Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

Because they didn't want to jump to the defence tune, which was nothing more then a scam to try and create diversions and string out the trial and delay the verdict in the event that some miracle my turn up in the meantime or some judge may fall down and break their leg on the way into court or picking the kids up from school and at least delay the inevitable.

Understand (and Mary H first raised the subject) this is a clear case of fabricating evidence, the only legal way to do so, but in this case by the defence...create evidence that doesn't exist from sheer innuendo.

It was deliberately left to the end of the trial as a cynical defence tactic...why should the court play along when it was clear to any idiot exactly what it was?

If it turns out to be Rudy's semen, it's not "fabricating evidence", so you are really just making stuff up. Your "didn't jump" to the defense tune is an even weaker argument. Investigators and prosecutors out for the truth don't need reactionary motives to conduct proper and full investigations. We can choose to not excuse the defense's tactic, but that does not exonerate everyone else at all.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And it didn't block any test. The defence could have tested it themselves. They didn't, because they didn't want it to be tested.

Really? Are defense attorneys in Italy allowed to order destructive tests without the court's permission?

What is your source for this information?

 

[Fiona]

Also, there are plenty of adversarial elements within the Italian system. The defense may have obligations to hand over evidence they've discovered (this is the same in the United States too, which is one reason defense lawyers often do not write down witness statements when interviewing defense witnesses). I can't envision the scenario though where it would be the obligation of the defense to do the testing, inquisitorial system or adversarial. Either way, I still can't see an acceptable scenario where the prosecution or the investigators would not want further testing once this was found out.

Edit: The Italian system is more of a hybrid of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems.

Yes it is a hybrid system and my statement was misleading: should not add second thoughts without taking proper time to make them accurate. Sorry about that.

I certainly did not mean to imply that there was any obligation on the defence to do the testing: though I hold to the view that there is an expectation on all parties to seek truth which is not found in purely adversarial systems (I base this on Mic Mac's explanation of the system which I linked in the previous thread).

I see that you say that there may be obligations on the defence to hand over evidence they have discovered. I do not know if that is the case. If it is it may well explain why the defence never tested what they found: and I wonder if the fact that they did not test removed any obligation to hand over the material with the stain along the lines of the handling of witness statements which you refer to (assuming it had to have been in their possession if the question of testing even arose: don't know how that came about). So again I ask: did they have the material? If they did did they give it to the police? Did they ask the police or the prosecution to test it? Did they ask the judge to order it tested when they found it? Did they ask the judge to order it tested much later? Had they held on to it for some time before making it available for testing? I am sorry I do not know about this aspect but again it would be helpful to me if someone can answer these questions

 

[HumanityBlues]

I see that you say that there may be obligations on the defence to hand over evidence they have discovered. I do not know if that is the case. If it is it may well explain why the defence never tested what they found: and I wonder if the fact that they did not test removed any obligation to hand over the material with the stain along the lines of the handling of witness statements which you refer to (assuming it had to have been in their possession if the question of testing even arose: don't know how that came about). So again I ask: did they have the material? If they did did they give it to the police? Did they ask the police or the prosecution to test it? Did they ask the judge to order it tested when they found it? Did they ask the judge to order it tested much later? Had they held on to it for some time before making it available for testing? I am sorry I do not know about this aspect but again it would be helpful to me if someone can answer these questions

A quick note on how it usually works with the discovery process here. The defense wouldn't have to hand over anything unless it was specifically requested (by specific, it could fall under a broad category such as "any and all material pertaining to X"). So unless it is requested, the defense has no obligation.

I think your questions are relevant to one point in terms of legal strategy or malpractice on part of the defense. On the other hand, if it turned out to be semen, and the prosecution/investigators never discovered it, that's pretty embarrassing and sloppy looking. Who is going to look worse if they test it and it's Rudy's semen? I seriously doubt a reasonable person would answer the defense.

 

[Fiona]

A quick note on how it usually works with the discovery process here. The defense wouldn't have to hand over anything unless it was specifically requested (by specific, it could fall under a broad category such as "any and all material pertaining to X"). So unless it is requested, the defense has no obligation.

I think your questions are relevant to one point in terms of legal strategy or malpractice on part of the defense. On the other hand, if it turned out to be semen, and the prosecution/investigators never discovered it, that's pretty embarrassing and sloppy looking. Who is going to look worse if they test it and it's Rudy's semen? I seriously doubt a reasonable person would answer the defense.

You may be right: I do not know. If the police did not have a piece of equipment necessary to discovering it I do not see how they are at fault. I have no idea if that is what happened. What I do know is that if the defence had something relevant and important then there is very little to commend them if the best use they can make of such evidence is to make the police look bad: surely they could do better for their clients than that ?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, it isn't. And even Frank doesn't say so there. 'Suggests' is opinion and subjective and does not constitute a fact. How can you date a stain? How can you show it wasn't left the night before or the night before that?

