Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RandyN]

From that link-
"It's not that easy to leave DNA in places," Comodi said.

Fanning herself in the hot courtroom over five hours of relentless questioning, the prosecutor challenged the experts over what is considered the minimum quantity of DNA required for a test to be carried out, suggesting that various scholars differ on the threshold.

How strange?

So the prosecution seems to be offering a familiar reply.

sarcasm-

"ahaa!!! so you can't prove what Amanda said in the interrogation because we didn't record anything!!!!

and now you also lose because you can't prove the contamination because we didnt do controls!!!! "

How do you fight that kind of logic?

Logic is an oxymoron used in the case of this prosecution.. You don’t need to fight it at all. You reply with facts. Comodi says the knife is good...we find Kerchers DNA on the blade.

She then blows smoke about no contamination....oh ok. Well, how about the testing of a sample found to be too low? Too low, too low , too low...repeat 12 times I believe.

How about forcing a machine beyond what the manufacturer designed it for and beyond what they consider reliable?

And why is there failure to do negative and positive controls that are required by every world standard in these matters?

Note we didn’t mention sloppy and improper collection and handling at all yet.

Question...Stefanoni was your lab specially fitted according to world standards to handle and process Low copy number and Low template number DNA samples in 2007? 2008? How about today?

Question...Stefanoni did you tell the court that the knife blade sample was tested for blood and found to be negative? Yes. Did you tell the court the sample was an ample amount > 200 picograms? Ahhhhhh...ahhhhhh....ahhhhhh

Question....Stefanoni...you can see from the video that your workers are passing the bra clasp back and forth and further it has been shown that they are wearing visibly dirty gloves. Would you call this a potential source of contamination? errrrrr errrr ahhhhh

No more questions....

I haven’t read the full translation of the expert repot yet...Do they discuss the labs operating manual at all? I would certainly question every SOP in the manual compared to the video and photographic and electronic data file evidence.

The fact is this case must drag on to cover all bases. Otherwise it will end up in prosecution appeal in the Supreme Court although if past is prolog I cant imagine the prosecution not appealing to the Supreme Court for any manner of bizarre and unfounded reason anyway. It seems inevitable that they are willing to ride this boat right over the falls if necessary.

The defenses should be requesting house arrest at every hearing. No matter if its denied. The court must be forced to action…If you don’t complain then it doesn’t matter. The European Court Of Human Rights already knows Italy violates the right to a speedy trial and the right to a fair trial more than any other country. I hope that Bruce is correct and that when they return in Sept the trial will precede everyday until finished. That’s a decision that should have been made back in January.

 

[RoseMontague]

Two articles (among many) with more information:

http://www.agi.it/cronaca/notizie/2..._esame_periti_si_torna_in_aula_il_5_settembre

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/C...ocesso-rinviato-a-settembre_312302047465.html

The Italian news is reporting the September 5 hearing date and giving several reviews of what happened in court today. Google.it keeps up with new developments fairly well.

Thanks Christiana,

That second one and the non admission of documents related to negative controls is interesting. Evidently these were not in the court record yet now they exist. The judge is right not to admit them.

 

[Dan O.]

______________________________

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

///

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4789[/IMGL]

The footage show in real time gives the appearance that the clasp was dropped. But I have the footage downloaded to my computer where I can single step through the frames.

Here is a sequence of screen captures starting from the moment the flashlight starts turning away from the clasp. You can clearly see that the clasp is still held in the hand as it obscures part of the lettering on the bunny suit.

In the second image, the hand has been lowered and is still holding the clasp.

The third and forth shot sow the clasp is still held between the fingers but is almost on the floor. (notice the shadow under the clasp)

In the last shot, the clasp has been released and the hand is being withdrawn.

 

[Fine]

(Is it time now to start unearthing the remains of certain "identified" tsunami victims?)

///

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks Christiana,

That second one and the non admission of documents related to negative controls is interesting. Evidently these were not in the court record yet now they exist. The judge is right not to admit them.

I agree. There is a protocol and process for admission of evidence, documents, etc. (re: the request to dismantle the knife which may be granted later).

I have to say I think Hellmann and the court are being very fair to both sides during this appeal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

collecting one's thoughts

You did.

Think about it: someone got in there and killed someone. You could say "that's not a very secure flat" as a sick joke, but I have a personal anecdote that you may find of interest.

SNIP

How about you lay off the "you're a guilter" sort of prose, eh?

I don't think you understand my curiosity about this case. It LONG predates the trial.

