Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

Several of the cops did drop out in the parents trial, I am not sure on Amanda's. Does anyone have this information handy?

Frank has been proven right so many times in what he has said. I believe he would not have said it if the information wasn't solid.

I followed Frank's Blog and I pretty much only posted there. I complemented him many times and if you remember the Second Amendment post, suggesting using it in a part of Seattle, I was the poster that informed Frank that he should take it down. He did take it down, but the PGP had a screen shot and of course re-posted it over and over.

I think Frank was wrong about Mignini and Stefanoni.

My complaint is people saying the tapes will be coming out without giving Frank as the source, as if the poster actually has information.

The same as TM, Michael, and Gang alluding to sources on the inside - either don't say anything or let us know the facts.

For example, I predicted that Hellmann would issue the motivations early, but I didn't seriously pretend I knew it from an inside source.

 

[Grinder]

Burleigh makes Knox seem full value for the raised eyebrows of the English girls, who themselves must have been looking at everything through shock as well. This was not normal for ANYONE.

But Knox was very definitely the behavioural ugly-duckling of the bunch.

Where does Burleigh get this incite? I'm not impressed by the extracts of the books written, including Candace and Burleigh.

Although Barbie is Barbie, she did give us some idea that the English girls including Meredith were not prissy goody two shoes but rather were joining in on the Perugia party scene. Go to the early press and they referred to Meredith as a party girl and the interviews about the English in general were from bartenders. So I'm so sure their oddest behavior was ever written about.

 

[Bill Williams]

This does seem like common sense. There is so much desperation in the hunt for proof of guilt that you get these little meaningless details and somehow they are able to translate that into evidence for guilt. To me this is similar to Massei's Large Knife, Large Bag reasoning.

This is similar to Massei's theory about the clean-up. Did Massei formulate a theory of a clean-up (with bleach, one that erased Knox and Sollecito but kepy Guede's forensic presence intact!) because there was bleach residue? Were there swirls indicative of a wiping motion revealed by luminol? There was a mop found, but that was for the clean-up at Raffaele's, and no indication at all it was ever used at the cottage.....

.... so why did Massei psot a clean-up at the cottage? Well, because of the bathmat print, and no intervening prints between the bedroom and the bathroom. So, if those assumed bloody footprints AREN'T there, they must ghave been cleaned up, even if:

1) there's no physical evidence of a clean
2) even if there was, it is probable that the phantom prints (which weren't there) belonged to Guede.

However, PGP still say that the phantom prints, which weren't there to begin with, belong to Raffaele. That's what I call razor sharp reasoning.

Aren't there 37 other "probablies" like this in Massei's report?

 

[christianahannah]

Mignini has definitely claimed that the tapes don't exist. On multiple occasions he has used different excuses for why the session didn't get recorded. I suspect that Mignini was told that there were no tapes by someone that knew that if Mignini had the tapes he would somehow inject them into the trial and get the whole case thrown out when it reached the supreme court.

Has he claimed both interviews/interrogations/spontaneous declarations were not taped or his interview/interrogation/spontaneous declaration was not taped? Where was Amanda when the 1:45 statement was given/signed and where was Amanda when the 5:45 statement was given/signed (by that I mean where in the Questera)? Even if he was told there were no tape(s) and there were, I am fairly certain they could not be used against Amanda in the criminal trial. How would this be Mignini's fault if he is being lied to and had no knowledge of said tape(s)?

As for the defense using the tapes, there is no way they want even a snippet of that interrogation to be played for any prospective juror regardless of what is on it. We've seen multiple cases where absolutely false confessions are extracted in the interrogation process but the jury still buys the confession because in there minds it is hard evidence. Once the supreme court has closed the case for murder, after there is no possibility of a retrial, the tapes will come out.

I agree. My comment was, as yours, directed to after the high court rules on the appeal verdict and the calunnia trial is started then in accordance to the penal code will the tape(s) be allowed as evidence?

 

[christianahannah]

That's not quite it imho. They didn't want her to confirm things they themselves were not sure happened. Look at the statements again - was Raffaele there? Not in the 1.45 statement, maybe in the 5.45. What was the relationship with Lumumba? Cordial and social at 1.45, one of fear at 5.45.

I read both statements as solutions to the problem: OK, we need her to say this, with the later one refining the first as a result of Mignini's intervention. You can hear him telling Monica: 'you didn't actually get her to say Lumumba killed her, you klutz - if you want something done properly ... '

I am not certain how much Amanda could say or be questioned further once she placed herself at the scene of the crime (according to the penal code). And it makes a difference whether it was Amanda who initiated the 5:45 spontaneous declaration or whether it was the police/Mignini.

