Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Wildhorses]

I do have one question about the DNA testing.

I thought Sollecito's defense team sent observers to view the testing. Am I mistaken? If not, why didn't the observers note that Stefanoni failed to run positive and negative controls?

 

[RoseMontague]

Not over yet, although it should be.

 

[Kaosium]

Also, Hellmann opened the session by reading out a letter sent to him from the head of the anticrime section of the Scientific Police, defending the work of the police and calling C&V's report "harmful" to the police image.

I think it's the police work that's harmful to the police image, not C & V's report.

I wonder if that letter resembled this quote in any way?

"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

 

[katy_did]

I got a chance to catch up with your translation of the report, and I wish I had done it earlier as I would have found this, which should be making my posting experience a whole lot less excruciating. If I never have to see the names Tobe, Creamer, or Quickenden again I may die a happy man!

I sympathize, after finishing that section I never wanted to read another word about "monoclonal anti-human haemoglobin antibodies" either.

I still have to post the last parts of the knife section (I took the knife, komponisto the bra clasp. Sounds like some kind of Cluedo scenario) so that section won't read straight through yet.

 

[RoseMontague]

Update

Currently (11:30 a.m. Perugia time) Prosecutor Manuela Comodi is challenging the forensics experts by questioning their experience. However, Judge Hellmann told her to stick to the report, and not to other cases in the forensics experts' past.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/30/news/final-hearing-amanda-knox-has-begun-her-appeal-le

 

[Antony]

So it's over, eh?

Whew! I'm truly happen for Amanda, Raffaele, and their families.

I've lurked here since Part 1. I foreswore signing up for a JREF account (or any other forum) because reading about the case was time-consuming: I couldn't afford to get hooked on posting. Nevertheless, the C&V hearing was too exciting to sit through alone, so I succumbed (hoping I could post that night).

Thanks ALL for your informative, entertaining, and often passionate posts. I feel like I know most of you. Sure hope I'm not the only devoted long-term lurker... that'd make me too weird.

I did not think the appeal would end this soon. I feared it would devolve into lengthy face-savings rituals. Half the number of appeals end in acquittal, but I wonder how many acquittals involve the case falling apart once the ineptitude and irrational zealotry of the prosecution/police is revealed.

I followed the case out of interest in its psychological and cultural aspects; but y'all sure taught me a lot about the forensic evidence.

What? I didn't hear the fat lady singing, if that's what's happened. AFAIAC, it won't be over until there's a proper inquiry into how the Perugia police and courts got so out of control, and reforms implemented to correct all the weaknesses. Then there are all the side proceedings instigated by the prosecution in order to intimidate the defence and their supporters, to be resolved.

Lest we forget, there's also the Sarah Scazzi/Sabrina Masseri case. If links can be made between police behaviour in Perugia, and police behaviour in the other case, then that can only be a good thing.

 

[Antony]

I wonder if that letter resembled this quote in any way?

"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

A good point! I can't help wondering if everybody here knows the reference, though.

 

[Wildhorses]

What? I didn't hear the fat lady singing, if that's what's happened. AFAIAC, it won't be over until there's a proper inquiry into how the Perugia police and courts got so out of control, and reforms implemented to correct all the weaknesses. Then there are all the side proceedings instigated by the prosecution in order to intimidate the defence and their supporters, to be resolved.

Lest we forget, there's also the Sarah Scazzi/Sabrina Masseri case. If links can be made between police behaviour in Perugia, and police behaviour in the other case, then that can only be a good thing.

I was speaking figuratively... and I believe Bruce Fisher used the phrase "it's over." However it's said, it's great news.

I hope there's inquiry and reforms, but first things first: Get those kids out of jail.

 

[Diocletus]

Judge Hellmann told her to stick to the report, and not to other cases in the forensics experts' past.

That's proof positive that Hellmann is using a short leash. The reason he is doing so, is that he doesn't want the experts to get too dinged up because Hellmann is going to base his decision on what they have said. Very good.

 

[snook1]

That's proof positive that Hellmann is using a short leash. The reason he is doing so, is that he doesn't want the experts to get too dinged up because Hellmann is going to base his decision on what they have said. Very good.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[Diocletus]

This letter that Piero Angeloni, chief polizia scientifica wrote . . . One reading of what is reported is that the letter could be or the purposes of distancing/protecting Angeloni from the taint of Stefanoni. Angeloni could be saying "MY force is great . . . if something happened with this Stefanoni, then it's an aberration and not MY fault." This makes sense to me, because he can't be defending what was done here. In essence, he's asking Hellmann not to pin this on the police, but rather to limit the damage to Stef. He's pointing out all the other cases that the police handle and saying that they will be thrown into chaos if there is a broad indictment of the police.

