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

[Chris_Halkides]

reading up on Reid

Grinder,

You left out one thing. She also studied the Reid technique so that she could behave in a way that was consistent with the interrogation's being coercive.

 

[Welshman]

With regards to the knife, if Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith why were the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele requesting the following information :-

* The EDF files. If Amanda and Raffaele used the knife, would Amanda and Raffaele not worry that the EDF files would confirm Meredith's DNA was on the knife.

* Independent testing of the knife. If Amanda and Raffaele used the knife, would Amanda and Raffaele not worry independent experts would find Meredith's DNA on the knife.

* Asking the the knife to be opened. If Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife, would they not worry blood would be found in the part where the handle joins the blade as blood can not be washed off from this part.

 

[RandyN]

Beats me. There used to be a time when people extolled the great virtue of the Italian system, because it afforded the defendant a second trial, de novo. If that were the case, then there would be no problem introducing new evidence in the second "trial".

But, I suppose this original meme has turned out to be not true, so perhaps there are restrictions on new evidence that can come in the second time around. That said, I have no idea why the computers, new knife analysis, and suppressed lab data should not be acquired and accepted by the court at this time. After all, the prosecution destroyed the computers, suppressed the lab data, and resisted the knife testing. Why should the prosecution benefit from its bad and unethical acts?

Yes trial de novo...(from the beginning), apparently this is a lie. Perhaps we can get Perverts Italian lawyers to clear up this question.

Yes the prosecution destroyed the computers, suppressed the full lab data, and objected to further knife testing...until after they lost and then they changed tunes...hummm. Don't forget the prosecution also forgot to press record and or mismanaged the budget so as not to be able to afford this one night of recordings...there should be a RS and PL tape also.

The biggest appeal item change that I see would be a full on demand to call and question Rudy Guede. It appears the SC has made way for this to happen since they confirmed in his case that he "did not act alone" and that the SC then used his case to deny the first appeal decision of AK and RS case. So it would be elementary that Guede should be subpoena into court to be examined about his case as it relates to the defendants in their separate case. I am quite sure the SC can straighten that out quite easily and must certainly allow it since they use that basis and also complain that Hellmann failed to consider it.

 

[RandyN]

With regards to the knife, if Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith why were the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele requesting the following information :-

* The EDF files. If Amanda and Raffaele used the knife, would Amanda and Raffaele not worry that the EDF files would confirm Meredith's DNA was on the knife.

* Independent testing of the knife. If Amanda and Raffaele used the knife, would Amanda and Raffaele not worry independent experts would find Meredith's DNA on the knife.

* Asking the the knife to be opened. If Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife, would they not worry blood would be found in the part where the handle joins the blade as blood can not be washed off from this part.

And by contrast why would Mignini and Maresca object to the independent experts request to open the handle? The defense had nothing much to gain and the prosecution had nothing much to lose and yet this is the logic that prevailed.

 

[RandyN]

I think you are missing something important in that video. Has anyone explained how the homeless man was able to be interviewed in front of the door to his home?

I saw that too DanO...I also wondered how a homeless man could groom his beard so perfectly. Sure his hair is a mess...but the beard is neatly groomed. Something I have struggled with in a well lit bathroom with a huge mirror to help...forget trimming up on the park bench.

Perhaps Toto got a benefactor prior to his testimony? But then he blew it and so it was off to jail...and then he dies? Huh...lives on the streets in winter and is fine...goes to a warm jail and 3 meals a day and dies? Toto was not an old man...although he looked older than his years ...I think he was 39. ;-)

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I knew about the self proclaimed God for quite some time. But it was your article on Ground Report that reminded me just how crazy this case has actually become...that article is linked in this thread and is a must read for those in doubt about what this case has been about all along. Nice job.

I am not picking out Nasser for any special study...rather that odd people and crazy unfounded speculation have been leading this case all along. What amazes me is that the crazy story was ever able to gain traction and then remain alive in various forms and with different motivations for going on 6 years now.

Italy and representative Mignini have caused two innocent people incalculable pain and suffering. They have also needlessly caused financial disaster for the two and for their families. And last but certainly not least Italy and Mignini have caused the Kerchers additional years of torture on top of the disastrous pain they already suffered when Rudy Guede robbed, raped and murdered their daughter.

Bruce I agree that the unjustly accused in this and a few other cases that I have studied are lucky to have your site to help amplify their voices that are often drowned out in the short attention span of the modern person.