There are always her prior statements when questioned before the evening of November 5 early morning November 6 which may give more information along with the questioning of November 5.

 

[Machiavelli]

Response to Katody part I

I'm not a lawyer (are you?), but it does not compute in a simple common sense way to me. Hellmann was obviously free to come to his own opinion about every piece of evidence, without looking back at Massei's nonsense. He did so with the 'suspicious phone call to mother', he did so with the shopkeeper and the bum. There's no reason he couldn't do it with the DNA test results the prosecution was waving around.
In fact according to the article 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had power to order official expert review of this matter. I don't know what "specific kind of motivations" do you have on mind. The motivation to resolve issue about which the judges lack specific scientific expertise looks perfectly good. Could you point out the article of law about these specific kind of motivations?

Incidentally, it is Hellmann’s reasoning on issues like Meredith’s phone calls, that is plain nonsense, and should be nullified because of its inconsistency (according to him, the assailant at around 21:00 was trying to switch off an Erickson mobile phone – with a big “off” toggle on the top - which was still onat 22.13 and was still on even when it was found: just an example of the kind of opinion that the Supreme Court has to throw out on grounds of inconsistency).

However, you were talking about art 224 cpp, and you might know that the topic of appointing court experts is regulated by a Supreme Court jurisprudence for the interpretation of paragraph 1 of art 220, while in fact the judge has to abide also to other condition and rules.

But this is an Appeal trial, and the Appeal is subject to other rules, also to specific rules (art. 593-606) much more restrictive. In particular the focus of restriction n this particular case falls on paragraph 1 of art. 603, specifically the words “allo stato degli atti”: the judge who decides for the “rinnovazione dibattimentale” (that is a passage that could also remand from the Appeal to the procedure regulated by articles 220-224) has to refer his decision based on an examination of the existing acts, and must come to the conclusion that what is “allo stato degli atti” is altogether insufficient information, and has to motivate locating the area of this lack of information.

Interpretation of these and other mechanisms is indicated by the SC; it shall be viewed under the light of principles established and expressed in the SC jurisprudence. For example the principle expressed at art. 493 – which itself expresses an underlying and overall rule - is that “repetition of evidence is forbidden”. To introduce information which is the repetition of already existing material it is surely illegitimate. If a piece of evidence repeats the content of existing acts, the reopening of debate on its admission would be generally regarded as unnecessary and illegitimate.

The concepts have to be declined and interpreted obviously. But the violation of the principle stands out egregiously in the Meredith case Appeal trial, as Hellmann provided no legitimate ground for ordering a new expert review and the previous evidence was obviously complete.

In fact, his actual reason was that he already distrusted (maybe that he was on a payroll for distrusting) the results of Stefanoni. He felt (or needed to express) distrust towards one specific party, he wanted to discredit them challenge them, but the present material did not provide him enough material for this task. Thus, he pursued the thing by appointing an enemy of Stefanoni in attempt to discredit the evidence. This motivation is illegitimate. Distrust is not necessarily always wrong itself, but the basis of an Appeal is the previous trial and every objection must be motivated.
Hellman lacks of any motivation. To do something legitimate he should have written in his instance requesting new evidence something like “I distrust this finding specifically of Stefanoni because of this specific reason”.

Interesting. Do you argue that Massei also broke the law when he disallowed expert review and further testing to counter the prosecution's claims about the DNA?

No. First of all about the expert review: the defence requests of review about DNA were basically two: the testing of the pillowcase stain, and the request of having new expert appointed to review the bra clasp and knife.

The semen stain test was denied (also by Hellmann) on right legitimate ground. This in fact is not a point of evidence in Knox – Sollecito’s trial, it had not been brought up in the trial, and neither has the potential of being exculpatory evidence nor to vaguely balance the evidence against. So it is unnecessary and thus has to be disallowed.

The expert review was obviously disallowed because the defence’s expert did review the evidence and brought exhaustive contribution with their testimony, leaving no unquestioned area. Thus they already had evidence review, the contribution of accusation and defence in my opinion was symmetrical. The defence expert presented plenty of material and reviewed all topics.

