Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

three years for one or two CDs

If the prosecution, forensic examiners were negligent in providing the data files then I assume they will be sanctioned or reprimanded in some way, do you know what reason they gave for the delay?

Do you have any conclusions regarding the defence team’s strategy of submitting their own witnesses (Alessi and Aviello), do you get the impression they are working together?

CoulsdonUK,

In 2008 the prosecution in effect claimed that all of the data were already in the printed copy of the electropherograms, and that appears to be what Stefanoni claimed in her communication with Judge Hellmann. I have gone to great lengths to explain why that idea (that printed electropherograms are sufficient) is false. Three years of obstructionism is more than a "delay," IMO. It does not seem to me that you have provided an answer to my question: Without the data files in the hands of the defense, was the trial fair? That is not the same issue as whether or not anyone should be reprimanded (which your comment addresses only in a conditional manner).

 

[spartacus]

CoulsdonUK,

In 2008 the prosecution in effect claimed that all of the data were already in the printed copy of the electropherograms, and that appears to be what Stefanoni claimed in her communication with Judge Hellmann. I have gone to great lengths to explain why that idea (that printed electropherograms are sufficient) is false. Three years of obstructionism is more than a "delay," IMO. It does not seem to me that you have provided an answer to my question: Without the data files in the hands of the defense, was the trial fair? That is not the same issue as whether or not anyone should be reprimanded (which your comment addresses only in a conditional manner).

I'll answer for him. No, the trial was not fair. What I want to know is did the judge follow up on the request from the defense for all of the data and tell Stefanoni to produce it, and if he did, why did he allow the trial to come to an end without it? I think we then have to implicate Massei in this collusion to gloss over the problems with the DNA evidence.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

In 2008 the prosecution in effect claimed that all of the data were already in the printed copy of the electropherograms, and that appears to be what Stefanoni claimed in her communication with Judge Hellmann. I have gone to great lengths to explain why that idea (that printed electropherograms are sufficient) is false. Three years of obstructionism is more than a "delay," IMO. It does not seem to me that you have provided an answer to my question: Without the data files in the hands of the defense, was the trial fair? That is not the same issue as whether or not anyone should be reprimanded (which your comment addresses only in a conditional manner).

I don’t know whether this particular item determines whether the trial was fair or not. What has been the ruling of the judge? Does he have the authority to sanction whoever is responsible? In addition, like you if I choose to answer a question I’ll do so in the manner of my choosing.

 

[Diocletus]

CoulsdonUK,

In 2008 the prosecution in effect claimed that all of the data were already in the printed copy of the electropherograms, and that appears to be what Stefanoni claimed in her communication with Judge Hellmann. I have gone to great lengths to explain why that idea (that printed electropherograms are sufficient) is false. Three years of obstructionism is more than a "delay," IMO. It does not seem to me that you have provided an answer to my question: Without the data files in the hands of the defense, was the trial fair? That is not the same issue as whether or not anyone should be reprimanded (which your comment addresses only in a conditional manner).

1. The raw data was not produced to the defense during the initial trial, and the defendants were convicted in part based upon the knife/clasp DNA results.

2. The raw data was necessary to the defense's ability to examine the knife/clasp raw data. We know this because the independent experts requested the raw data, the appellate judge ordered the government to turn the data over, and then the experts requested an extension of their report deadline in order to allow them to examine the raw data. Clearly, therefore, the independent experts consider this evidence to be quite important to their efforts to examine the validity of the original DNA testing.

3. We do not yet know whether examination of the raw data will lead to a refutation, in some degree, of the knife/clasp DNA evidence. If it does, which certainly is a possibility, then the underlying trial was unfair as the defendants were denied access to information that was material to their ability to defend themselves, and the prosecution maintained sole custody and knowledge of this exculpatory evidence. This would be a very serious fairness violation.

4. I have said before, that Stefanoni's letter to Hellmann appears to be her effort to justify why the raw data was never produced before. If questioned, she would perhaps just point the finger at Massei, and say that he permitted the nondisclosure. Knowing how this case has gone, I will not hold my breath for anyone ever to be called to task for this issue.

5. There is also some obfuscation that I detect in Stefanoni's letter--e.g., claiming that the independent experts have not identified the right files to produce, even though Stefanoni is the one who has knowledge of her naming and file conventions and holdings. This obfuscation, coupled with the delay, makes me wonder whether all of the raw data has really been produced and produced accurately. Possibly we will never know the answer to this.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

1. The raw data was not produced to the defense during the initial trial, and the defendants were convicted in part based upon the knife/clasp DNA results.

