Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

akak

Hilarious. Do you want my name and address to add to this defamation list? The delusion of some who post in the main AK thread is a sight to behold.

We'll see what happens once the truth becomes official. It's already the case that the pro-innocent side has been vindicated by the Conti-Vechiotti report. Why do you think PMF is accusing C&V of being influenced by FOAK?

 

[Wildhorses]

This is an interesting argument put forward by Comodi (comfortable Google translation-LOL)
In response to prosecutor, an expert explained that "6 days are enough to avoid contamination" in the laboratory.

With all due respect, I have never had the impression that Stefanoni knows what contamination is.

It is probably a translation problem. Or something like that. I've just never seen a quote by her about contamination that made any sense.

 

[RoseMontague]

With all due respect, I have never had the impression that Stefanoni knows what contamination is.

It is probably a translation problem. Or something like that. I've just never seen a quote by her about contamination that made any sense.

To me it would only make a difference if that same machine were used to test other DNA from other cases during that 6 day period and then cleaned. Each cleaning would lower the chances of Meredith's DNA showing back up. If the machine was simply not used during that time it would make no difference. Also I am not sure what date of testing was discussed as the report indicates 2 different dates.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes, the decision itself can be seen as a win for the prosecution but her actual testimony could end up helping the defense case even further. The question I have is some of these reports said she was taking the stand today, but that is the part I doubt.

I'd bet on Monday.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Cop Defends DNA Evidence
Piero Angeloni, head of the Italian Police Scientific Unit:

We use state of the art equipment and techniques. The staff are all highly qualified, university educated with degrees

Apparently they are educated in the state of art techniques of gift wrapping evidence and passing it around from dirty hand to dirty hand. There are gaps in the education about changing gloves and shoecovers, though.

 

[Wildhorses]

Will there be a Monday?

Here's a tweet from Doug Bremner:
Amanda Knox : Judge Hellmann to allow Patrizia Stefanoni to take the stand. This will be last hearing before closing arguments

39 minutes ago

I read that as saying today's the last hearing. Could be wrong, in which case she's taking the stand Monday.

 

[Antony]

I think it is far more likely that people libeling the authorities will face prosecution than those saying anything about the accused.

That's true as things stand, but it doesn't mean anything other than that prosecution in this case has set out to intimidate those saying things they don't like. We have even seen a police raid this week on the offices of the DNA experts appointed by the Hellmann court. What does that tell you?

I think the current score is 2-0.

I'm not sure which 2 you're referring to, but I think this is a low estimate, in fact (although AK did win an action for breach of privacy). I expect the situation to change when Hellmann makes his ruling on the main issue of the trial.

 

[snook1]

Is the hearing over?

 

[komponisto]

This is an interesting argument put forward by Comodi (comfortable Google translation-LOL)

PM, NO LABORATORY TESTS 6 DAYS BEFORE KNIFE - In the 6 preceding days of the knife as the murder weapon shown in the laboratories of forensic examinations were not carried out the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. Lo ha sottolineato il pm Manuela Comodi nel corso dell'esame dei periti della Corte d'assise d'appello di Perugia nel processo a Raffaele Sollecito e ad Amanda Knox. This was underlined by the prosecutor Manuela comfortable during the examination of experts of the Assize Court of Appeal in the trial in Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Il magistrato si è soffermato sul tema della contaminazione dei reperti ipotizzata dagli esperti. The judge focused on the issue of contamination of the hypothesized findings by the experts. Rispondendo al pm, uno dei periti ha spiegato che "6 giorni sono sufficienti a evitare contaminazioni" in laboratorio. In response to prosecutor, an expert explained that "6 days are enough to avoid contamination" in the laboratory. Quello dei periti da parte del pm è un lungo esame nel quale vengono affrontati tutti i temi al centro dell'elaborato depositato dagli esperti. What the experts from the pm is a long discussion in which all issues are addressed at the center of the paper filed by the experts.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...2011/07/30/visualizza_new.html_760189137.html

A important clarification to make is that "the judge" almost certainly refers to Comodi, not Hellmann. (If they had meant Hellmann, they would have written "il giudice" here, not "il magistrato".)

Continental Europeans view judges and prosecutors as belonging to a single job category called "magistrate". I suppose the meaning of this term is something like "trained lawyer who works for the government and causes people to be put in jail".

 

[Wildhorses]

To me it would only make a difference if that same machine were used to test other DNA from other cases during that 6 day period and then cleaned. Each cleaning would lower the chances of Meredith's DNA showing back up. If the machine was simply not used during that time it would make no difference. Also I am not sure what date of testing was discussed as the report indicates 2 different dates.

