Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

You've made this point before but neglected to provide the actual quotes from Massei. I couldn't find the "quotes" you attributed to Massei. Please just provide the actual quotes.

Grinder - here's the whole schmear. The difficulty is that Massei does not address the issue directly, but addresses it in a long and convoluted defence of Stefanoni in his motivations report, circa pages 266 to 281.

The following is Massei's rationale for siding with Stefanoni in disallowing independent tests to see if Nara Capezzali could be heard, the DNA analysis was sufficient, and the computers compromised. Massei disallows testing to evaluate Stefanoni's work, wait for it, "on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise." (Please note that since Massei treats the issue of testing Nara's hearing with the issue of the compromised harddrives, he considers them together.)

In essence he's saying, Stefanoni (and others) say one thing, the defence says another. He's implying that if he orders a independent review of each (DNA analysis included) that independent analysis will only side with one or the other, and it will still be up to him to decide what's factual. So he simply sides with Stefanoni, including on the full disclosure release of things like the EDF's.

In particular, a medico-legal expert report was requested, with the aim of ascertaining in terms of greater practicability in respect of the indications furnished: the time of death of Meredith Kercher (once a time band narrower than that indicated by the technical consultants of the Prosecutor or of the panel of experts under the preliminary investigations judge [the GIP], it would be possible to verify whether Raffaele Sollecito had interacted with his PC within a more precisely defined timeframe); the dynamics of the action of the murder, also in reference to the infallibility of the presence, or otherwise, of a number of agents; the repetition of the genetic investigations, or at least the revaluation of the traces with reference to Exhibits 165B and 36, the procedures/methodology of the gathering of the exhibits undertaken by the genetics expert of the Scientific Police, Dr Stefanoni, who carried out the verifications, having been questioned; an expert audiometric test was ought, to be undertaken to establish whether the witness Nara Capezzali, on the premise of the presence in her dwelling of double-glazed windows, was able to hear the noises and the screams of which she had given an account in her deposition; an expert report on the computers of the accused was requested, the memories of which were found to have been damaged at the time of the analysis of the supports carried out by the Postal Police, such that the hard drives could not be duplicated/cloned for subsequent examination.

The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise.

As you can see from the conclusions Massei drew, he sided with Stefanoni on everything.

But then to the subject of disclosure, particularly the genetic testing....

Responding to a specific question posed by the defence regarding the relevance of the documentation which was only subsequently made available: ("Professor, in light of your analysis of this documentation, I’d like to ask you two things: if I had been able to provide you with these documents earlier, would you be able to make a more complete analysis? And what does what you are missing have a bearing on, precisely?‛), the consultant declared that ‚what is missing has a bearing on the interpretation and evaluation of the result; these are results which must be corroborated by an analytical process which does not appear to have been documented here ...‛ (page 63).

Massei then turns to the questions had for Professor Tagliabracci that would cause Professor Tagliabracci to even be aware that Stefanoni had used, for instance, less than 10 microliters of substance (thus, the prosecutor is implying as recorded by Massei in the motivations, that Tagliabracci had all he needed.... Massei records that Tagliabracci's answer was:

He deduced this from what Dr. Stefanoni had declared at the preliminary hearing of October 4, 2008. (‚What I know, I've taken from pages 178, 179 of the preliminary hearing transcript, wherein Dr. Stefanoni would have taken ... after a first concentration, [she would have] taken the sample to 20, 22, and 23 microliters, then, after she had done the quantization, she carried out a further concentration‛, page 68). He noted that, in that hearing, Dr. Stefanoni had specified since the amount of DNA was so low she had decided to use all of it and had taken it to 10.

In other words, Tagliabracci had to deduce rather than read from originals.

Massei briefly brings up the missing SAL reports, and criticises Tagliabracci for saying why he needed them. This is part of the problem as I see it. Like contamination, to Massei you first have to prove contamination before Massei would order an independent review to establish that exact fact. As for the missing documents, Massei seems to be saying you need to tell the courts what the ducuments would show, before asked for them!

As for the missing S.A.L. reports [work status reports] he could not specify which items they related to.

Massei adopts this method of legal reasoning throughout. You must first demonstrate what you want to prove, before the judge will order the very independent study which would confirm or deny it. In other works, the "reputation of the technician" is more important that the results.

