derived from the evidence. One can readily understand this aspect by carefully reading CPP Article 620, which provides a list of the grounds for an annulment without referral, together with CPP Article 606, which provides a list of the lawful arguments acceptable for an appeal to the CSC.

The source for the CSC outcome statistics is Table 5.4 in:

https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

 

[Stacyhs]

Some PGP, including IIUC Vixen, maintain that the Marasca CSC panel judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case of annulment without referral was highly unusual and perhaps even contrary to law.

Since the CSC publishes outcome statistics in a report available online, it would be of interest to see the details of annulments with referral compared to annulments without referral for the two years in which a CSC panel reviewed a judgment of a Court of Appeal that had tried Knox and Sollecito.

In 2013, the Chieffi CSC panel reviewed the Hellmann Court of Appeal judgment. The prosecutor had appealed the acquittal on the murder/rape charges, and one of the accused (Knox) had appealed the conviction for calunnia.

The Chieffi CSC panel judgment annulled with referral the Hellmann court judgment with respect to the acquittal for the murder/rape charges for both accused and for the aggravating factor for the calunnia charge against Knox, but confirmed Knox's conviction for calunnia - that is, it rejected her appeal.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2013:

Annulment with referral: 5,205 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,108 cases (No new trial, acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,980 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 8,421 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appealed judgment accepted.)

In 2015, the Marasca CSC panel reviewed the Nencini Appeal Court judgment. Both accused had appealed the conviction on the murder/rape charges and Knox had appealed the aggravating factor added to the calunnia final conviction.

The Marasca CSC panel judgment annulled without referral the conviction on the murder/rape charges, and acquitted the accused as not having committed the act of the crime; this invalidated the aggravating factor for calunnia; another charge (carrying a knife) was dismissed as past the statute of limitations.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2015:

Annulment with referral: 5,383 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,530 cases (No new trial; acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,071 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 7,389 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appeal judgment accepted.)

Bottom line: Annulment without referral is not unusual and is a common lawful CSC judgment (CPP Articles 620 and 621). All annulments without referral are accompanied by a dismissal of some form, such as, for example, the statute of limitations was exceeded, there was a nullity (a severe lapse in the judicial procedure), or the appealed judgment should have been an acquittal based on the errors in logic or grounds of the judgment derived from the evidence. One can readily understand this aspect by carefully reading CPP Article 620, which provides a list of the grounds for an annulment without referral, together with CPP Article 606, which provides a list of the lawful arguments acceptable for an appeal to the CSC.

The source for the CSC outcome statistics is Table 5.4 in:

https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

Now, now...don't go confusing PGP with facts. Their heads might explode.

 

[Stacyhs]

Garofano was once head of the Forensic Police. Higher up than 'Prof Dan Krane' writing a blog.

Higher up? Since Dan Krane wasn't in the Carabinieri or any police, that's a rather odd claim to make. It's like saying Capt. Smith, RAF, is 'higher up' than Capt. Jones of British Airways.

It's best to look at academic levels and training.

Luciano Garofano



INFORMAZIONI PERSONALI Garofano Luciano
http://bandicontratti.unicz.it › c-v-garofano
Laurea (degree) in biological sciences/ equivalent to Bachelor of Science
Specialization in forensic toxicology
Command of the Chemical-Biological Section of the Carabinieri Scientific Investigation Center in Rome.
Commander of the Biology Section Carabinieri Scientific Investigation Center in Rome.
Commander of the Parma RIS (Carabinieri Scientific Investigations Department)


Prof. Dan Krane: More than just a 'blog writer' :

Postdoctoral research Washington Univ. School of Medicine and Harvard Univ.
Ph.D in biochemistry from Penn State
Listed as one of the top 15 DNA experts in the world by Forensic Colleges

Interim Dean of Wright State University
Prof. of Biology Wright State Univ.
Lead author of the bestselling undergraduate textbook in the field of bioinformatics,
President of Forensic Bioinformatics, which has reviewed testing from hundreds of cases around the world every year since 2002.

It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing.

It is common sense.

Citation needed. Please stop making claims stated as fact without providing any evidence.

Speaking of...

STILL WAITING for any cited quotes that anyone has claimed "Knox wouldn't be friends with a black man". Why is that, Vix?