I just don't see how a DNA scientist can categorically rule out contamination. She can argue that the probability is low and provide evidence to back that up (if she has any). But I've never come across a quote in which she approaches the subject that way. Seems to me she views contamination as the equivalent of being accused of running the machine wrong.

She cannot rule out contamination during collection. No one can.

She could make a case for ruling out lab contamination by producing controls, but she has no evidence for control runs.

She claims there was no need to run the knife sample twice because the DNA was "good quality." She doesn't seem to realize that objects can be contaminated by good quality DNA.

Now she's arguing that "six days is enough to avoid contamination." I agree six days of cleaning might be grounds for arguing that the chances of lab contamination are low. But that's not her argument... which is why I get the impression she missed class the week the lectures were on contamination.

 

[JREF2010]

Deciding to hear Stefanoni is more likely in a world where they eventually decide to convict than it is in a world where they eventually decide to acquit, so it's Bayesian evidence against acquittal, and has to lower my probability of the latter. Had it gone the other way, it would have increased my probability of acquittal to near 90%.

Or it's the scapegoat sent to slaughter?

A best day for a good lawyer, it will be near impossible to make something of the knife results return to its former glory for the prosecution.

What can Stefanoni say that will make the knife become the murder weapon again?

 

[Onofarar]

If this is correct then the appeal is not a de novo trial?
If Judge Hellmann's court does not review the remaining evidence
(eg ToD,computer records et al) then the prosecution could successfully appeal to the court of Cassation ,arguing that proper procedure had not been followed.
The SC could then order a re-trial.

In an Italian appeal everything carries over from the first trial EXCEPT the findings of fact and the verdict. If Hellman thinks he has enough in the evidence/case file there is no need to have redundant testimony or have evidence reintroduced. Everything he needs is in the case file. (I would love to have a forensic exam of the fried hard drives - I am very suspicous of ILE's experts actions with the drives - especially after what has been revealed about the DNA work(?!).

It will then be up to the defense to direct the judge's attention to the remaining evidence in closing statement and highlight the much better analysis presented in the first trial by the defense experts - on the bloody footprint, the ToD, the break-in in Filomena's room, etc. And while they are addressing those matters slay for all time the myths about the luminol foot/shoe prints. That starts on Aug 27th. - I assume the prosecution gets the last word - so the defense goes first with its closing arguments.

I think it is unlikely - but a possible scenario is - defense closes, prosecution closes (weakly or nonsensically) and the defense moves for a directed verdict of acquittal w/o jury deliberations and Hellman grants the motion. Barring that slight possibilty I expect a lengthy deliberation followed by acquittal - my confidence level is similar to Komponisto's - maybe a little higher - 85%.

 

[Onofarar]

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.

Amen - BTW this is essentially the same justification given by the military in the Dreyfus case appeal - i.e. with the actual traitor known - Esterhazy - it was necessary to keep Dreyfus on Devil's Island for the sake of the country's faih in its military. People like this should not be in positions of authority.
2nd BTW - the outcry over the Dreyfus case resulted in the Socialists coming to power - the conservative went in decline for 100 year.

 

[Onofarar]

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.

I think Hellman may actually be doing her a favor . After all if she lied again after all that is known from the experts reports wouldn't she be subject to a Calumnia charge? Since she said her lies under oath and in open court there wouldn't even need to be a investigation (right Manuela? (Comodi)). The Perugia authorties would be forced to charge her right? I won't be holding my breath waiting for that!

 

[JREF2010]

I just don't see how a DNA scientist can categorically rule out contamination. She can argue that the probability is low and provide evidence to back that up (if she has any). But I've never come across a quote in which she approaches the subject that way. Seems to me she views contamination as the equivalent of being accused of running the machine wrong.

She cannot rule out contamination during collection. No one can.

She could make a case for ruling out lab contamination by producing controls, but she has no evidence for control runs.

She claims there was no need to run the knife sample twice because the DNA was "good quality." She doesn't seem to realize that objects can be contaminated by good quality DNA.

Now she's arguing that "six days is enough to avoid contamination." I agree six days of cleaning might be grounds for arguing that the chances of lab contamination are low. But that's not her argument... which is why I get the impression she missed class the week the lectures were on contamination.

She can't create blood on the knife that wasn't cleaned.

Her argument for contamination seems the very reason she should produce the controls that were invented for this very reason?