Knox's expert Dr. Sarah Gino made reference to the issue of withheld reports on procedures, procedures which must have been done because the Scientific Police make reference to them. Massei notes:

Considering the Work Status Report [SAL] cards, (Gino) noted various inaccuracies, such as the lack of indication of the concentrations of the extracts before or after the quantifications. She observed, however, that this procedure must have in fact been followed, since it was mentioned in the technical report by the Scientific Police. She criticised the lack of dates for the amplifications, and noted that this lack constituted a shortcoming of some importance, since it becomes impossible [273] to know which samples were "processed" together, which could be relevant for evaluating the possibility of contamination.

Indications making it possible to verify whether the standards and protocols were followed were also missing. Work status report [SAL] cards were not even found for certain samples.

I need to cut to the chase here, because it is clear from this that Massei is now faced with a choice - a finding of fact - as to whether or not missing data from Stefanoni to the defence has somehow compromised the right to a fair trial. (In north American this wouldn't have even been an issue. There is the concept of disclosure here....)

Massei then has a section (p. 277) called Genetic Investigations, Considerations....

Massei makes the clearest statement one could make, as if Stefanoni's attorney, that (in his mind) debunks ANY criticism of her work:

[HILITE=Massei page 277]In the first place, it was stated that a geneticist who knows the biological profile of the suspect and has access to said profile may misinterpret *‚force-bend‛+ the reading of the graph supplied by the machine so as to recognize or identify the biological profile of the suspect. The recommendation that forbids such a procedural method was mentioned and, for the trace for which Dr. Stefanoni already had the biological profile of the current defendants, it was repeatedly maintained that the reading of the various graphs and the interpretation of the peaks in themselves presenting as statters and/or alleles was flawed due to the so-called suspect-oriented method.

This court does not accept this objection. The same objection, in addition to making no logical sense, appears to be contradicted by the acquired findings.[/HILITE]

Why does Massei says that something that Stefanoni has access to (and others do not) should be analysed, based on the criticism that Stefanoni's methods are "suspect-oriented"?

In the first place, it must be stressed that it is not possible to discern any reason for which Dr. Stefanoni would have had any bias in favour of or against those under investigation and, on the basis of such bias, would have offered false interpretations and readings.

Once again the bias of the court goes against issues of disclosure. Release of information that the SP has access to, that the defence does not, does not rest on discerning a reason for suspecting Stefanoni of bias.... the protocols assume bias, and it is up to the prosecution to show why boas did not effect the outcome, not the other way around.

It's predicated on what Stefanoni has access to that others do not.

Massei says this about the implied insult to Stefanoni... and insult he is going to protect her from. He comments on an implicit implication defence people are advancing, simply because they don't have access to primary records of analysis.... that Stefanoni is lying:

we cannot see how or why, based on logic alone and for the sake of argument, Dr. Stefanoni would have had to cook the data supplied by the machine in order to identify incriminating evidence against any of these defendants, attributing this or that biological specimen to one or the other suspect,

Massei then says that if Stefanoni was part of some conspiracy to misprosecute two individuals, why so few incriminating pieces of DNA in over 460 traces sampled? Wouldn't she have cooked more? (It is revealing about Judge Massei how he can turn this issue of so few samples pointing to Knox and Sollecito on its head. He makes it sound like so few samples is actually more proof of their guilt! But that's another discussion.)

But what's at issue here is how much time and pages in the motivations Massei has spent on defending Stefanoni, all which would have been cleared up in the first instance by allowing release of primary DNA analysis.

Page 280 of the report is Judge Massei's most clear siding with Stefanoni on the issue of contamination. Why is there no contamination? Basically because Stefanoni said so.

In the present case, none of any of this emerged, however, and Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony rules out that any laboratory contamination could have occurred.

On her testimony Massei finds as factual no contamination. On her testimony that her critics had all the information they needed (despite the critics' objections) Massei finds as factual that they did not need the "missing documents".

That's basically it. The critics say that they have to see the originals to be able to comment meaningfully on Stefanoni's work, those originals include the EDF's, and Massei rules that Stefanoni's testimony in this regard trumps their objections.

I'm not doing this again. The problem is not mine. The problem is that ordering full disclosure (and ordering the kind of independent review that Hellmann ordered with C&V) would have cleared this up. Instead, Massei has to write 15 pages where the point is spread around and lost; even as he tries to awkwardly establish as a fact.....