2. The raw data was necessary to the defense's ability to examine the knife/clasp raw data. We know this because the independent experts requested the raw data, the appellate judge ordered the government to turn the data over, and then the experts requested an extension of their report deadline in order to allow them to examine the raw data. Clearly, therefore, the independent experts consider this evidence to be quite important to their efforts to examine the validity of the original DNA testing.

3. We do not yet know whether examination of the raw data will lead to a refutation, in some degree, of the knife/clasp DNA evidence. If it does, which certainly is a possibility, then the underlying trial was unfair as the defendants were denied access to information that was material to their ability to defend themselves, and the prosecution maintained sole custody and knowledge of this exculpatory evidence. This would be a very serious fairness violation.

4. I have said before, that Stefanoni's letter to Hellmann appears to be her effort to justify why the raw data was never produced before. If questioned, she would perhaps just point the finger at Massei, and say that he permitted the nondisclosure. Knowing how this case has gone, I will not hold my breath for anyone ever to be called to task for this issue.

5. There is also some obfuscation that I detect in Stefanoni's letter--e.g., claiming that the independent experts have not identified the right files to produce, even though Stefanoni is the one who has knowledge of her naming and file conventions and holdings. This obfuscation, coupled with the delay, makes me wonder whether all of the raw data has really been produced and produced accurately. Possibly we will never know the answer to this.

Clearly the court appointed experts are being thorough. I found paragraph 3 particularly salient, none of us actually know what will be in the report or it’s conclusions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the defense teams

Do you have any conclusions regarding the defence team’s strategy of submitting their own witnesses (Alessi and Aviello), do you get the impression they are working together?

CoulsdonUK,

Do you mean are Alessi and Aviello working together, or are the defense teams working together?

 

[Diocletus]

I think that the defense was also entitled to be thorough, and this was denied in the first trial. Again, if the raw data can be used to undermine the DNA results then we have a very serious fairness violation.

We will all know fairly soon.

 

[shuttlt]

She was a policewoman, and her first duty was to the police force, and not Amanda well being.

In the sense that she worked full time for the police department, had a police uniform, powers of arrest and so forth?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

discovery

3. We do not yet know whether examination of the raw data will lead to a refutation, in some degree, of the knife/clasp DNA evidence. If it does, which certainly is a possibility, then the underlying trial was unfair as the defendants were denied access to information that was material to their ability to defend themselves, and the prosecution maintained sole custody and knowledge of this exculpatory evidence. This would be a very serious fairness violation.

Diocletus,

I agree with most of your thoughtful comment but not with 3. Whether or not the trial of first instance were fair is not predicated upon what the independent experts conclude. The defense had expert witnesses and consultants in the trial of the first instance, and they were denied this information. Had it been in their possession, their subsequent testimony could conceivably have been enough to sway the jury to a different conclusion. The defendants' right to see and to challenge the evidence against them was violated in this case. I would argue that the defense should still get to see the data and offer its own conclusions. As an anonymous DNA expert unconnected to this case wrote, "Honest differences of opinion by qualified experts should be welcomed by the Court. This can only be accomplished if the independent expert is provided full and complete discovery by the government."

 

[shuttlt]

There is a problem in Italy with interpreters.



http://www.eulita.eu/sites/default/files/Interpreters in the legal process in Italy.pdf

It seems to me you're saying that there is no such thing as an official interpreter in Italy. Is this the case? In which case presumably Amanda would have had a non-official interpreter pretty much where ever she went in Italy, were she to be arrested?

Personally I would call someone an "official interpreter" if the state regarded them as such. To me, calling her a non-official interpreter implies that there is some position called an interpreter whose function she is fulfulling without the proper authority/approval/permission/mandate/whatever.

 

[quadraginta]

I'd swear you'd been around for these discussions before. Oh well, we all know how human memory is fallible.

My memory is fine. Your grasp of the point I was making is deficient, though.

Unless you were intentionally misdirecting the subject, but we can be confident that you wouldn't stoop to such tactics. Right?

Wasn't the idea raised before that potentially Meredith could have heard him as he went for the front door and come out to confront him? This would also fit with Rudy's claim to have struggled with the "real killer" outside Meredith's room, which could well have been an attempt on his part to explain traces he thought he might have left in such a struggle with Meredith.