The defense also demanded a re-testing of the bra clasp, but this was disallowed legitimately because deemed unnecessary by the judge on grounds not completely dissimilar from the semen stain: because the proof was already sufficient and no further result from a new physical test could bring exculpatory evidence. But also on further grounds: the judge is bond do disallow further test also by the fact that that testing was made under the legal formula of unrepeatable test.
Under such legal formula parties are summoned in advance to assist to the testing bringing their own experts and allowed to note or film everything, retrieve documentation and leave comments. If the defence, as is summoned, objects to the test taking place, they would rise a formal objection and a third judge will take a decision and supervise himself. The experts can also object in the merit to the way the test is performed or release technical comments.
In this case defense teams didn’t object in any form to the unrepeatable test taking place; the defence experts didn’t attend the test, or came and didn’t release any technical objection or comment. Therefore their request of a further independent test (submitted only after the outcome of this process was unfavourable) has to be disallowed.

The Court stated that it appointed the expert panel "to compensate for understandable gaps in knowledge in a particularly complex field, both scientifically and technically". The official experts helped the court ascertain the technical and scientific question of reliability of DNA results. Prosecution's experts had their word in the discussion.

And what I said is that this, so carried out at this phase of the trial, is totally illegitimate. Galati agrees with me.

 

[Machiavelli]

Part II

Hmmm... indeed the mess with the DNA quantisation was known before. The issue of destroyed bra clasp obviously wasn't, but let's set it aside and say there was nothing new in their findings. Then what was it actually that the prosecution wanted to present new counter evidence to?

The prosecution wanted to present new decisive evidence and counter evidence on a number of issues, not just DNA. They wanted to interrogate Aviello on the new topics brought in by the transcript of his latest declarations, for example. The prosecution wanted the new DNA result detected by Vecchiotti to be tested and the profile extracted, as Novelli suggested, the judge refused the test. The prosecution requested a bio-statystical expert report to shed light on a question mark left by C&V report in the second part, where talks about alternative interpretations of alleles in Sollecito’s profile, demanding a more precise estimation of probabilities by an expert. The judge refused. Comodi then demanded to allow the negative control as counter evidence (undermining the reliability of Vecchiotti’s method and assumptions), the judge refused this one too.

According to the Court( Hellmann report):

On the other hand, Dr. Stefanoni (Scientific Police), apparently due to an understandable memory lapse, stated before the GUP that she quantified the extract using Real Time PCR (a system which allows the extract to be precisely quantified before it is amplified), and then clarified that she had not used Real Time for this extract, but the Quibit Fluorimeter, which gave the result “not interpretable”. However, Dr. Stefanoni nonetheless considered it suitable for continuing to the subsequent stages, at the end of which she identified Meredith Kercher’s DNA in the graph.

Well that is a strange lapse of memory and strange lack of preparation, considering the knife was the most important damning piece of evidence.

But this is false. It is in fact the mystification of FOA supporters who are, that it’s the point, Knox-centred. The “importance” of things as you see them seems to be hinging on the life and point of view of Amanda Knox.
In fact the Knife was not the centre of the universe for Stefanoni’s research. Stefanoni tested for DNA more than four hundred of samples on this case, a dozen at least could have been regarded as key piece of evidence and worth to be used in a prosecution theory and discussing in court or could become potentially decisive anyway (in fact we could say they were dozens). Many of the key samples also yielded a “too low” result on a test or were given with no quantification, for example the male DNA found in Meredith’s genital parts was so low in amount that it was impossible to even extract a profile, a much lower amount compared to the “LCN” threshold claimed elsewhere, the identification of Rudy was made by Stefanoni only by assessing the y-haplotype, and the result was of mere compatibility. Do you think Rudy Guede’s defence was warned about this methodology in the preliminary stage?
The idea that the knife is “the most important piece of evidence” is totally oriented along a Knox-point-of-view, it is a self-centred (or Knox-centred), identifies the outcome of the preliminary hearing with the interests of Knox, and it is also taken retrospectively: it is based on Knox’s subsequent defensive position, her claim of being innocent, the defensive claim that the knife is the only evidence. In Stefanoni’s point of view there was a number of DNA findings that could be equally determinant against Knox, as the mixed-DNA blood traces on a track in the corridor, the mixted-DNA Knox/Kercher in Filomena’s room, the Knox’s blood stains in the bathroom, as well as Sollecito’s DNA: not just Kercher’s DNA on the blade but several DNA samples were pointing to Knox’s guilt, even limited within Stefanoni’s scope of assessment.
Moreover, the Meredith Kercher case was not the centre of Stefanoni’s work from 2007 to 2008; during the same time Stefanoni’s very section at the lab was processing about other two hundred cases. Among them very high profile cases for example the Claps case, the Iorio case, notorious rape cases, where Stefanoni was also called to testify.