@ LondonJohn: per your last post, this is a new trial, not an appeal to overturn? Or do I misunderstand Italian law?

Darth Rotor,

And you misunderstood my comment, which I subsequently clarified: "my comment was meant to suggest that we know of two burglaries in 2008*, but there may have been others." The burglaries happened well before the flat was rented out again, if I am not mistaken. The burglaries plus the tape issue noted by LondonJohn make me wonder who had access to the flat between 2 November and 18 December, and it bears on not just the bra clasp but also to some of the luminol evidence, which was applied on 18 December. To sum up, my previous comment was strictly about the cottage after it became a crime scene, and its lack of security raises questions the chain of custody of the clasp and how the luminol-positive blob in Filomena's room arose. MOO.

I know that you started a thread on this subject quite some time ago. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "you're a guilter" sort of prose; I thought I made clear I was responding to an argument I was paraphrasing (it was motivated by what I read elsewhere at JREF in the "Can someone explain the Amanda Knox threads?" thread in forum community) and that I was not sure of your views. In any case you have yet to respond to my points about the collection of the bra clasp.
*ETA
This story indicates that the break-ins were in 2009. This link also gives the year as 2009. I am sorry for any confusion.

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree. There is a protocol and process for admission of evidence, documents, etc. (re: the request to dismantle the knife which may be granted later).

I have to say I think Hellmann and the court are being very fair to both sides during this appeal.

Frank gives the details of this and much more. These controls sound rather suspicious, imo.

Having failed the card of the ‘of course’, Comodi/Stefanoni pulled the ace out of their sleeve: the documentation of the negative/positive controls exist! It was delivered to the pre-trial in October 2008! (According to them…)

So, Comodi gave to President Helmann two photocopies that document the controls.
The only problem is that Vecchiotti looked at the two pieces of paper and saw they had a different code from the one of the tests made on knife and clasp. Not only that: the codes on the fotocopies were almost unreadable.
Hellman and Zanetti wanted to go look for the proof that the documents had been really filed on October 2008 anyway. But after almost an hour of searching, they couldn’t find anything!

So Hellmann returned in the courtroom and decided not to admit that presumed proof that the controls were done.
Comodi insisted. And here, surprise: not only Helmann said definitely NO, but he pointed out that even if the documentation existed, even if it was really filed on October 2008, even if it was perfect, even if the negative/positive controls were done, that wouldn’t have any importance, since the contamination could have still occurred before!

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/30/hellmann-says-no/

 

[komponisto]

this is a new trial, not an appeal to overturn? Or do I misunderstand Italian law?

I think you may. The current proceedings are called an "appeal", but from the Anglo-Saxon point of view that is really a misnomer. In the Italian system, all criminal prosecutions go through three stages: (1) a trial in the first-level court, (2) a trial in the "appeal" (second-level) court, and (3) a brief review by the country's highest court, the Cassazione. Knox and Sollecito are currently on stage (2).

These stages are automatic; appeals do not have to be "granted" as in other systems. Furthermore, there is no presumption at stage (2) in favor of the decision at stage (1); first-level decisions are regularly modified or overturned. Knox and Sollecito continue to benefit from a full legal presumption of innocence.

 

[Dan O.]

(Is it time now to start unearthing the remains of certain "identified" tsunami victims?)

///

Even a high school biology student would have been able to perform that task. Just follow the instructions on the kit. No need to even worry about controls since every run has ample DNA and no worry about contamination because you are removing cells directly from body parts.

Worst case, perhaps a few animal parts were accidentally misidentified as human. But where's the harm?!

 

[RoseMontague]

It is interesting that only that one news report that Christiana provided had mentioned what Frank felt was the most important thing that happened today.

 

[christianahannah]

Frank gives the details of this and much more. These controls sound rather suspicious, imo.



http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/30/hellmann-says-no/

Well, reading what you have quoted is confusing and suspicious.

If what Frank writes is verbatim from Hellmann it is difficult to know what direction he (Hellmann) is coming from - if contamination could have existed before the speciman arrived at the lab is blame for the results turning away from Stefanoni and onto someone else?

The day was long and I assume much was said (and much more will be said five weeks from now).

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, reading what you have quoted is confusing and suspicious.

If what Frank writes is verbatim from Hellmann it is difficult to know what direction he (Hellmann) is coming from - if contamination could have existed before the speciman arrived at the lab is blame for the results turning away from Stefanoni and onto someone else?

The day was long and I assume much was said (and much more will be said five weeks from now).