I was pointing out that the front door and the the window in Filomena's room were not the only available means of egress (and by comparison to a broken window not even necessarily the best.)

Nothing more. All the "could have" and "could well have" and "might have" you want to conjecture about are utterly irrelevant to that.

But do carry on. It's entertaining, if not enlightening.

 

[Chris C]

...or the doors to the balcony.

Of course, he probably never noticed them while he was casing the joint, or partying with the dudes downstairs.

Oh, wait. The house is surrounded by impenetrable forest. I forgot.

Never mind.

How many broken windows should there be in a break in?

 

[quadraginta]

I think we can exclude balcony doors if we consider Guede tried to leave the premise quietly and unnoticed by Meredith. The terrace door was very close to Meredith's room.

Sure. "If we consider ...". What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?

It's also quite possible that he just decided to attack her as soon as he realized she is alone.

Sure. "It's also quite possible ...". What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?

I remember someone proposing a diffrent, yet quite possible scenario:
Guede realized the door is locked only after the murder, when he tried to get out. Only then he walked back to her room, took the keys and locked the door, then left. It's compatible with the shoeprints that get fainter in the direction of the door, enough that when he walked back he left no traces. Shoeprints indicate that Guede loitered in the kitchen for a moment.

Sure. There are other "possible" scenarios. What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?

You and Kevin seem to be on the same page here. Too bad it's a page in some other book.

 

[shuttlt]

Shutit
Give you your due, you are very clever at English, and string words, which I wish I could do, but I cannot.
I do wish, that like you and london john I could do the above, but I can't.
that is a fact of life to me, and it will not change.
All you do is keep turning the facts into friction, but adding nothing that is of vaule to this log.
Why is that?

I don't want to pick holes in anybody elses English. If your English is poor, it's a pity. My French is dreadful, my Italian worse and my knowledge of every other language more limited still. I'm asking questions to establish what people mean. It isn't always clear to me. I've knocked a few posts back and forth now and I'm still not absolutely sure what people are driving at by calling her an unofficial interpreter. Perhaps nothing in particular is meant and the phrase is essentially plucked from elsewhere and it has lost its original context?

You're free to use whatever choice of words you like. Some of them may confuse people. I read the original "non official interpreter" quote to mean that their was something particularly dubious about her - the police thought she was properly trained, but she wasn't, say, and hence was inelligable to perform the function of interpreter in an interrogation in Italy. If I know what you mean and you want to use these words, go ahead.

 

[quadraginta]

How many broken windows should there be in a break in?

I'm thinking about the same number as in a staged break-in.

Maybe even one less under the right circumstances, but that isn't germane to this discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to me you're saying that there is no such thing as an official interpreter in Italy. Is this the case? In which case presumably Amanda would have had a non-official interpreter pretty much where ever she went in Italy, were she to be arrested?

Personally I would call someone an "official interpreter" if the state regarded them as such. To me, calling her a non-official interpreter implies that there is some position called an interpreter whose function she is fulfulling without the proper authority/approval/permission/mandate/whatever.

I believe it to be almost certain that the interpreter in question, Anna Donnino, is/was not a police officer. She is/was an independent contractor who is/was employed on a freelance basis by the Perugia police whenever they needed Italian/English interpreters.

Beyond that, I would make a couple of salient points:

1) I would imagine that Donnino gets/got quite a bit of work from the Perugia police. It would be very interesting to know just how many times she has been employed by them since, say, 2004, and how much she has been paid by them over that time. I would also imagine that she has developed professional relationships with quite a few of the detectives working in the Perugia police HQ. So, even if she's not a member of the police force herself, one might argue that she has a vested interest in defending police actions in the allegations against Knox.

2) Donnino clearly overstepped the boundary between being an interpreter and being an interrogator when she (by her own admission in court testimony) tried to "help" Knox along with her "repressed memory". Donnino's actions should have been clearly limited to translating the police officers' questions and statements from Italian to English, and Knox's answers/statements from English to Italian. Nothing more than that. If the case ever gets as far as the Supreme Court (which I severely doubt), I think that the role played by Donnino in the proceedings would form an interesting point of discussion.

