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

[CoulsdonUK]

You missed my point. The evidence against Rudy Guede is very different from the evidence against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in multiple ways. Different techniques are involved, and there is no innocent explanation for any trace of Guede in the flat. You are trying to set up an equivalence between the evidence against Guede versus Knox and Sollecito, but that dog won't hunt.

Apologies, thanks for the additional comments.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Gosh! Don't guys across the pond sleep!

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh! Don't guys across the pond sleep!

The massive Gogerty-Marriott PR campaign pays double for our misleading posts posted at odd hours. A guy has to eat you know!

 

[Antony]

I don’t think the Supreme Court care either way, why should they.

We can only speculate as to why the SC acted as they did, but the fact remains that they made a partisan judgement in favour of the prosecution that has no legal basis.

Their concern is judges writing motivations that are consistent with court procedure and their criminal penal codes, that my impression.

If you believe that the SC motivation addressed court procedure and criminal penal codes, then please quote the parts that do so. What they have done instead is to rake over the evidence - even inventing their own facts - without any attempt to pretend otherwise.

Indeed, if they had stayed "consistent with procedure and penal codes", then they could never have endorsed Amanda's blatantly illegal conviction for callunia.

 

[acbytesla]

Ok as we all know Meredith was murdered in Italy not the US, therefore as I have said before it would be really helpful to have some kind of context (Italian) about this case. Is it setting some kind of evidentiary and judicial precedent based on other cases in Italy? The way some of these posts are written every aspect of this case is remarkable, everyone in Italy should be discussing it for the numerous reasons raised here and elsewhere, but they’re not.

Please refresh my memory the EDF thing, so this got past Massei and H & Z?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that Massei said that the defense did not need them. I do believe that Hellmann ordered Stefanoni to produce the EDFs at least to Conti and Vechiotti and she did not.

I'm not a DNA expert Coulsdon, Diocletus, Halkides, Charles Wilkes and other understand this far better than I. And while you are right that this case is taking place in Italy and not the US or the UK, there still is no excuse for not providing the EDFs. This is plain old discovery. More than watching the tests or the collection, this provides a window to how the tests were administered.

What we do know is that Stefanoni used a very different testing methodology to 36B than she did with any other piece of evidence. Why? Don't you find this extremely odd. Why was only this kitchen knife subjected to this?

No other kitchen knife from the cottage, from Patrick's bar or home was tested and yet not only was this knife was tested for DNA, Stefanoni chose this particular knife to perform not standard PCR testing but low template DNA methodology that she didn't use during the other DNA tests.

So no, the same methods of collection and testing were NOT used for the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as they were against Rudy.

Certainly you can concede this point.

 

[Diocletus]

Their concern is judges writing motivations that are consistent with court procedure and their criminal penal codes, that my impression.

Living in a country where our legal traditions were foisted upon us by cruel Anglo-Saxon overlords with bad teeth, I have a hard time getting my head around this thought that a person's guilt or innocence should stand or fall on how good the judge is at writing his report.

Look, we have a jury composed of jurors (in the case of Italy, two professional judges and some number of lay judges). They hear evidence. They deliberate for some period of time. They issue a verdict. Then, post facto, the two professional judges have to write some kind of report that gives detailed reasoning for the verdict (even if the defendant is innocent). The report comes out several months after the verdict. We don't even know if the report fully or accrately addresses the issues that were discussed by the jury--it could be just a bunch of rationalizations (senseless crap, like: "she carried the kitchen knife in her purse for protection"). The interested parties have no right to review and contribute to the report to make sure that it will stand up to appeal. The report gets parsed by some prosecutor and he appeals if it's not good enough? What if the verdict is right and the report just sucks--we have a whole new trial? This is a very wasteful system, and frankly, I question whether there is a denial of fair trial here, since the outcome is a function of the judge's skill in drafting a report as opposed to the actual evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict.

 

[Diocletus]

It is not necessarily a fact that the evidence for all suspects was processed by the same people, in the same place or in the same way. Police had evidence of a fourth suspect as early as the 7th or 8th of November: http://metro.co.uk/2007/11/08/meredith-police-looking-for-fourth-suspect-468784/

I believe that the lab knew on 11/6 or maybe 11/7, based on the vaginal swab and feces samples, that the intruder/rapist was a person other than Sollecito or Lumumba. They probably did not know his identity--he was just designated "Uomo No. 2." Perhaps they were able to determine from the DNA that he was of African origin, but the reason that they were searching for a "fourth man" was because they had DNA results that told them that the "fourth" guy was the actual rapist.

It is possible that they eventually came up with Guede's name/identity based on fingerprint evidence, however, they clearly knew as of the arraignment on 11/9 that Sollecito and Lumumba were not the rapists.

The entire story-line about how they identified Guede based on fingerprints is a smokescreen for the fact that by probably 11/6 they were in possession of DNA evidence that was exculpatory to Sollecito and Lumumba.

 

[anglolawyer]

Living in a country where our legal traditions were foisted upon us by cruel Anglo-Saxon overlords with bad teeth, I have a hard time getting my head around this thought that a person's guilt or innocence should stand or fall on how good the judge is at writing his report.