Hats off to C&V. They have shown real courage and conviction by standing up to "the establishment."

 

[komponisto]

To the best of my knowledge, the CNN report that Stefanoni will be testifying today is false.

I stand ready to be surprised, of course; but note that all sources saying this can be traced to the CNN article.

 

[snook1]

To the best of my knowledge, the CNN report that Stefanoni will be testifying today is false.

I stand ready to be surprised, of course; but note that all sources saying this can be traced to the CNN article.

I would actually like to see Stefanoni taking the stand in this no win case for her. I would love to see her being ripped by the defense lawyers, I would love to see her explaining herself from the terrible mistakes she made, incl the mop party!

But, I guess, that's not gonna happen. I'm just gonna have to go with seeing Amanda and Raffaele walking next month. That's what I really gona love.

 

[RoseMontague]

To the best of my knowledge, the CNN report that Stefanoni will be testifying today is false.

I stand ready to be surprised, of course; but note that all sources saying this can be traced to the CNN article.

It has changed several times as has the schedule and will probably change again with today's hearing. Very confusing.

 

[katy_did]

A good point! I can't help wondering if everybody here knows the reference, though.

I didn't know the quote but found it through Google. Still struggling to understand the logic, though: the charges can't be investigated because if found to be true, it would mean the confessions were involuntary and the convictions might be overturned. So it's best we don't investigate them at all!

 

[RoseMontague]

I do have one question about the DNA testing.

I thought Sollecito's defense team sent observers to view the testing. Am I mistaken? If not, why didn't the observers note that Stefanoni failed to run positive and negative controls?

I don't think the defense experts were present for the initial testing on the knife (IIRC the report indicates that Stefi went back at a different date and tested some more), a stand-in was appointed and all OK of course. For the bra clasp the experts have said that control samples should have been taken from the dust on the floor, I will have to check on what it says about positive and negative controls or maybe katy_did can answer that one.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First reports: "the knife wasn't subject to careful washing, otherwise starch would not have been present...starch was present, but certainly not DNA" - Carla Vecchiotti, to a question from Ghirga.

There seems to be an odd sort of silence as these revelations sink in amongst the guilters.

They've been defending Stefanoni, the bra clasp and the knife against exactly these criticisms from us for literally years now. Now the independent experts have not only backed us up on every single point but also unearthed all sorts of new and additional dirt.

They don't seem to know what to make of the news that the knife was not thoroughly washed and has starch on it, meaning it was never covered in Meredith Kercher's blood, meaning it was never the murder weapon. It's been a staple of their fantasy life for so long and now it's gone.

They've also been adamant that the appeals would fail, and with the news that Helmann is wrapping the party up with unprecedented speed immediately after the two issues he wanted to review have been reviewed with devastating results for the prosecution that's looking highly improbable. The guilters don't seem to know what to make of that either.

Even the tireless Michael/Fulcanelli seems to have lost the will to spin... maybe knowing that it's all going to be over in a month or two has sapped his motivation to spruik.

 

[RoseMontague]

AP is reporting that at a request from the prosecution, Stefi will be allowed to take the stand.

A police forensic expert who conducted the original investigation in the Amanda Knox case will testify at the appeals murder trial of the American student.

The appeals court on Saturday allowed Patrizia Stefanoni to take the stand, granting a prosecutors' request.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015772599_apeuitalyknox.html

 

[katy_did]

I don't think the defense experts were present for the initial testing on the knife (IIRC the report indicates that Stefi went back at a different date and tested some more), a stand-in was appointed and all OK of course. For the bra clasp the experts have said that control samples should have been taken from the dust on the floor, I will have to check on what it says about positive and negative controls or maybe katy_did can answer that one.

Well, they say that the positive/negative controls weren't done, or at least there's no evidence in the documentation that they were done.

Some interesting posts about the issue on PMF here and here. It sounds as if the negative controls should have been automatically recorded by the machine?

 

[Antony]

I didn't know the quote but found it through Google.

Google is indeed a wonderful invention.

Still struggling to understand the logic, though: the charges can't be investigated because if found to be true, it would mean the confessions were involuntary and the convictions might be overturned. So it's best we don't investigate them at all!

One of the ironies of this debate is that pro-innocence posters get accused of caring more about Amanda and Raffaele than about other victims of, arguably worse, miscarriages of justice. Of course that's a ridiculous view. One injustice exposed is a battle won in the fight for all victims of mistrials.

The Birmingham Six case, along with the Guildford Four, involved 9 men and 1 woman who were wrongly imprisoned for 15 years. The real culprits were never brought to justice - although a gang of terrorists, known as the Balcombe Street Gang, later on trial for other bombings, claimed responsibility for the Guildford bombing and made a statement about innocent people being in prison instead.