Massei's agreed with Stefanoni, that the rest of the DNA file did not need to be released. To do so would be an inference that Stefanoni either commited a criminal act or was incompetent.... or lied on the stand when she said she'd never had a case of contamination. So why release the EDF's precisely to check that claim?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The public prosecutor's office in Canada and DNA forensics

"Finally, Crown are reminded that DNA testing results are valuable only when they are accurate. In 2001, Gregory Turner was acquitted in Newfoundland of the first degree murder of a 56-year-old woman. The only substantial evidence against the accused was DNA found on the accused’s wedding ring. On the ring, DNA from another contributor, believed to be an accomplice, was also found. Determination and diligence by defence counsel ultimately uncovered that the second DNA profile belonged to a lab technician who had been working on the victim’s fingernail clippings which were stored in close proximity to the wedding ring, raising a strong possibility of primary and secondary DNA transfer and contamination. In 2009, a U.S. study conducted by a University of Virginia law professor and a co-founder of the Innocence Project found that three of 156 individuals exonerated of serious crimes had been wrongfully convicted based on DNA errors. In one case a technician grossly overstated evidence, in another a senior analyst knowingly gave false evidence and in a third lab contamination was discovered. Contamination issues and lab errors have also been identified as wrongfully linking suspects to murder investigations in Australia and England.[ref]279 These examples are a sobering reminder that the Crown must always be vigilant to ensure that the forensic testing and analysis on which the Crown rely are accurate and reliable in order to prevent further miscarriages of justice." (highlighting mine) link

 

[acbytesla]

Can't you read the lines?

The fact is that Massei didn't say that if Stefanoni says so, it's true. They listened to many experts and by Italian law the court needed to make the decision. As witnessed at the appeal after C&V reported the prosecution wanted another bite at the apple and had that been granted and come back in the prosecution's favor the defense would have ask for yet another evaluation.

I think that Massei made the wrong decision on the DNA from the testimony given without additional experts, don't you?

You still haven't admitted that you were spreading misinformation about the kiosk owners contradicting Curatolo.

1. you were right about the Kiosk owners, I confused the Kiosk operators with the companies that ran the buses. I was rather impressed with your link between the timelines and Massei. Very good.

2. It's not that Massei didn't hear from the Defense, it was that Massei didn't listen or wasn't interested. Stefanoni and the Prosecution's objection to providing the EDF files makes ZERO sense. Providing them would take less than a couple of minutes. Little more than adding an attachment to an email.
From my understanding these files contain the egram, date and time stamps and machine settings providing all the parameters. For the life of me, I can't understand why the judge would not want this as well. There is only one reason the judge or the system wouldn't want this and that is they don't want a corrupt system to be revealed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

electronic data files and discovery

The electronic data files contain the information from which an egram is constructed. However, they are more versatile in the sense that one can zoom in on small peaks. They are easy to copy onto a CD ROM. Their only disadvantage is that one needs proprietary software to read them. However, the people who do this for a living have such software. There are additional pieces of information, such as dates, that are also provided. There really should be no debate whatsoever about whether or not they should be turned over to the defense during standard discovery; the only objections I have ever heard were lies. On the other hand, examination of such files turns up problematic data in a signification fraction of cases. Why we even need to have this discussion after more than five years is indicative of a problem.

 

[Grinder]

1. you were right about the Kiosk owners, I confused the Kiosk operators with the companies that ran the buses. I was rather impressed with your link between the timelines and Massei. Very good.

A sincere thanks.

2. It's not that Massei didn't hear from the Defense, it was that Massei didn't listen or wasn't interested. Stefanoni and the Prosecution's objection to providing the EDF files makes ZERO sense. Providing them would take less than a couple of minutes. Little more than adding an attachment to an email.
From my understanding these files contain the egram, date and time stamps and machine settings providing all the parameters. For the life of me, I can't understand why the judge would not want this as well. There is only one reason the judge or the system wouldn't want this and that is they don't want a corrupt system to be revealed.

First a tip of the hat to Bill W for his in-depth, cited report on this issue. Thanks Bill.

I don't agree with lawyer games but that's what some of this seems to be. You asked too late or the wrong way so tough. In a case of this magnitude the decision should fall on the side of more information.

As many people do, the courts want and do believe the police in general. In general the police and prosecutors probably should be believed.