I wonder if Hellmann was concerned that somebody was trying to pull a fast one? Comodi tried to argue that Stefanoni doesn't need to document things like washing her hands and felt this was the same sort of thing. Hellmann was not buying that one so then she introduces this. If it was legit why bother with the first argument at all? Something doesn't seem right about this.

 

[davefoc]

Just stopping by to see what the current JREF consensus was. I just followed a trail of articles highly supportive of Knox. I wondered if I wasn't being misled because articles and comments tend to link to other stuff that supports their views and perhaps I haven't gotten a balanced sense of the actual situation.

Right now, based on a brief review of what may be biased sources I think the following is true.
1. The first prosecutor seems like a bit of a nut case. Lots of problematic stuff like conviction for illegally investigating reporters who had written critical articles and previous prosecutions based on fanciful theories.
2. The DNA experts that recently testified, seem to have pretty much shattered the previous DNA testimony .
3. The evidence is strong and incontrovertible against the black guy that was convicted but no significant evidence exists against Knox and her boyfriend if the original DNA testimony is eliminated.

I am not sure what to make of the fact that Knox seems to have lied initially and blamed somebody who she knew to be innocent. Did she really do that or is that a controversial issue also?

And where is the JREF consensus right now? Have some of the guilt advocates been moved at least to insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict? Do the people who have been critical of the first verdict tend to believe in the actual innocence of Knox or just in the insufficiency of evidence for guilt? Perhaps somebody could provide a quantitative overview of the JREF consensus divided between guilty, not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence, not guilty even by a preponderance of the evidence standard and actual innocence.

Thanks, admittedly the answers to my questions probably exist in the preceding gazillion posts but my interest level falls a little below the amount justified to read all of them. My apologies in advance for my laziness.

 

[Poppy1016]

Continue to benefit from a full legal presumption of innocence? I really do not think Italy has fully adopted this idea. Especially in this case.

 

[komponisto]

It is interesting that only that one news report that Christiana provided had mentioned what Frank felt was the most important thing that happened today.

Which is why reports are not a reliable source of information (even apart from the fact that they often say things that are false). One needs a transcript or video of the hearing itself.

I don't understand why we only get videos of some of the hearings, and then only of some portions. Why were we allowed to see Rudy testifying, but not Conti and Vecchiotti?

Is the court actively censoring, or are the reporters just not bothering to hold up their cell phone cameras when they decide the proceedings aren't "exciting" enough? (Since, of course, we all know that convicts calling each other liars is much more "exciting" than DNA science...)

Even Frank said "I'll spare you the scientific details". No, don't spare us any details, for goodness' sake! Where are we supposed to get the details?

In the United States, as we saw most recently in the Casey Anthony trial, there is evidently quite a market for nitpickingly specific commentary on every single nicety, legal or otherwise, of every single court session in a high-profile case. Does this somehow not exist in Italy, where the only trial I've ever cared enough about to desire such a level of coverage is taking place?

 

[RoseMontague]

Just stopping by to see what the current JREF consensus was. I just followed a trail of articles highly supportive of Knox. I wondered if I wasn't being misled because articles and comments tend to link to other stuff that supports their views and perhaps I haven't gotten a balanced sense of the actual situation.

Right now, based on a brief review of what may be biased sources I think the following is true.
1. The first prosecutor seems like a bit of a nut case. Lots of problematic stuff like conviction for illegally investigating reporters who had written critical articles and previous prosecutions based on fanciful theories.
2. The DNA experts that recently testified, seem to have pretty much shattered the previous DNA testimony .
3. The evidence is strong and incontrovertible against the black guy that was convicted but no significant evidence exists against Knox and her boyfriend if the original DNA testimony is eliminated.

I am not sure what to make of the fact that Knox seems to have lied initially and blamed somebody who she knew to be innocent. Did she really do that or is that a controversial issue also?

And where is the JREF consensus right now? Have some of the guilt advocates been moved at least to insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict? Do the people who have been critical of the first verdict tend to believe in the actual innocence of Knox or just in the insufficiency of evidence for guilt? Perhaps somebody could provide a quantitative overview of the JREF consensus divided between guilty, not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence, not guilty even by a preponderance of the evidence standard and actual innocence.

Thanks, admittedly the answers to my questions probably exist in the preceding gazillion posts but my interest level falls a little below the amount justified to read all of them. My apologies in advance for my laziness.