To expect Stefanoni to bear in mind the quantification of trace C of the knife knowing by memory if it could be on the hundreds of picograms or not, because it will became the “most important” in the defence strategy, it’s just puerile. The proof about amount in picograms is important only in the perspective of Knox’s defence as they will set it in the trial. But it is not going to be important for judge Paolo Micheli, who in fact refrained from dealing with the knife and sent them to trial anyway speaking about “certain evidence in the apartment”. It is not going to be that important for the prosecution, who needs to restrict the time devoted to the discussion of the knife and limit the discussion on every point within the compulsory time restrictions of a preliminary hearing.

The defence has a right of discovery from the preliminary investigation. But right of discovery has its channels. Is a right to access, not a right to be served or lead there, not a service that be practically fulfilled by someone for you; it works only provided that the defence do their homework, they have to do things and follow channels so to use their right to access. It does not equate to expect that, when the preliminary hearing comes, the expert will come and bring all the information possible that could be useful to the defence and that the defence didn’t collect themselves.

I expect the defence to attend the test or respond to the advice with a formal objection, to make technical comments, to submit requests to access files. They did not take advantages of the opportunity of the legal formula (“incidente probatorio” / “unrepeatable test”), did not request any file. In fact, Giulia Bongiorno admitted that before the first trial had begun, she didn’t even know what raw files and laboratory documentation was, she didn’t know that files of these kinds existed.

The right to discovery of defence – which belongs to the preliminary investigation rather than to the preliminary hearing – I interpret it as right to access the thing, not as right to the thing. It doesn’t meant that the defence must already have the same information the prosecution has. It is a potentiality throughout the preliminary investigation, not an indefinite opening to everybody of all investigation acts and it is not a duty of the prosecution to provide entirely any possible detail of their whole information in the preliminary hearing. So there is no case to whine because the expert didn’t come with and take with them to tall you that particular information at the pre-trial hearing

The right to discovery has been put on the plate here by those accusing Stefanoni of lying, but anyway, this is not the actual issue. In fact the point is not judt the right of discovery. Waving the issue of right of discovery, as Halkides and others did in response, is not exactly enough to the point. Because it is not the same argument. Issue of right of discovery or its failure, and discredit of Stefanoni and her evidence with accusations of fabricating evidence, are two entirely different topics.
They are not to be confused. And people here tend to mix them up.
But in fact these two theories require two separate and independent thread of evidence.

Questions about the right to discovery are a common issue. Could be that right to timely discovery on a case is not fulfilled. I find it very dubious in this case, whining because Stefanoni didn’t bring information useful to the defence in the preliminary hearing, after the defence did not object to the advice, did not attend the tests, did not comment, did not file instances, grounds are very weak. Theoretically let’s say there could be delay in right to discovery.
But a scenario of evidence fabrication, conspiring, bringing false evidence and false report, this is not common at all. There is no evidence of such thing, and no scenario that makes sense or is likely (motives, perpetrators, means).
In a system with inquisitorial founding the judicial investigation power has a presumption of trust, it’s a compelling principle as the presumption of innocence. This does not obviously mean that all defendants are innocents on all charges, neither all prosecutors are trustworthy on all counts, but they are all assumed to be unless proven otherwise.
The fabrication of false evidence is something entirely different from a procedure issue such as withhold data to defence or delay right to access. Malice, providing false evidence, is a different behaviour and has not to do with procedure or disputable timing. When the evidence was to be legitimately discussed and requested, the prosecution and Stefanoni provided correct data.

For that in the preliminary hearing the experts bring a simplified summary of evidence (and Stefanoni did not bring some quantification data that would have been useful to the defence to set their strategy in the future) this is common. Might be especially common where there is a strategy of casting discredit on scientific evidence. But there is no case to whine and blame others for that, the accusing of lying and cheating is disgusting and utterly stupid. Stefanoni brought her results, report, videos. If the defence wanted more information (quantification, dates, negative control) they had their legal options to obtain them before and after that. Responsibility for their information does not rest on the shoulders Stefanoni and what she does in the preliminary hearing. It’s not her who has to take the initiative and come to explain the picograms on sample 36B after defence experts didn’t attend test, didn’t object to unrepeatable test, didn’t submit requests. And recall: for Judge Micheli, the knife was not interesting to the point of unfolding it to full detail, and he refrained from deciding on it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Part III

It becomes more understandable with:

The Expert Panel noted first that the quantification stage is notably absent in the investigations carried out by the Scientific Police

and the known embarrassing 'too low', 'too low' results. .

