Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Halides,

thanks old chap.

 

[RoseMontague]

shuttit,

Here is a human translation of a portion of this passage:

“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:
- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;
- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).
In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”

And per the court order that resulted from this the defense got a big pile of unnumbered pages which included the too low information as well as the fact that all of the luminol footprints were give a second presumptive test for blood using TMB and all tested negative for blood. The defense stated that they still did not have all the data and also asked for a dismissal. That request was denied and the court ruled that what they had would have to be enough. These very important pieces of information all came with just a few months left in the trial and some of the evidence like the TMB tests contradicted earlier testimony and reports that no additional testing for blood was done.

 

[Withnail1969]

And per the court order that resulted from this the defense got a big pile of unnumbered pages which included the too low information as well as the fact that all of the luminol footprints were give a second presumptive test for blood using TMB and all tested negative for blood. The defense stated that they still did not have all the data and also asked for a dismissal. That request was denied and the court ruled that what they had would have to be enough. These very important pieces of information all came with just a few months left in the trial and some of the evidence like the TMB tests contradicted earlier testimony and reports that no additional testing for blood was done.

Was any request made by the defense during the entire trial granted?

 

[RoseMontague]

Was any request made by the defense during the entire trial granted?

A few in addition to the one already mentioned. For example, after they asked Quintavalle about the TV interview and he stated they were trying to film him secretly and he shooed them away, they were granted a request to show the TV interview in court, contradicting his testimony. That is missing from the Massei report from what I remember.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by halides1
shuttit,

Here is a human translation of a portion of this passage:

“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:
- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;
- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).
In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”

And per the court order that resulted from this the defense got a big pile of unnumbered pages which included the too low information as well as the fact that all of the luminol footprints were give a second presumptive test for blood using TMB and all tested negative for blood. The defense stated that they still did not have all the data and also asked for a dismissal. That request was denied and the court ruled that what they had would have to be enough. These very important pieces of information all came with just a few months left in the trial and some of the evidence like the TMB tests contradicted earlier testimony and reports that no additional testing for blood was done.

I thought this sounded familiar.

So basically the court initially ruled in the defences' favour - they go a bunch of extra stuff, weren't happy (as it added little or nothing to their case) and the court ruled 'Sod off - you've had your lot'.

And now the defence want to make the same claims on appeal [naturally ?] - and we have to wait & see what the appeal court rules and whether its a substantive issue or just more legal maneuvering.

Without the fully translated docs [to see how much emphasis is placed on this] and somebody with a working knowledge* of Italian Law - there we have it it seems.

* Beyond She was railroaded - they are all corrupt foreigners.

.

 

[christianahannah]

And per the court order that resulted from this the defense got a big pile of unnumbered pages which included the too low information as well as the fact that all of the luminol footprints were give a second presumptive test for blood using TMB and all tested negative for blood. The defense stated that they still did not have all the data and also asked for a dismissal. That request was denied and the court ruled that what they had would have to be enough. These very important pieces of information all came with just a few months left in the trial and some of the evidence like the TMB tests contradicted earlier testimony and reports that no additional testing for blood was done.

Here is the motivations summary of the event which created the court order:

Page 245:

Following questions relating to the amount of DNA (such as "if we have 1.4 nanograms of DNA will the amplification turns out well?" page 99) the defendants’ defence called for the elements relating to the laboratory analyses as well as the records of laboratory activities to be made available.

The Public Prosecutor pointed out that all the tests had been carried out under Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a lawyer or a consultant for the defence was always present at every stage of these tests and no objection and/or request had been put forward in those stages. The quantification was also performed during these activities carried out in the laboratory. The Defence emphasised their demand to have it made available ("we want it, we want it", page 108) and requested that the proceedings should be suspended immediately in order to acquire the necessary [information], otherwise reserving the plea of invalidity because the
proceedings whose existence they had been informed of today had not been
deposited in the prescribed manner (page 110). Amanda Knox’s defence also insisted that the documentation should be acquired, with a reservation to also review the conclusions of their own consultants (page 111). The Public Prosecutor declared that he did not oppose the defences’ requests, but specified that it was not a case of documents, but of data that normally are not recorded in the report.

The Court ordered the suspension and acquisition, setting a reasonable time limit, both for lodging "the document" and for continuing with Professor Tagliabracci’s testimony.

Did the prosecution provide (before the court order) what was required by law to the defense? The extra information which the defense had/has asked for - is this always automatically turned over to defense attorneys on all cases or only when asked?

 

[Withnail1969]

A few in addition to the one already mentioned. For example, after they asked Quintavalle about the TV interview and he stated they were trying to film him secretly and he shooed them away, they were granted a request to show the TV interview in court, contradicting his testimony. That is missing from the Massei report from what I remember.

I see. Isn't the usual legal convention that if a witness is shown to be telling outrageous lies that they aren't credible?

I must have missed the part when I studied for my law degree whereby you just ignore the parts you don't like.

 

[RWVBWL]

And per the court order that resulted from this the defense got a big pile of unnumbered pages which included the too low information as well as the fact that all of the luminol footprints were give a second presumptive test for blood using TMB and all tested negative for blood. The defense stated that they still did not have all the data and also asked for a dismissal. That request was denied and the court ruled that what they had would have to be enough. These very important pieces of information all came with just a few months left in the trial and some of the evidence like the TMB tests contradicted earlier testimony and reports that no additional testing for blood was done.