The topics we don't agree on are not all that important and I don't know that we disagree in general on them anyway...I actually miss Franks... on the spot... take on things. I still think he was foolish for soiling in his food dishes...and were it not plural ....dishes, then I would be less harsh. None the less I wish he would write about the Italian take on this continuing saga...or at least report why he has gone dead silent. But if he doesn't no biggie.

In these cases we have always been on the same side...The side were the truth and facts prove that wrongful convictions still happen at an alarming rate.

I know it's hard to believe that Frank would take advice but I think Frank's silence comes at the request of his attorney. This is my personal opinion. This is the problem. Mignini is abusing the laws in place to silence journalists. Frank faces real jail time for a blog post. Its ridiculous! But I can't blame him for being cautious right now. The threat of being locked in a cage is a very powerful one.

Just so you know, you are always welcome at the IA forum. People can have their differences and move forward.

 

[RandyN]

Hold on there. Let's consider the positive controls for a second. Stefanoni had a lab standard called "STD 0.068", which I am assuming is a mix of known DNA template to a concentration of 68 picograms per milliliter. She would take 20 ml of this STD, and amplify via RT q-PCR, along with the rest of the field samples. She would then take the amplified standard and put it in the electrophoresis machine. She would get an egram. The egram should show a perfect profile of the of the lab standard.

But, what if we see extra stuff in the STD egram, i.e., peaks that don't belong to the STD donor? Doesn't that tell us that we have contamination? We shouldn't be able to see extra peaks, even if we magnify the egram all the way to the level of background noise, but what if we do?

I think that's why we don't have the STD egrams and/or the corresponding EDFs. Also, I think that's why we are missing a large number of egrams from plate no 365bis, which produced the egram for 36b (we have 757, 761, 770 and 771; are missing 758-760, and 762-769). Both the STD sample, and all of these missing samples effectively are controls, if we have the EDFS and can magnify them to the level that Stefanoni magnified 36b. What if they all produce artefacts and unknown secondary profiles? How reliable is plate 365bis?

Also, there might be negative controls, it's just that they might be at the beginning or end of the run sequences, in which case I haven't been able to identify them doing the gap analysis. Or, maybe Stefanoni thought that the STD control was good enough, for the reasons set forth above. IDK.

Well this would indicate that there was a problem somewhere in the process. Could be contamination or a wrong setting, someone sneezed into the sample, etc.

Negative controls which is basically distilled water...that somehow produce a result can show you what likely contaminated your run. If you get any result, once more something is wrong but now you may be able to define that by comparing the result found in the negative control with other results you obtained during testing. If I happen to produce an egram that fits MK profile from my negative control then I can be quite sure that I have a contamination with a MK item somewhere in the process...and that process is limited to the lab area because we used distilled water or some other certified negative control solution.

This is why both negative and positive controls are required. They are not optional...not in certified labs AFAIK.

But I agree with your larger point. Nothing should be missing or withheld. And when it is discovered that some thing was withheld it is essential that the defense demand that this evidence be turned over. And if it is missing or lost then everything related to that evidence should be considered as unreliable by the court. In this case all scientific data produced by this lab must be considered suspect not just because it might be contaminated or improperly collected or produced but that by the act of failing to comply with full discovery it should be enough to dismiss the whole case.

It was exactly this thing that got Mike Morton freed after spending 25 years in prison for a crime he never committed. Failure to turn over Brady material...which is a USA SC decision called Brady material but which must have a counterpart in every judicial system...well modern systems that at least attempt to be honest...not Italy or Iran perhaps...although I bet Italy claims they have this requirement as a law. They just have some other law to make an exception in what ever case they happen to need that exception. Its all very logical.

 

[JREF2010]

Its odd Raffaele is defending against the sexy foxy knoxy orgy crap again.
Is it driven by the media trash-sells mentality or is it really going to be a main issue in the trial?

Its almost too hard to believe stereo-typed intelligent Judges would even bring up such speculation and fiction in a real murder case. But then I think of Judge Micheli who starts out saying "lets place them all in the bedroom committing the murder and work backwards to figure this out" to that effect.

in relate to Raffaeles recent interview, seem the sex of Raffaele and Amanda is the headline, I hope this trash media doesn't overshadow DNA and cell phone logs.(Merediths cell phone being outside the cottage at 10:13-10:15pm).