You should apply your question to the stains detected with luminol.

The defense wants the pillow to be tested. The pillow should be tested. It appears that one of Rudy's shoe prints smeared semen on the pillow. This would mean that the semen was still wet when Rudy stepped in it. This would "date" the stain.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If it turns out to be Rudy's semen, it's not "fabricating evidence", so you are really just making stuff up. Your "didn't jump" to the defense tune is an even weaker argument. Investigators and prosecutors out for the truth don't need reactionary motives to conduct proper and full investigations. We can choose to not excuse the defense's tactic, but that does not exonerate everyone else at all.

So why didn't the defence find out? The fact they didn't bother illustrates my point exactly. They knew what a test would find...nothing, they didn't want it tested. It's all too obvious and transparent.

I'm still waiting for you to outline the 'truth' that may have been established and what purpose it would have served in the grand scheme of things.

You should be glad it wasn't done. You'd have no excuse to get all outraged then.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Really? Are defense attorneys in Italy allowed to order destructive tests without the court's permission?

What is your source for this information?

Rather irrelevant, since they didn't even apply for it. Instead, they opted to attempt to ambush the court. It was a stunt.

But I'm glad to see that you acknowledge DNA tests are destructive (this will come up again later )

 

[Fulcanelli]

You should apply your question to the stains detected with luminol.

The defense wants the pillow to be tested. The pillow should be tested. It appears that one of Rudy's shoe prints smeared semen on the pillow. This would mean that the semen was still wet when Rudy stepped in it. This would "date" the stain.

Was there a previous time the cottage was awash with blood that the court (and it would seem, the house mates too) weren't aware of?

If the defence want the pillow tested, then tell them to go and test it. Nothing's stopping them, just like it never was before.


I'm sorry, where do you get this Rudy 'shoe print smeared semen' stuff from? Where do you even get semen from? And no, this isn't a birds and the bees question. There is no evidence of semen in Meredith's room or on any of the evidence.

 

[HumanityBlues]

So why didn't the defence find out? The fact they didn't bother illustrates my point exactly. They knew what a test would find...nothing, they didn't want it tested. It's all too obvious and transparent.

I'm still waiting for you to outline the 'truth' that may have been established and what purpose it would have served in the grand scheme of things.

You should be glad it wasn't done. You'd have no excuse to get all outraged then.

It's not the defence's job to run the investigation. Stop while you're ahead. You're arguments are hysterical.

You put in an assumptive reason why the defense wouldn't test it and state it as fact. It's not the first time you've just completely made stuff up, which you have a great habit of doing. I gave reasons why the defense might not want to test it, even prejudicial reasons, but I certainly never stated them as fact--that's your area of expertise---making stuff up.

"I'm still waiting for you to outline the 'truth' that may have been established and what purpose it would have served in the grand scheme of things."

Why outline anything? How about investigators just do their jobs so no one has to speculate. Oh wait, nevermind, we can just be like Fulcanelli and just make stuff up.

"You should be glad it wasn't done. You'd have no excuse to get all outraged then."

I'm not outraged at all. It just further shows how sloppy the investigation was.

 

[HumanityBlues]

There is no evidence of semen in Meredith's room or on any of the evidence.

But there is evidence of semen in Meredith's room. It's not conclusive because they didn't test it, so they should probably do that (or should HAVE done it in the first place).

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm led to believe that the stains/spots on the pillowcase were indeed seen and identified by the police (Stefanoni, specifically) during the initial forensics investigation of 2nd/3rd November. This is explicitly mentioned, for example, in Barbie Latza Nadeau's "Angel Face", pp48 - but I'm fairly sure that I've read it elsewhere too.

"Angel Face" (and other sources too, I think) states that Stefanoni considered that the stains/spots might well be semen. But she decided not to swab them, since she considered that doing so might compromise the bloody footprint that was also on the pillowcase. The book states that she considered the spots might be old, and that they probably (in her view) belonged to Meredith's boyfriend - if indeed they were semen stains.

I'm wondering how accurate this version of events is. For example, was any of this captured on the police crime scene video, if it did take place during that first forensic sweep? And at what point did the defence first become aware of the stains, if it turns out that the police WERE the first to discover/identify them (and decide not to test them), as the above account suggests?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not the defence's job to run the investigation. Stop while you're ahead. You're arguments are hysterical.

You put in an assumptive reason why the defense wouldn't test it and state it as fact. It's not the first time you've just completely made stuff up, which you have a great habit of doing. I gave reasons why the defense might not want to test it, even prejudicial reasons, but I certainly never stated them as fact--that's your area of expertise---making stuff up.