Note: it was Stefanoni herself who provided the papers with “too low” to the defence. I don’t see anything embarrassing and I would answer as Comodi did “do you think Stefanoni would stop research of information on a sample because the machine setting?”. Of course I expect the investigator to attempt to extract information whenever possible. Evidentiary firewalls are prohibited in the Italian system.
Note also that seven samples were taken from the knife, three analyzed with Q-bit and three with PCR. So it is not correct to say PCR was not used. These technical iters are not the centre interest for an expert. They are noted down, but you may well forget the detail with day and time: the result, the profile is the object of interest of the expert. Some details of procedure such as the quantization and Q-bit method are only useful for the defence and their particular strategy.

This is not true. They said negative controls were not provided.
Of course it's possible they existed, but were no good and Stefanoni got rid of them. .

Yes, “not provided”, but
1) Vecchiotti perfectly knows that in fact Stafanoni “provided” nothing, instead she released what Vecchiotti demanded;
2) Vecchiotti stated in a written declaration “we already have all we need”; Comodi later commented “they demanded what was useless, and demanded nothing of what was useful”.
3) The negative controls existed, not “possibly” as you say, but for sure, it is proven. The negative controls were presented in the trial (see Galati’s appeal) the court said they were unnecessary, nobody questioned their existence. So Stefanoni got rid of nothing, and your insinuation is offensive.
4) the most important, Vecchiotti indeed worded “not provided”, but in fact, after stating “they are not provided” she *assumed* they did not exist. And then she build her argument about contamination on the assumption they did not exist (in fact her argument about the knife rests entirely on this false assumption).

So Vechiotti constructed her reasoning and conclusion about the knife on this false assumption. Her reasoning is resting on this one fundamental – and false – element.
Despite the centrality and the basis value of this assumption, as she decided to build her argument, Vecchiotti deliberately decided to not verify her assumption. She could have asked Stefanoni for the negative controls just like she asked for a number of files that proved useless. She did not ask for the files that could have undermined her argument: in fact, Vecchiotti requested specific further documentation which was only of one kind: only the kind of files in which there could be - theoretically - the possibility to find information to discredit Stefanoni’s conclusions. She carefully avoided to request those files that, if given, could potentially discredit her own conclusions.
(she found no information in the raw files that she begged for, no information that would change what was already given, though: the whole fuss about raw data brought along by Halkides and others, proved to be about something totally useless to Vecchiotti’s conclusions).

The assumption the negative control did not exist is a false piece of information that demonstrates the wrong and flawed method of reasoning of C&V. They must have had verified and did not make any attempt to verify whether their assumption was true. This omission is voluntary. They made that deliberately: Vecchiotti and Conti lied. But they did not “lie” by just stating something they were not sure in a preliminary hearing, about evidence that did not compete to the judge and which was to be discussed in a trial to come. They didn’t say “I don’t know this datum” which is secondary and independent to the result (profile comes first, quantification comes after). They lied building a false reasoning that in relation to contamination is central, they said “we assume this datum”, while they made no attempt to verify/falsify it, they did it their report in an appeal trial and put it at the basis of their conclusion.


Meanwhile, it is worth recalling that Vecchiotti has a history far from being independent or impartial: she is a friend of Pascali and Tagliabracci, she managed to publish her articles in book thanks to him, Pascali besides being the defense expert in the Meredith case is currently indicted for stating the false in an expert report on another case; and guess who is the expert who busted him and accused him of lying, causing him to go under trial? Patrizia Stefanoni. In the Claps case she demonstrated that the DNA of the killer was there while Pascali in fact had covered the killer. Vecchiotti herself instead was responsible for delivering false results on the Olgiata case, also in that case protecting the killer. Guess who was working as an expert together with Vecchiotti? Yes, Pascali (it was the infamous Vecchiotti-Pascali report). On a new expert report the DNA of the suspect was ultimately found and he confessed. The RIS-Polizia Scientifica guys (among them Stefanoni and Garofalo) and Vecchiotti and friends (Pascali, Tagliabbracci) are on terms of personal hatred. To call Vecchiotti “impartial” is a joke.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not certain how much Amanda could say or be questioned further once she placed herself at the scene of the crime (according to the penal code). And it makes a difference whether it was Amanda who initiated the 5:45 spontaneous declaration or whether it was the police/Mignini.