 

[Mary_H]

Its odd Raffaele is defending against the sexy foxy knoxy orgy crap again.
Is it driven by the media trash-sells mentality or is it really going to be a main issue in the trial?

Its almost too hard to believe stereo-typed intelligent Judges would even bring up such speculation and fiction in a real murder case. But then I think of Judge Micheli who starts out saying "lets place them all in the bedroom committing the murder and work backwards to figure this out" to that effect.

in relate to Raffaeles recent interview, seem the sex of Raffaele and Amanda is the headline, I hope this trash media doesn't overshadow DNA and cell phone logs.(Merediths cell phone being outside the cottage at 10:13-10:15pm).

I completely agree, JREF. I really wish Amanda and Raffaele did not feel they have to explain themselves to respond to people's prurient interests.

 

[codyjuneau]

And by contrast why would Mignini and Maresca object to the independent experts request to open the handle? The defense had nothing much to gain and the prosecution had nothing much to lose and yet this is the logic that prevailed.

.
Well, if they knew the defense was going to make the request, AND they anticipated Hellman granting the request, AND they had planted evidence in the handle, it would be a good tactic to deflect suspicion when the evidence was found.

Maybe that is why they changed their mind so abruptly later on?

Call me cynical, but in my defense, if the prosecuting team had acted honestly throughout, my cynicism would never have had a seed to grow from.
.

 

[Annella]

Can anyone that speaks Italian translate what the Park Bench Dweller is saying?
Thanks, RW

Cant post the video as I have not posted the requisite 15 times.

In the first part Toto is saying

" If I said I saw something I take forward what I saw. Because I cannot change the version of the facts"
" I have found myself in the middle of this'

The 2nd part is more difficult to understand and he is slurring badly. I think he is comparing his drug taking and its effects to other activities that could cause doubt in other people!

The apartment/house he ' lived' in belonged to the Community of Perugia...A Casa di Comune. I think that means he had subsidised accomodation and he most likely just got an Invalids pension or disoccupazione.... ( out of work) for living. Well apart from his extra curricular activities of course.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

.
Well, if they knew the defense was going to make the request, AND they anticipated Hellman granting the request, AND they had planted evidence in the handle, it would be a good tactic to deflect suspicion when the evidence was found.

Maybe that is why they changed their mind so abruptly later on?

Call me cynical, but in my defense, if the prosecuting team had acted honestly throughout, my cynicism would never have had a seed to grow from.
.

May I suggest you peruse either defence team(s) appeals and see whether you can find a request to open the knife for further examination?

 

[Grinder]

I completely agree, JREF. I really wish Amanda and Raffaele did not feel they have to explain themselves to respond to people's prurient interests.

This is why they should produce their own videos for YouTube distribution. There is no way that the detailed information about the case will be delved into during a ten minute interview.

Put the Curatolo video up with subtitles and then do an on-screen description with voice over telling what his testimony was and include his appeal transcript or video where he admits being high on heroin. Do all the witnesses in the same fashion.

 

[Grinder]

May I suggest you peruse either defence team(s) appeals and see whether you can find a request to open the knife for further examination?

It was widely reported that they asked for the handle to me opened. Are you suggesting that they didn't ever ask?

ETA - According to the PGP's reporter Vogt it was the independent experts that first brought it up.

But there is perhaps no case as bitterly divided as the Knox case and Conti got an early lesson on just how delicate every decision is when he politely asked his first--and only--question to the court.

"Do we have permission to take apart the handle of the knife should it be opportune and possible?"

At first, the judge appeared to agree that the additional step was appropriate. Forensic police did not check for blood or DNA evidence inside the handle of the knife, and some have suggested the joint where the blade meets the handle could be an important point for testing. But prosecutors and the attorneys representing the Kercher family immediate launched a strongly worded objection, saying if the court approved such an expansion of forensic inquiry without additional debate, the appeal would be getting off to "a very bad start."

Knox's and Sollecito's attorneys both reiterated that they only wanted "truth" for their clients and had no problem with the additional testing. The judge settled on a compromise.

Later after C&V reported the bad news to the prosecution they then asked to open the knife.

Can you think of any reason Maresca would object to opening the knife or Mignini for that matter?

 

[Bill Williams]

May I suggest you peruse either defence team(s) appeals and see whether you can find a request to open the knife for further examination?

It was widely reported that they asked for the handle to me opened. Are you suggesting that they didn't ever ask?