"I'm still waiting for you to outline the 'truth' that may have been established and what purpose it would have served in the grand scheme of things."

Why outline anything? How about investigators just do their jobs so no one has to speculate. Oh wait, nevermind, we can just be like Fulcanelli and just make stuff up.

"You should be glad it wasn't done. You'd have no excuse to get all outraged then."

I'm not outraged at all. It just further shows how sloppy the investigation was.

It's amazing how powerful, important and fair-minded the effect of the three words "in my opinion" (or similar) can be...................

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's not the defence's job to run the investigation. Stop while you're ahead. You're arguments are hysterical.

Trust me when I tell you, the only thing getting even close to hysterics in my case is my laughter at your getting apoplectic over a Vaseline stain and even that laughter is very much controlled. On the contrary, the hysterics seem to be all coming from you.

You put in an assumptive reason why the defense wouldn't test it and state it as fact. It's not the first time you've just completely made stuff up, which you have a great habit of doing. I gave reasons why the defense might not want to test it, even prejudicial reasons, but I certainly never stated them as fact--that's your area of expertise---making stuff up.

Whatever reasons I may have offered (and you've provided no retort to dispute them), assumptive in your opinion or not, the FACT remains that the defence did NOT test it. I have asked why multiple times and you've offered no answer. And ranting about the prosecutions is not an answer to that question.

Why outline anything? How about investigators just do their jobs so no one has to speculate. Oh wait, nevermind, we can just be like Fulcanelli and just make stuff up.

Because it's a debate? Because you are making accusations and getting all outraged? That's the time when you're supposed to outline things.

I'm not outraged at all. It just further shows how sloppy the investigation was.

You're not outraged? Great. So, we can just ignore your previous ten posts expressing your outrage that you don't have then? Fantastic. I'm glad we've sorted that out.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But there is evidence of semen in Meredith's room. It's not conclusive because they didn't test it, so they should probably do that (or should HAVE done it in the first place).

There's none at all. It's evidence of Vaseline lip balm. If it isn't, tell us why it isn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's none at all. It's evidence of Vaseline lip balm. If it isn't, tell us why it isn't.

I presume therefore that the stains/spots on the pillowcase were tested and found conclusively to be Vaseline lip balm? I missed that test, obviously. And if the stains/spots HAVE been conclusively found to be Vaseline lip balm, then we can all move on from any discussion about them, since they clearly have zero potential evidential value.

But, then again, what if the stains/spots on the pillowcase HAVEN'T been conclusively proven to be Vaseline lip balm........?

 

[HumanityBlues]

More hysterics from Fulcanelli. He knows it was Vaseline based on absolutely nothing. He just made it up. They can easily test it and find out if it is semen or not. Fulcanelli just makes stuff up, and he's not even hiding it this time.

 

[Mary_H]

Dr. Gilder was part of the Bioinformatics Research Group when he attended Wright State and is still affiliated with it.
http://birg.cs.wright.edu/textbook
Here is a description of the textbook on bioinformatics coauthored by Dr. Krane and Dr. Michael Raymer, with emphasis added. Dr. Raymer and Dr. Travis Doom head up the BRG. Dr. Raymer is in the department of computer science and engineering at Wright State.

"Fundamental Concepts of Bioinformatics is the first textbook co-authored by a biologist and computer scientist that is specifically designed to make bioinformatics accessible to undergraduates and prepare them for more advanced work. Students learn what programs are available for analyzing data, how to understand the basic algorithms that underlie these programs, what bioinformatic research is like, and other basic concepts. Information flows easily from one topic to the next, with enough detail to support the major concepts without overwhelming students. Problems at the end of each chapter use real data to help students apply what they have learned so they know how to critically evaluate results from both a statistical and biological point of view."

With all the denigration of Dr. Gilder's credentials, it occurred to me to check into whether Dr. Stefanoni has comparable credentials, or any credentials at all, for that matter. I discovered that you guys have talked about this before. On page 144 of the old thread, Dan O. asked, "Speaking of class, Have you ever managed to dig up any credentials on Patrizia Stefanoni? It seems she got her BA back in 95 but I've found no record beyond that. Most "world-class" scientists are proud to display their credentials."

Does anyone know whether Dr. Stefanoni is qualified to perform DNA analysis?

 

[Fiona]

There has been no denigration of Dr Gilder's credentials.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

publication list

Does anyone know whether Dr. Stefanoni is qualified to perform DNA analysis?

I searched for publications on DNA forensics that she might have coauthored, but I did not find any. I did find a number of publications that Dr. Gilder coauthored, and I listed them upthread.