 

[Bill Williams]

The fact is that Massei didn't say that if Stefanoni says so, it's true. They listened to many experts and by Italian law the court needed to make the decision. As witnessed at the appeal after C&V reported the prosecution wanted another bite at the apple and had that been granted and come back in the prosecution's favor the defense would have ask for yet another evaluation.

1. you were right about the Kiosk owners, I confused the Kiosk operators with the companies that ran the buses. I was rather impressed with your link between the timelines and Massei. Very good.

2. It's not that Massei didn't hear from the Defense, it was that Massei didn't listen or wasn't interested. Stefanoni and the Prosecution's objection to providing the EDF files makes ZERO sense. Providing them would take less than a couple of minutes. Little more than adding an attachment to an email.
From my understanding these files contain the egram, date and time stamps and machine settings providing all the parameters. For the life of me, I can't understand why the judge would not want this as well. There is only one reason the judge or the system wouldn't want this and that is they don't want a corrupt system to be revealed.

The fact is that Massei DID conclud that if Stefanoni said it it must be true.

Read what I posted above. Massei spent 15 pages of his 480+ report defending Stefanoni on this very point.

Massei says things like:

we cannot see how or why, based on logic alone and for the sake of argument, Dr. Stefanoni would have had to cook the data supplied by the machine in order to identify incriminating evidence against any of these defendants, attributing this or that biological specimen to one or the other suspect,

Massei was making his argument based on logic, a logic that for him implied that if you doubted Stefanoni you were also doubting her integrity and expertise (which would need to be justified first!). Massei did listen to the other arguments, including that there were missing files (so that Stefanoni's work could bot be independently evaluated)...

.... Which means that Massei took Stefanoni on her word, saying she had no motive to lie. And also that she must be being sincere for declaring her lab does no t have contamination.

In short, if Stefanoni says it, Massei consistently concludes that it's true.

 

[Bill Williams]

First a tip of the hat to Bill W for his in-depth, cited report on this issue. Thanks Bill.

I don't agree with lawyer games but that's what some of this seems to be. You asked too late or the wrong way so tough. In a case of this magnitude the decision should fall on the side of more information.

As many people do, the courts want and do believe the police in general. In general the police and prosecutors probably should be believed.

It is the frustration for being accused of being a liar, when asked to back up the claim, "You should read Massei's own rationale for agreeing with Stefanoni, that the rest of the DNA file did not need to be released."

You go looking for one sentence, perhaps simply doing a word search on key words.

This one particularly Massei doesn't out and out say it, you have to read the full 15 page rationale to "get" what Massei is saying about Stefanoni. Massei agreed with Stefanoni that the "missing files" did not need to be released, because to disagree with her (in Massei's mind) would be to accuse her of wrongdoing.

In other venues, there is a thing called "full disclosure" where the defence simply has a right to see the case against them so as to be in a position of making full answer (if one can be made).

In most venues it is not an either or: either they make full disclosure, or you're accusing the prosecution of a crime, it is either they make full disclosure or there is no case.

There is no sound bite to Massei... you actually have to read the thing. It is the C&V report (IIRC don't make me quote at length from that because I will not) that made the connection between missing files and the importance of seeing the EDFs. Which are still being withheld.

There is no middle ground to be mined on this.

 

[acbytesla]

The electronic data files contain the information from which an egram is constructed. However, they are more versatile in the sense that one can zoom in on small peaks. They are easy to copy onto a CD ROM. Their only disadvantage is that one needs proprietary software to read them. However, the people who do this for a living have such software. There are additional pieces of information, such as dates, that are also provided. There really should be no debate whatsoever about whether or not they should be turned over to the defense during standard discovery; the only objections I have ever heard were lies. On the other hand, examination of such files turns up problematic data in a signification fraction of cases. Why we even need to have this discussion after more than five years is indicative of a problem.

While never having seen an EDF for DNA testing I assume it it much like most any document file that is created today. For example, I'm a bit of an amateur photographer. I take lots of photos. With Photoshop and lots of other image editors and organizers I can retrieve the metadata of the image. This can include substantial information about how and when the photo was taken.

My guess is that EDFs are routinely turned over in the US and it sheds little more light on a case than the E-gram alone would provide. But it holds the promise of a more critical examination of the DNA test and analysis and adds one more layer of protection to the public that the DNA test is not bogus.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't agree with lawyer games but that's what some of this seems to be. You asked too late or the wrong way so tough. In a case of this magnitude the decision should fall on the side of more information.