Hi RoseMontague and others,
So, let me get this straight.
The investigators tested something, which did not help their case.
They did not share the unfavorable results with the defense,
and then lied about it too on the witness stand?

Now I am just a simple guy, but I wonder:
How can you believe what else that person did+would further state in court, while under oath?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the motivations summary of the event which created the court order:

Page 245:



Did the prosecution provide (before the court order) what was required by law to the defense? The extra information which the defense had/has asked for - is this always automatically turned over to defense attorneys on all cases or only when asked?

According to the quote from halides1, they were in violation. The defense fought for discovery throughout the entire process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

assail, assail all over the town

I thought this sounded familiar.

So basically the court initially ruled in the defences' favour - they go a bunch of extra stuff, weren't happy (as it added little or nothing to their case) and the court ruled 'Sod off - you've had your lot'.

And now the defence want to make the same claims on appeal [naturally ?] - and we have to wait & see what the appeal court rules and whether its a substantive issue or just more legal maneuvering.

platonov,

Again from Raffaele’s appeal (machine-translated):

"- To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks."

The defense got nothing “extra.” They got unnumbered pages and no copies of the electronic data files. Too little, too late. Releasing the electronic data files is so commonplace that some forensic companies provide a document on their websites, and the clients just fill in the blanks in many instances.

Frank Sfarzo wrote of Biondo's pre-trial appearance before the court in 2008, “He [Biondo] defined the scientific data absolutely certain and the prosecutor's theory 'unassailable'.” When one does not allow the defense to challenge it properly, any evidence is unassailable.

 

[Onofarar]

I thought this sounded familiar.

So basically the court initially ruled in the defences' favour - they go a bunch of extra stuff, weren't happy (as it added little or nothing to their case) and the court ruled 'Sod off - you've had your lot'.

.

Really??
Let me see ... That's right ALL they got was the "too low" lab notes, the TMB testing that revealed zero blood in the luminol footprints (and I am not sure they knew the RFU values for the alleles before this - which at 50 RFU were way below the standard of 100.) [Just for starters]
In a unbiased common law trial the above alone should be enough to either get the "evidence" thrown out followed by (a) a successful defense motion to have the charges dismissed (with prejudice in my opinion) or (b) a directed instruction for acquittal on the murder charges by the judge to the jury - leaving the other charges (slander, damages, etc.) to be determined in the jury room. In Italy's civil law environment it should have been sufficent grounds to reach a "not guilty" verdict due to reasonable doubt about the probative value of the "evidence" previously introduced related to these belated disclosures.
BTW - do I have your permission to send your postings to Conan O'Brien?
And you might want to check your GPS reading for your current location - I am not sure it is still in this solar sytem - it certainly isn't on this planet.
Then again in an alternate reality .... hmm..

 

[platonov]

platonov,

Again from Raffaele’s appeal (machine-translated):

- To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks.

The defense got nothing “extra.” They got unnumbered pages and no copies of the electronic data files. Too little, too late. Releasing the electronic data files is so commonplace that some forensic companies provide a document on their websites, and the clients just fill in the blanks in many instances.

Frank Sfarzo wrote of Biondo in 2008, “He defined the scientific data absolutely certain and the prosecutor's theory 'unassailable'.” When one does not allow the defense to challenge it properly, any evidence is unassailable.

halides1

I don't see how this adds to my 'summary' above.
The Defence had the experts & money to throw at contesting aspects of the forensics and it didn't work first time. They are trying again.

PS Quoting Frank S is hardly likely to sway the court or the neutral observer.

.

 

[Onofarar]

Quick OT - With the Christmas season upon us everyone here might enjoy the following on You Tube (even the non-believers) www.youtube.com/user/AlphabetPhotography

 

[TomCH]

No it isn't. It's made up of lies and misinformation. The ludicrous and untested claim that Nara Cappezalli, a senior citizen, could hear leaves rustling and in which direction people were running 300 metres away on a windy night through double glazing is just one of those lies. It's a physical impossibility, which was why the kangaroo court refused independent testing.

Nonsense.

I guarantee that I can hear such, but of course people pay me well because I can hear better than most people.

 

[TomCH]

But the appeal court is just the same bunch of Perugia yokels.

Better 'Perugia yokels' than 'local yokels'.

 

[TomCH]

I must have missed the part when I studied for my law degree whereby you just ignore the parts you don't like.

And did you pass?

 

[Withnail1969]

..

 

[platonov]

Really??
Let me see .....

<snip>

The part of my quoted post you snipped deals adequately with your response.

.

 

[Withnail1969]

And did you pass?

I achieved a 2:1 from one of the top 10 universities in the world. I can't say any more for fear of being stalked by PMF psychopaths.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lack of electronic data files

halides1

I don't see how this adds to my 'summary' above.
The Defence had the experts & money to throw at contesting aspects of the forensics and it didn't work first time. They are trying again.

PS Quoting Frank S is hardly likely to sway the court or the neutral observer.

.

platonov,

I am citing Frank Sfarzo as a reporter, not as an expert in DNA. Once you begin to cite evidence on a regular basis, you will have a clearer picture of how this works. The defense did not have the electronic data files, lab protocols, or contamination logs (if they exist). When the testing involves low levels of DNA or DNA mixtures, this is an unconscionable breach of the principle of discovery. Try using my username and the search term "Krane" in the advanced search function to see why.