 

[spartacus]

I don't want to pick holes in anybody elses English. If your English is poor, it's a pity. My French is dreadful, my Italian worse and my knowledge of every other language more limited still. I'm asking questions to establish what people mean. It isn't always clear to me. I've knocked a few posts back and forth now and I'm still not absolutely sure what people are driving at by calling her an unofficial interpreter. Perhaps nothing in particular is meant and the phrase is essentially plucked from elsewhere and it has lost its original context?

You're free to use whatever choice of words you like. Some of them may confuse people. I read the original "non official interpreter" quote to mean that their was something particularly dubious about her - the police thought she was properly trained, but she wasn't, say, and hence was inelligable to perform the function of interpreter in an interrogation in Italy. If I know what you mean and you want to use these words, go ahead.

Let me clarify this. One of the earliest complaints about the case is that there was no official interpreter. The prosecution countered that there was an official interpreter. In court the person testified that she saw her role as a mediator. She also testified that she did things, like encouraging memory with helpful little stories about her traumatic amnesia related to breaking her ankle, which showed she was not acting as a translator (i.e. sticking to translating independently as opposed to working on behalf of the police).

Now Rose shows us a study showing that there is no offical registration for translators, the difference between mediators and translators is not well defined, and that if you are arrested there, good luck.

I hate to say it but this is another deficiency that is crying out for reform.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quite interesting new commentary:
MSNBC Today (video)

Who is this Tacopina guy?

ETA:
Looks like some high profile TV lawyer..

Nick Pisa also in the video: "...house of cards that it was built on is slowly collapsing. Looks like it will collapse in a spectacular fashion" who would guess?

Joe Tacopina is a prominent New York criminal defence attorney, who has been acting as a consultant to Knox's defence team for a couple of years.

And Pisa's remarks only go to show what a hack he is, in my view. He hasn't employed a shred of investigative journalistic endeavour to this case: he parroted the Mignini line when Mignini and his cronies were the ones doling out the juicy information, and he seemingly never stopped to question the validity of the prosecution's case at that time. In addition, he's a freelancer, so his main interest is writing provocative stories that will be picked up by UK media, and for which he will therefore get paid. The interesting point about Pisa's apparent conversion is that, one by one, those journalists who sucked up to the prosecutor's office seem to be coming to their senses.

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus,

I agree with most of your thoughtful comment but not with 3. Whether or not the trial of first instance were fair is not predicated upon what the independent experts conclude. The defense had expert witnesses and consultants in the trial of the first instance, and they were denied this information. Had it been in their possession, their subsequent testimony could conceivably have been enough to sway the jury to a different conclusion. The defendants' right to see and to challenge the evidence against them was violated in this case. I would argue that the defense should still get to see the data and offer its own conclusions. As an anonymous DNA expert unconnected to this case wrote, "Honest differences of opinion by qualified experts should be welcomed by the Court. This can only be accomplished if the independent expert is provided full and complete discovery by the government."

What I was getting at is that if the indepenent experts conclude that the raw data is totally useless for undermining the DNA reports, then we have a harmless error that would not sustain a reversal of the conviction. You raise a good point, though, which is that in any event the defense experts are the ones that should have had access to this data and the ability to assess its materiality to the defense.

It will be interesting to see whether the defense is now afforded access to what the independent experts have received, and whether the defense ultimately will come to the same conclusion as the independent experts about the data. If the defense experts have not received the raw data, then we have the fascinating possibility that both the prosecution AND the indepenent experts now have access to the raw data, yet the defense still does not.

In any event, I'm thinking that the indepenent experts will find the raw data to have significance. Otherwise, I think that we would have seen this data a long time ago.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure. "If we consider ...". What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?




Sure. "It's also quite possible ...". What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?




Sure. There are other "possible" scenarios. What has that got to do with the fact that there was a patio door, and it was a potential exit?

You and Kevin seem to be on the same page here. Too bad it's a page in some other book.

The point is not that the patio door was or was not a potential means of exit for Guede - of course it was. The point is that it's entirely reasonable to construct a scenario wherein Guede did not exit the house via the patio door, and instead confronted and murdered Meredith (and very possibly raped her as well), before taking her keys and leaving via the front door.

I would also point out that even if the front door had been conventional (in the sense that it could be opened from the inside without the need for a key), it's still reasonable to construct a scenario in which Guede decides not to leave straight away, but to force himself on a girl whom he finds sexually attractive and who is alone with him in the cottage.