As many people do, the courts want and do believe the police in general. In general the police and prosecutors probably should be believed.

An accusation by the police seems to be enough for people to convict. This is why innocent until proven guilty can and is often a bogus concept. The argument that the break-in must have been staged is a perfect example of that.

There simply is no evidence that the break in was staged. Now that doesn't mean it wasn't, even though I don't think it was. The police in this case simply posits this idea and therefore the court is accepting it as fact.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here we see Machiavelli being a proper mouthpiece for the prosecution or the guiltier courts. As reported by Fiona in the original thread, "All files relating to the forensic test were requested by the defence team before the court broke for the summer recess in June or July and the prosecution agreed to that."

Can we agree that the Electronic Data Files or .fsa files are in fact files and are in fact related to the forensic tests.

This double-talk and denial of fact is wearisome.

I have a copy of a written request for the EDFs from Vecchiotti. I sat in on a meeting between Greg Hampikian and Carlo dalla Vedova at which Greg stressed the importance of getting these files.

By saying that any informed defense consultant or DNA expert would regard this data as "irrelevant," Machiavelli simply underscores his ignorance of the subject.

 

[Grinder]

The fact is that Massei DID conclud that if Stefanoni said it it must be true.

Yes and he had to conclude that one side or the other was correct. I disagreed with his assessment.

Read what I posted above. Massei spent 15 pages of his 480+ report defending Stefanoni on this very point.

Okay I read it and I don't think it was 15 pages but he defends his decision and therefore Stefanoni.

Massei says things like:


Massei was making his argument based on logic, a logic that for him implied that if you doubted Stefanoni you were also doubting her integrity and expertise (which would need to be justified first!). Massei did listen to the other arguments, including that there were missing files (so that Stefanoni's work could bot be independently evaluated)...

I do prefer the actual quotes but of course if you doubted her one would be doubting either integrity or expertise or both.

.... Which means that Massei took Stefanoni on her word, saying she had no motive to lie. And also that she must be being sincere for declaring her lab does no t have contamination.

In short, if Stefanoni says it, Massei consistently concludes that it's true.

I would guess that almost every judge in the world would take the police lab's work at face value. While I don't agree with his decision not to force more data out of her, I'm not convinced that the letter of the law permitted him to do so.

 

[Antony]

As many people do, the courts want and do believe the police in general. In general the police and prosecutors probably should be believed.

So why have trials at all?

Yes, I know you're not suggesting that accepting the police and prosecution line is to be a universal principle, but the trouble is that in many people's mindset that's exactly what it is.

 

[codyjuneau]

The bra clasp had extra alleles on it not attributable to Meredith, Raffaele, or Amanda. By the van Oorshot definition of contamination, it was contaminated.

.
And then it was put in a plastic bag to rust. An effective way of making sure there is no further examination of the extra alleles. Sort of like destroying hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing control data.

Maybe somebody should seal a few bra clasps in plastic bags to see how long it takes them to rust. I have a feeling it would require adding extra moisture to get any significant amount of rust.
.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a crucial part of case review

My guess is that EDFs are routinely turned over in the US and it sheds little more light on a case than the E-gram alone would provide. But it holds the promise of a more critical examination of the DNA test and analysis and adds one more layer of protection to the public that the DNA test is not bogus.

Your first guess is correct: see this link, this link, and the links provided within. Your second guess is not correct: the EDFs often do shed more light (EDFs of the negative controls are important as well), but I am not willing to put a number on it yet. I have asked many DNA experts about EDFs and there is uniformity of opinion on their review being an integral portion of case review as a whole.
EDT
I once likened the process of converting an EDF into a egram to doing a Fourier transform of a free induction decay to a frequency spectrum in nuclear magnetic spectroscopy. The data are easier to interpret in the latter form, but certain processing parameters have been irrevocably applied. The choice of those parameters should be in the hands of the experts doing the review, not the prosecution's experts.

 

[Antony]

An accusation by the police seems to be enough for people to convict. This is why innocent until proven guilty can and is often a bogus concept. The argument that the break-in must have been staged is a perfect example of that.

There simply is no evidence that the break in was staged. Now that doesn't mean it wasn't, even though I don't think it was. The police in this case simply posits this idea and therefore the court is accepting it as fact.