There are always her prior statements when questioned before the evening of November 5 early morning November 6 which may give more information along with the questioning of November 5.

I agree. As much as it is valuable as well as revealing to put the two memorandums side by side....

... it is worth it to back up a bit. I still maintain (against the opinion of many here) that even as it was the police who brought Lumumba into the room - starting with the woman-cop checking Knox's SMS texts out in the hallway, right after Knox's 10:39 pm call with Filomena.....

.... I still believe the cops were NOT prepared for the implications of the narrative as it unfolded.

20-20 hindsight says that the cops should not have even prepared a 1:45 am Memorandum #1. The very existence of Memorandum #1 has to walk a fine line - it must NOT implicate Knox as part of this, yet how esle would Knox have known Lumumba was the murderer?

I think this is why the CNN interview with Mignini is so revealing. No one knows the law better than Mignini, no one knows the mess made by the way the "admissions" were handled prior to 1:45 am than Mignini. I also suspect no one knows the problem with even having Memorandum #1 better than Mignini.

Ok, ok, the problem with this, why then did not the Memorandum simply disappear, like the tapes?

At best then, I think the CNN interview describes what Mignini's intervention does to try to repair this. He's going to have to rely on some rather monumental good luck to have Memorandum #1 allowed (and that luck ran out when the SC rules against it for the purpses of the murder), and he knew it was a long shot to have the "repaired" memorandum he needed (already formulated in his mind at 1:45 am) (which also was ruled out by the SC).

But he had no choice. The 1:45 am Memorandum had already happened... he probably was betting at at best it would describe a "developing narrative", which would lead to a (then) hypothetical further memorandum that would fill in the blanks now that Knox was being interrogated as a suspect, complete with all the lawful guarantees (videotaped, lawyer, etc.)

Except, except, except... before he could release her into the good hands of a lawyer, he needed to repair memorandum #1, by developing it into a further, more-filled-out narrative as what was to become Memoradum #2 at 5:45 am.

So the fine line he walked was exactly what he said in the CNN interview:

1) Mignini says he could see that this poor soul in front of him had just been relieved of a great burden
2) Mignini says that upon visual inspection, it was clear that she was afraid of Lumumba. (It is ALL important that Mignini be able to ascertain this non-verbally, because of what he firther needed to establish.....)
3) Knox, visually, needed to talk.

The importance of Mignini being able to establish all this visually for his CNN narrative, is that he cannot let it out that he even questioned her.

Everything in his presence with Knox had to be spontaneous, because it was that very word which had been missing from the first memorandum.

So Mignini, acc. to what he told CNN, acted, "only as if a notary." I apologize for repeating that point, but even PIP miss the import of it.

But going back to christianahannah's point, Memorandum #1 is as sparse as it is because the police probably WERE shutting down interview #1, "of a person informed of the facts," because of the so-called admissions they thought they had. They'd be caught completely off guard that they'd struck (to them) gold.

So much so they couldn't leave it alone. So they split the difference between "person informed of the facts," and "suspect". The very existence of Memorandum #1 is proof of that.

And as Mignini rightly sensed, there IS NO SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE. So he tells CNN that he lectured the first set of "interviewers" on the relevant law, and then, after 1:45 am, proceeded to reconstruct the narrative.

One random point, before I forget. All of this puts to rest the meme of Knox as a liar. Why?

Well, acc. to Dempsey and Burleigh, they are not shy about catching both Knox and Sollecito in their pre Nov 5/6 lies. Awkward lies. Typical of naive 20-somethings barely out of high school, caught up in their very first, real live "fish out of water" experience. A murder, for Jiminies skae!

Burleigh particularly shows Knox to be an awkward liar. She cites one of the translators who comes away thinking, "That American just lied about smoking hashish?" Later when the translator reads in the papers about "all the lies" Knox is telling, she remembers the lie about hashish, so the meme sticks, at least to her.

From the police point of view, regarding Knox as a liar, and a consistent consummate liar, is a strategy to deal with her later retractions, that's all. Because on the face if it, other than the awkward lies, Knox told a consistent story until presented with Sollecito withdrawing her alibi.

Then is was this crazy, imagined confused remembering about Lumumba, a story that the police obviously did not regard as a lie, because they rushed out and arrested Lumumba solely (it's assumed) on the basis of the confused imaginings. They were also at Raffaele's apartment before the 5:45 am memorandum had even been signed.