Letting the tool sit 6 days does nothing, its like a car sitting 6 days with the same gasoline in the tank and fuel lines.

Hellman might be allowing the prosecution to have enough rope to hang them self. Stefanoni is up against videos and absence of the most basic protocol not being followed (controls).

Again, Stefanoni has nothing new to say. Its just Hellman allowing her to speak, and rightfully so, I guess. Seems a waste of time to me.

She'll say "I did everything right".....we already heard this.
The Defense will say "you did everything wrong". etc..etc..

Hellman, will toss out his appointed experts results?
Don't think so.

 

[JREF2010]

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.

That's interesting, I agree.

It seems so much more unbiased with this Hellman courtroom than Massei's trial. And I doubt he has forgotten the police entourage who approached his experts just this week. They screwed up by bullying Hellman and Stefanoni threatening legal action action his appointed experts.

Along the same road...

To me the letter sent by the Police Chief, says he supports the Italian Police and he wrote they do good work, etc..etc..

I get the picture. He is responding as a "I don't want to be associated with this case very deeply, because it might look badly for my career." SO I sent a letter instead of bothering to show up.

It was a letter, from a distance, very generic reply to the pressure of the case. He spoke of no details of this case specifically, from what I understand.

 

[snook1]

So anyone know how much longer it will take before the closing arguments?

I also can't see Hellmann throwing out his own appointed experts, I just can't. No matter what Stefanoni says.

 

[komponisto]

What can Stefanoni say that will make the knife become the murder weapon again?

I'm not saying her testimony will do the prosecution any good, of course; I'm still 75% sure that Knox and Sollecito will be cleared. It's just that the decision to allow it is itself (weak) Bayesian evidence against that verdict being reached.

After all, what would you think if Hellmann had not allowed Stefanoni to testify? Surely that would have been significant evidence of an acquittal in the pipeline. So it follows that the opposite outcome must be at least weak evidence in the opposite direction (yes, it really does).

It might be worth reading this. Excerpt:

If an iota or two of evidence happens to countersupport your belief, that's okay. It happens, sometimes, with probabilistic evidence for non-exact theories...Just shift your belief downward a little - the probability, the odds ratio, or even a nonverbal weight of credence in your mind. Just shift downward a little, and wait for more evidence. If the theory is true, supporting evidence will come in shortly, and the probability will climb again. If the theory is false, you don't really want it anyway.

 

[JREF2010]

Then it is the fault of the machine and not Pati Stefi. Rats.

I don't understand this comment.
The machine was faulty?
I don't think the machine knows the difference between the sample, or the controls.

negative , a blank run goes in and a result should be nothing.
positive , a known quantity goes in and a result of the known quantity should be the output.

this allows the tool to be known to be clean (negative) and to be calibrated (positive)

The negative is the one that often produces some garbage, some low level crap noise on the RFU chart and is why the OEM of the tool state not to go below 150RFU.

Sure, if a human wants to adjust the Y axis of the chart, they can see the garbage/noise peaks and apply it against who they want.

Maybe I'm reading this Y Axis wrong? But it seems fishy to me how they adjusted it to instill a result to a uneducated/non technical person.

If they applied the knife results using the same Y Axis as other samples, there would be no peaks seen. It would have been a flat line.

And for this manipulation of the chart Y Axis, seems to me to be something a dishonest person would do.

A great example of manipulating the Y Axis of the charts is here:
For Amanda they magnify the YAxis to make the tiny noise spikes appear large. 0- 120 or so.. For Meredith they use a normal , strong signal Y Axis of 0 to 2400.

It seems odd to me anyway.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/

 

[Fine]

No. The clasp was not dropped. If you step through the frames you can clearly see the clasp is still in his fingers after the lights are turned off. Then he bends down and places the clasp next to the "Y" marker for the photo shoot.

______________________________

Dan,

Here's what Nick Pisa, at the courthouse, wrote today. Looks to me like the experts also saw the bra clasp dropped...


"But defence experts, professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, said they could find no traces of blood on the knife.
They added that the DNA from the blade was so small it should be considered "inadmissible".
They were also critical of how police had examined a clasp from Meredith's bra found at the scene and which had been "lost" for six weeks before being discovered.
Footage showed the officers picking up the clasp with dirty gloves, handing it to each other, then dropping it on the floor before picking it up without using tweezers
It was then put in a plastic bag despite the fact that the recognised protocol for such items is to use paper bags.
Experts said that other breaches included face masks not being worn and hair not being in caps, while other persons unknown were also admitted into the bedroom." See: Sky News

///