The break-in has to be staged, otherwise there is no prosecution case against anyone other than Guede. The fact that it's neither plausible nor supported by evidence just isn't important. After all, the other accusations against Amanda and Raff are neither plausible nor supported by evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would guess that almost every judge in the world would take the police lab's work at face value. While I don't agree with his decision not to force more data out of her, I'm not convinced that the letter of the law permitted him to do so.

The guess is wrong, particularly with the very issues of complaint that even Massei admits to in his motivations report. The complaints and analyses from defence in the Knox/Sollecito trial would trigger an independent review.... in fact, IIRC at the inquest into what went wrong at the Mt. Carmel/Branch Davidian debacle, one issue revolved around who started the fire - The Branch Davidians or the FBI/ATF themselves.

A fire expert testified that it had been the Branch Davidians which started the fires. At one sitting of the inquest I saw, when the expert was challenged as to his own impartiality, with the suggestion that he was merely aping the Federal Government's party line, he became incensed. He was, first and foremost, a Texan and the US federal government had just turned to the Clinton-left and he thought Texas Governor Ann Richards was a communist. (Ok, I'm just funning you on that last one, but it's added for effect.)

Specifically he challenged anyone to evaluate his work, and welcomed independent reviews. He would open all his files to scrutiny because he stood by the transparency of the work he did as a fire investigator.

He wouldn't have let a court protect him and his work. He'd have challenged all comers.

In any event, not that I'm claiming expertise on this, but I would find it hard to imagine any other court cutting off independent review like Massei did, and who simply chose in favour of her simply because he could not see her deliberately lying or misrepresenting things.

The neutrality of the court is at stake here. Perhaps Machiavelli can advise us on why the court is bound in Italy to take the prosecution's side on things, and if there are complaints the complainers get charged with calunnia or defamation?

 

[Grinder]

So why have trials at all?

Yes, I know you're not suggesting that accepting the police and prosecution line is to be a universal principle, but the trouble is that in many people's mindset that's exactly what it is.

Generally the police gather evidence and information and deliver it to the prosecutor with a recommendation to charge. The prosecutor looks at the information and either moves forward with the charge, asks for more investigation or declines to charge.

What I was saying is that the prosecutor and the judges will generally believe that the police work is honest and generally valid. They recognize that the defense may disagree and will contest it.

In Italy the problem seems to be that the judge that makes admissibility decisions also sits on the jury. In our system the jury can evaluate a piece of evidence on their own and need not ever disclose what they decided about it.

I think it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the police work is honest and accurate. Clearly, I don't believe that in this case.

 

[Antony]

.
And then it was put in a plastic bag to rust. An effective way of making sure there is no further examination of the extra alleles. Sort of like destroying hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing control data.

Maybe somebody should seal a few bra clasps in plastic bags to see how long it takes them to rust. I have a feeling it would require adding extra moisture to get any significant amount of rust.
.

One of Machiavelli's stranger claims was that it's not possible to preserve a bra-clasp from rusting in a police laboratory, without an expensive coating treatment that would have destroyed the DNA on it in any case.

 

[Antony]

I think it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the police work is honest and accurate. Clearly, I don't believe that in this case.

The trouble is, there's no real way of knowing. If we assume that dodgy police work always comes to light, then all the vast majority of cases which we don't get to hear about do represent honest and accurate police work. I don't think that's a justifiable assumption.

 

[Grinder]

The guess is wrong, particularly with the very issues of complaint that even Massei admits to in his motivations report.

So you think that most courts wouldn't take police work at face value? Silly.

In any event, not that I'm claiming expertise on this, but I would find it hard to imagine any other court cutting off independent review like Massei did, and who simply chose in favour of her simply because he could not see her deliberately lying or misrepresenting things.

The neutrality of the court is at stake here. Perhaps Machiavelli can advise us on why the court is bound in Italy to take the prosecution's side on things, and if there are complaints the complainers get charged with calunnia or defamation?

Bill can you imagine defense lawyers requesting independent review of every issue in a trial?

In Italy Mach has made it quite clear, Galati too, that the court must make the decision on their own and may not let an independent expert make the decision. Massei listened to both sides' multiple experts and decided he had heard enough. I think he made the wrong choice. I think he had enough from the defense experts to discount the two crucial pieces of DNA evidence. Don't you?

In the vast majority of cases the police experts evidence is by and large correct. If the defense doesn't shake their opinions, then the court goes with them.