Look, we have a jury composed of jurors (in the case of Italy, two professional judges and some number of lay judges). They hear evidence. They deliberate for some period of time. They issue a verdict. Then, post facto, the two professional judges have to write some kind of report that gives detailed reasoning for the verdict (even if the defendant is innocent). The report comes out several months after the verdict. We don't even know if the report fully or accrately addresses the issues that were discussed by the jury--it could be just a bunch of rationalizations (senseless crap, like: "she carried the kitchen knife in her purse for protection"). The interested parties have no right to review and contribute to the report to make sure that it will stand up to appeal. The report gets parsed by some prosecutor and he appeals if it's not good enough? What if the verdict is right and the report just sucks--we have a whole new trial? This is a very wasteful system, and frankly, I question whether there is a denial of fair trial here, since the outcome is a function of the judge's skill in drafting a report as opposed to the actual evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict.

I agree. It doesn't seem to be allowed for the ISC to say:

'Hellman was insufficiently osmotic for our taste but, nonetheless, justice is justice and it's clear that he got the right result. Next case.'

 

[Diocletus]

But going back to the EDFs there is no excuse for not providing them. It is routine in the US to provide them. Couldsdon, Why? There is only one reason, and that is they don't want the world to see how this particularly sausage was made.

The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[acbytesla]

The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.

What you are describing is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Which of course to a certain degree the refusal of the EDFs are also, but the difference is the selectivity that Stefanoni failed to produce only specific records is not only suspicious it really should be criminal.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #34

The failure to produce the EDFs is bad, but in my opinion, there is another issue that is even worse.

Stefanoni has selectively produced amplification and egram records. We can tell from the gaps in the records, that from within these two categories of records, she has produced the records that make her look good and has withheld the records that could cast question upon the validity of her results.

We have amplification records for run nos. 543-544, and then a gap until 549. The gap records, 545 to 548, correspond to the period 11/12 to about 11/25, during which time the LCN work was done and the kitchen knife samples were identifed. In other words, these are the most important amplification records in the case.

Similarly, although we have a bates-stamped collection of egram records, we can see very clearly that there are missing records from within the egram collection produced by Stefanoni. Notably, the particular run in which 36b was analyzed has the highest number of "missing" egrams. The circumstances of the missing egrams suggest to me that they likely show indeterminite mixtures of DNA, which likely would support a contamination argument, but this argument can't be made because the records have been withheld.

The two examples above are not as simple as Stefanoni not producing the EDFs because she "had no idea" that the defendants needed them; rather, this is a kind of selective production and withholding of exculpatory information. In other words, it's deceit, aka prosecutorial misconduct.

"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"

 

[Diocletus]

"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"

I don't know anything about this. Sounds like more bull. But let's propose a straight-up trade: diary pages and bleach receipts, if any, for the complete forensics records.

Since we obviously would have heard about suspciciously missing diary pages at trial, if true, and since the prosecution has been very deceitful concerning the forensics records, my money is on a definite "no thanks" from the prosecution.

 

[acbytesla]

"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"

Are you suggesting that Amanda was planning to kill Meredith and she may have wrote this in her diary? What could she possibly have written during those last two weeks that was incriminating? And was this the last week after she met Raffaele? Or in the previous week before she met him?

I seriously doubt that there is anything in her diary from October 14 to October 31st that could shed light on this crime.

 

[anglolawyer]

Are you suggesting that Amanda was planning to kill Meredith and she may have wrote this in her diary? What could she possibly have written during those last two weeks that was incriminating? And was this the last week after she met Raffaele? Or in the previous week before she met him?

I seriously doubt that there is anything in her diary from October 14 to October 31st that could shed light on this crime.

It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.

 

[acbytesla]

It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.

Sure it could and I could have slept with Morgan Fairchild last night. Yea, that's the ticket. I slept with Morgan Fairchild.

10 points if you guess who I am.

 

[Diocletus]

It could say plenty of incriminating things. It could talk about meeting Guede and knowing him well, for instance. Given her highly confessional style of writing it could contain all sorts of inappropriate musings or fantasies which might have been turned to her disadvantage.

Could say "I am guilty of murdering Meredith five days from now."

Also, there is the possibility that the diary pages are the real murder weapon. They are definitely compatible with at least one of the wounds.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sure it could and I could have slept with Morgan Fairchild last night. Yea, that's the ticket. I slept with Morgan Fairchild.

10 points if you guess who I am.

Since Grinder isn't here I am left to accuse you of conflating. Distinguish the questions whether:

1 in principle there could have been anything incriminating in the diary, regardless of likelihood, and

2 whether, having regard to Amanda's character background etc there was or was likely to have been anything incriminating.

I was addressing the first point and you are answering it by reference to the second.

 

[acbytesla]

Since Grinder isn't here I am left to accuse you of conflating. Distinguish the questions whether:

1 in principle there could have been anything incriminating in the diary, regardless of likelihood, and

2 whether, having regard to Amanda's character background etc there was or was likely to have been anything incriminating.

I was addressing the second point and you are answering it by reference to the second.

Actually, I'm just joking. Something that Grinder wouldn't pick up on. But thanks for filling in for Grinder. Wonder what happened to him? Missing diary pages could mean anything. I'm not sure the same could be said about missing DNA documentation.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Actually, I'm just joking. Something that Grinder wouldn't pick up on. But thanks for filling in for Grinder. Wonder what happened to him? Missing diary pages could mean anything. I'm not sure the same could be said about missing DNA documentation.

Depends on who you are talking to, PIP or PGP...........

 

[acbytesla]

Depends on who you are talking to, PIP or PGP...........

Not really. Stefanoni has a responsibility to provide FULL DISCLOSURE. The same can not be said about someone writing in their own diary.