It was only when Knox started retracting things (to restore the pre Nov 5/6 story), that the Knox-as-liar-meme is leaked to the press. As one press report says, "Knox continues to compulsively write from her cell yet further stories about the events of Nov 1st. She keeps changing stories and plice say she is a compulsive and accomplished liar."

That simply does NOT fit with what the police themselves believed in the early morning hours of Nov 6. If they'd, then, suspected Knox as a compulsive liar, why the rush to arrest Lumumba? Knox only became a "compulsive liar" as a police-strategy to protect them from her returning to the only story that she ever had, the only one that remotely made sense.

Once she places herself at the scene, though, these things happen:

1) Suddenly the cops regard her as not being a liar,
2) The cops get her to sign the 1:45 am Memorandum which should never have existed, because such memorandums do not come out of interviews with "persons informed of the facts," if they also implicate themselves.
3) Mignini rides in to save the day, taking a risky strategy that ultimately, itself, fails. He rolled the dice and lost.

Yes, the interrogations involved coersion. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's that they lacked anything resembling the spontaneous admission of facts that's the problem. As if only a notary. That cannot be repeated enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

My complaint is people saying the tapes will be coming out without giving Frank as the source, as if the poster actually has information.

The same as TM, Michael, and Gang alluding to sources on the inside - either don't say anything or let us know the facts.

Those are the facts, and you probably meant "let us know the source."

For me, it is just good enough to know that Sfarzo is not alone by his onsey in this one.

 

[Diocletus]

Many of the key samples also yielded a “too low” result on a test or were given with no quantification, for example the male DNA found in Meredith’s genital parts was so low in amount that it was impossible to even extract a profile, a much lower amount compared to the “LCN” threshold claimed elsewhere, the identification of Rudy was made by Stefanoni only by assessing the y-haplotype, and the result was of mere compatibility. Do you think Rudy Guede’s defence was warned about this methodology in the preliminary stage?

Uh oh.

Knowing the M.O. of the prosecution, I think the answer to your question is "no."

BUT, the better question is whether Rudy Guede's defense should have been notified about how the testing and analysis was conducted. I think that the right answer is "of course."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why not continue testing Rep. 164

Note: it was Stefanoni herself who provided the papers with “too low” to the defence. I don’t see anything embarrassing and I would answer as Comodi did “do you think Stefanoni would stop research of information on a sample because the machine setting?”. Of course I expect the investigator to attempt to extract information whenever possible. Evidentiary firewalls are prohibited in the Italian system.
Note also that seven samples were taken from the knife, three analyzed with Q-bit and three with PCR. So it is not correct to say PCR was not used. These technical iters are not the centre interest for an expert. They are noted down, but you may well forget the detail with day and time: the result, the profile is the object of interest of the expert. Some details of procedure such as the quantization and Q-bit method are only useful for the defence and their particular strategy.

Machiavelli,

There is least one sample (Rep. 164), which might have been blood, where Stefanoni stopped testing because of a negative preliminary quantification result. The same appears to hold true for Rep. 199, which was positive by TMB. And the knife tested negative for blood. Why continue to test it, when one did not continue with Rep. 164 (or presumably 199)? That is an example of forensic bias, IMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

total discovery

The defence has a right of discovery from the preliminary investigation.

Machiavelli,

Your comment ignores the fact that Professor Pascali asked for data and was refused. Moreover, it does not matter whether the refusal to give him or other experts the forensic DNA data was a decision made by Stefanoni or by the prosecutors: whoever refused them contravened the principle of discovery. Perhaps you missed what an Italian legal expert unaffiliated with this case said about the preliminary hearing, "There is total discovery in Italian law. If lawyers want them, they can get them."

 

[christianahannah]

Uh oh.

Knowing the M.O. of the prosecution, I think the answer to your question is "no."

BUT, the better question is whether Rudy Guede's defense should have been notified about how the testing and analysis was conducted. I think that the right answer is "of course."

I would think they (Guede's defense) were notified of the testing (so that their experts could attend) and the results of that testing. They would have seen first-hand how the testing and analysis were conducted. Then the defense could request further documentation (that raw data which comes up so often). And, of course, they are entitled to all the documents which comprise that testing and analysis.