I'm not a lawyer, but if they did not ask for it to be opened, that's more of a statement of trust in the PLE and the Scientific Police. If Stefanoni can turn rye-grain into DNA from Meredith (without being able to tell where the DNA came from) on what grounds would the defence want to trust this kind of analysis to the prosecution?

This is especially at the 1st instance trial where the motion to have an independent review was denied by the court. What if the handle had been opened back in 2009 and Stefanoni had found rye grain under the handle?

The more interesting question for us way up in the cheap seats is - why did the court in 2009 resist an independent review? And why when the 2nd instance court finally allowed one, why did the prosecution suddenly cave in to these sorts of reviews after Conti-Vechiotti pretty much trashed Stefanoni's work?

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you think of any reason Maresca would object to opening the knife or Mignini for that matter?

That's by far the more interesting question..................

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It was widely reported that they asked for the handle to me opened. Are you suggesting that they didn't ever ask?
ETA - According to the PGP's reporter Vogt it was the independent experts that first brought it up.

But there is perhaps no case as bitterly divided as the Knox case and Conti got an early lesson on just how delicate every decision is when he politely asked his first--and only--question to the court.

"Do we have permission to take apart the handle of the knife should it be opportune and possible?"

At first, the judge appeared to agree that the additional step was appropriate. Forensic police did not check for blood or DNA evidence inside the handle of the knife, and some have suggested the joint where the blade meets the handle could be an important point for testing. But prosecutors and the attorneys representing the Kercher family immediate launched a strongly worded objection, saying if the court approved such an expansion of forensic inquiry without additional debate, the appeal would be getting off to "a very bad start."

Knox's and Sollecito's attorneys both reiterated that they only wanted "truth" for their clients and had no problem with the additional testing. The judge settled on a compromise.
Later after C&V reported the bad news to the prosecution they then asked to open the knife.

Can you think of any reason Maresca would object to opening the knife or Mignini for that matter?

I'm not a lawyer, but if they did not ask for it to be opened, that's more of a statement of trust in the PLE and the Scientific Police. If Stefanoni can turn rye-grain into DNA from Meredith (without being able to tell where the DNA came from) on what grounds would the defence want to trust this kind of analysis to the prosecution?
This is especially at the 1st instance trial where the motion to have an independent review was denied by the court. What if the handle had been opened back in 2009 and Stefanoni had found rye grain under the handle?
The more interesting question for us way up in the cheap seats is - why did the court in 2009 resist an independent review? And why when the 2nd instance court finally allowed one, why did the prosecution suddenly cave in to these sorts of reviews after Conti-Vechiotti pretty much trashed Stefanoni's work?

Because the defence had not requested dismantling the knife in their appeal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

best joke I have heard in some time

Because the defence had not requested dismantling the knife in their appeal.

Hilarious.

 

[Diocletus]

Because the defence had not requested dismantling the knife in their appeal.

This opening the knife thing is a bunch of garbage. It's not going to cause one person to change their opinion of the case unless they actually find Kercher's blood on it, which they won't.

We already know what's going to be found: nothing. But that won't cause anyone who is inclined to believe in guilt to change his mind.

Even assuming, arguendo, that they find Kercher's DNA, it still doesn't matter. All this would do is tell us that lab contamination is less likely, but we still have the fact that Giobotti opened and handled the knife while he was cataloguing the bloody exhibits from the cottage, and then packed it up with them.

As far as I'm concerned, they should waste their time testing this knife. While they're doing that, Stefanoni will have time to produce all of the EDF information, and then the defense will finally be able to examine all of the suppressed evidence, including the large number of artifact-ridden, mixed-profile egrams that she hides in her purse and/or garage.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This opening the knife thing is a bunch of garbage. It's not going to cause one person to change their opinion of the case unless they actually find Kercher's blood on it, which they won't.

We already know what's going to be found: nothing. But that won't cause anyone who is inclined to believe in guilt to change his mind.

Even assuming, arguendo, that they find Kercher's DNA, it still doesn't matter. All this would do is tell us that lab contamination is less likely, but we still have the fact that Giobotti opened and handled the knife while he was cataloguing the bloody exhibits from the cottage, and then packed it up with them.

As far as I'm concerned, they should waste their time testing this knife. While they're doing that, Stefanoni will have time to produce all of the EDF information, and then the defense will finally be able to examine all of the suppressed evidence, including the large number of artifact-ridden, mixed-profile egrams that she hides in her purse and/or garage.

Please refresh my memory, how did H & Z deal with the EDF request?