I appreciate your interest. Not all the active posters on this thread feel the same but the majority that remain believe either in innocence or have enough reasonable doubt to feel that a conviction is not the proper judgment. There are still a few that believe in guilt and/or some involvement in the murder but most have either left the thread or the forum. Some post on PMF (net/and or org) which is a forum for those that believe in guilt with very few posters having doubt.

Feel free to join in and ask as many questions as you want to. I suggest reading the first courts motivations report as well as the appeal documents or summaries to get a feel for both sides of the argument, or just hang around for awhile and most of it will be covered again at some point (LOL). However, just like today, there is always some new information that comes to light.

 

[RoseMontague]

Which is why reports are not a reliable source of information (even apart from the fact that they often say things that are false). One needs a transcript or video of the hearing itself.

I don't understand why we only get videos of some of the hearings, and then only of some portions. Why were we allowed to see Rudy testifying, but not Conti and Vecchiotti?

Is the court actively censoring, or are the reporters just not bothering to hold up their cell phone cameras when they decide the proceedings aren't "exciting" enough? (Since, of course, we all know that convicts calling each other liars is much more "exciting" than DNA science...)

Even Frank said "I'll spare you the scientific details". No, don't spare us any details, for goodness' sake! Where are we supposed to get the details?

In the United States, as we saw most recently in the Casey Anthony trial, there is evidently quite a market for nitpickingly specific commentary on every single nicety, legal or otherwise, of every single court session in a high-profile case. Does this somehow not exist in Italy, where the only trial I've ever cared enough about to desire such a level of coverage is taking place?

There is a press room and the video we get is the video of that video monitor in the press room (that is why the picture is so bad). The good video is taken before or after the hearing starts and then only the press feed is allowed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tarnish on the Gold Standard

It is interesting that only that one news report that Christiana provided had mentioned what Frank felt was the most important thing that happened today.

RoseMontague,

Aww, come on. Do you really think that what gets posted in the blogosphere really matters? Sheesh! Seriously, I am reminded of what William Thompson wrote, "In all of these cases, the analysts were caught faking the results of control samples designed to detect instances in which cross-contamination of DNA samples has occurred."

 

[komponisto]

Just stopping by to see what the current JREF consensus was. I just followed a trail of articles highly supportive of Knox. I wondered if I wasn't being misled because articles and comments tend to link to other stuff that supports their views and perhaps I haven't gotten a balanced sense of the actual situation.

Right now, based on a brief review of what may be biased sources I think the following is true.
1. The first prosecutor seems like a bit of a nut case. Lots of problematic stuff like conviction for illegally investigating reporters who had written critical articles and previous prosecutions based on fanciful theories.

True.

2. The DNA experts that recently testified, seem to have pretty much shattered the previous DNA testimony .

Also true. You can read their report in an ongoing (and almost finished) English translation here: http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com.

3. The evidence is strong and incontrovertible against the black guy that was convicted but no significant evidence exists against Knox and her boyfriend if the original DNA testimony is eliminated.

True, but the second part is denied by the pro-guilt side.

I am not sure what to make of the fact that Knox seems to have lied initially and blamed somebody who she knew to be innocent. Did she really do that or is that a controversial issue also?

That is also highly controversial, and the characterization you gave of those events is vigorously denied by the pro-innocence side.

And where is the JREF consensus right now?

It is such that this thread on JREF is viewed as a pro-innocence forum by posters on pro-guilt forums.

Have some of the guilt advocates been moved at least to insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict?

Yes. I believe Fine is an example. I also seem to recall that RoseMontague may have once upon a time believed in guilt. (These folks and others should speak for themselves, of course.)

Do the people who have been critical of the first verdict tend to believe in the actual innocence of Knox or just in the insufficiency of evidence for guilt?

At least a substantial proportion believe in actual innocence, even in some cases that innocence is beyond reasonable doubt (my position).

Perhaps somebody could provide a quantitative overview of the JREF consensus divided between guilty, not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence, not guilty even by a preponderance of the evidence standard and actual innocence.

Responses to your post will probably provide at least some indication.

Thanks, admittedly the answers to my questions probably exist in the preceding gazillion posts but my interest level falls a little below the amount justified to read all of them. My apologies in advance for my laziness.

No problem; summaries are always useful

 

[komponisto]

There is a press room and the video we get is the video of that video monitor in the press room (that is why the picture is so bad). The good video is taken before or after the hearing starts and then only the press feed is allowed.

Right, but why do we only get that low-quality press feed on certain days and not others? Why do we have cell-phone video of Rudy's testimony but not of Conti and Vecchiotti's, or anyone else's?