What is expected of the prosecution and defense during a preliminary hearing? To be as truthful as possible, I'm certain, but how much evidence is to be presented? Enough to proceed to trial or all of the evidence collected? What does Italian law have to say?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Your comment ignores the fact that Professor Pascali asked for data and was refused. Moreover, it does not matter whether the refusal to give him or other experts the forensic DNA data was a decision made by Stefanoni or by the prosecutors: whoever refused them contravened the principle of discovery. Perhaps you missed what an Italian legal expert unaffiliated with this case said about the preliminary hearing, "There is total discovery in Italian law. If lawyers want them, they can get them."

I think it's impossible for Pascali to have attended DNA tests and followed the case at the preliminary investigation, because at the time of Stafanoni's tests and during the preliminary investigation Pascali was not yet a consultant for the defence. The request of Pascali is at the closure of the preliminary investigation seven month after the investigation begun.

Moreover, and above all, the point is that issues about total discovery do not imply that the evidence doesn't exist, that the prosecution's expert lies or is discredited, and that the suspect is innocent. Failures in providing total discovery do not equate to maintain that the evidence dosen't exist, that is fabricated or that experts and prosecutors are corrupt. Violations in procedures and issues or controversies about the defence's rights, do not cause the nullification of the evidence nor the disappearence of Stefanoni's and prosecution's credibility.

 

[Matthew Best]

The concepts have to be declined and interpreted obviously. But the violation of the principle stands out egregiously in the Meredith case Appeal trial, as Hellmann provided no legitimate ground for ordering a new expert review and the previous evidence was obviously complete.

....

And what I said is that this, so carried out at this phase of the trial, is totally illegitimate. Galati agrees with me.

So, I would imagine that the prosecution must have objected strenuously at the time the independent experts were appointed on exactly these grounds.

No?

Why on earth not?

 

[Malkmus]

Has he claimed both interviews/interrogations/spontaneous declarations were not taped or his interview/interrogation/spontaneous declaration was not taped? Where was Amanda when the 1:45 statement was given/signed and where was Amanda when the 5:45 statement was given/signed (by that I mean where in the Questera)? Even if he was told there were no tape(s) and there were, I am fairly certain they could not be used against Amanda in the criminal trial. How would this be Mignini's fault if he is being lied to and had no knowledge of said tape(s)?



I agree. My comment was, as yours, directed to after the high court rules on the appeal verdict and the calunnia trial is started then in accordance to the penal code will the tape(s) be allowed as evidence?

Christianhannah, Mignini has given two reasons for there are no tapes of any of AManda's interrogations the night of the 5th. The first was that there was too much confusion and they didn't have time to set up any recording devices. The second explanation was lack of budget for such things. Either way, he is aware there are no recordings and has explained why. Given that there are two different explanations, it would appear he is being untruthful. We now also have strong evidence that he lied about not being present during the initial interrogation. It seems he has a lot to hide regarding that night.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

There is least one sample (Rep. 164), which might have been blood, where Stefanoni stopped testing because of a negative preliminary quantification result. The same appears to hold true for Rep. 199, which was positive by TMB. And the knife tested negative for blood. Why continue to test it, when one did not continue with Rep. 164 (or presumably 199)? That is an example of forensic bias, IMO.

Maybe. But maybe not, maybe there is also some luck and experience: after all rep. 36 was a knife with a blade showing unusual scratches, and with Knox's DNA on the handle, a very peculiar item.
The object of interest is not the mind of the researcher. Had the defence expert attended the tests, we would know what he thinks about such bias and we could have hadalso other test more oriented towards their requests. The object of interest, the interesting fact, is that the DNA profile of Meredith Kercher was found. Whether this happens because of bias - in Italian we say, a pensar male ci s'azzecca - or luck or other factors, little changes. The results exists.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is exactly it. You look at most witness statements and confessions and all of these things are there, you can't read a sentence without falling over facts and details about the crime, and yet both Knox statements stand out dramatically in the lack of them. It's almost as if they made a determined effort to avoid having too many facts and details, and the only reason I can think of for doing that is that they had what they wanted and believed they already knew the rest.

There is another possible reason - that they did not know enough and did not want the statements riddled with errors. This is my preferred theory in fact.

 

[Grinder]

Those are the facts, and you probably meant "let us know the source."

For me, it is just good enough to know that Sfarzo is not alone by his onsey in this one.

Here's what you wrote: "I am confused. I thought the videotapes had not been released yet. Don't worry, they will be. And when they are, I am sure that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will back you up."

Here's what Frank wrote: "I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…"


So I'm curious as to how you know that the tapes (recordings) will be released as I don't see where Frank or anybody else in the know said that.

And what's a onsey?