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

[Grinder]

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

So what? This isn't some civil suit in which one party missed a deadline. This is a trial for murder and independent experts suggested opening the handle.

Why would anybody on the prosecution side object to this? The only definitive discovery would be MK's blood or DNA.

The fact that the defense didn't object to it does indicate that they were sure nothing could be found.

 

[Diocletus]

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

I think it went something like this:

C&V: Please give us the EDFs.

Stefanoni: You don't need them.

C&V: Um, yes we do. Judge Hellmann, could you give us a hand here?

Judge Hellmann: Give them the EDFs.

Stefanoni: Well, they already have what they need. Also, the EDFs are not relevant. Anyway, those cheaters might manipulate the EDFs just to make me look incompetent.

Judge Hellmann: Give them the EDFs.

[Stefanoni hands over .pdfs generated by the EDFs, but not the EDFs.]*

C&V: Well, those are good enough to show us that Stefanoni screwed the pooch, so here's the report.


* = it's at this point that you would have expected the prosecution to be sanctioned by the court.


My question you is, in what universe is a criminal defendant not entitled to see the lab data for scientific evidence that is to be used against him? It's absurd.

The only people who hide information in litigation are people who have something to hide.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

discovery of the EDFs is nearly the universal norm

My question you is, in what universe is a criminal defendant not entitled to see the lab data for scientific evidence that is to be used against him? It's absurd.

The only people who hide information in litigation are people who have something to hide.

As I have documented many times, release of the EDFs is critical for a competent review and also an international norm that is nearly universal in its acceptance.

 

[Diocletus]

As I have documented many times, release of the EDFs is critical for a competent review and also an international norm that is nearly universal in its acceptance.

As far as I'm concerned, Stefanoni should be precluded from testifying until she coughs up the data. You can't have a fair trial when the prosecution gets to say whatever it wants without risk of effective cross-examination due to the fact that and the defense can't get the information necessary gain a basic understanding of the lab's unorthodox methods and screwed-up results.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

assertions versus data

As far as I'm concerned, Stefanoni should be precluded from testifying until she coughs up the data. You can't have a fair trial when the prosecution gets to say whatever it wants without risk of effective cross-examination due to the fact that and the defense can't get the information necessary gain a basic understanding of the lab's unorthodox methods and screwed-up results.

I agree: For Ms. Stefanoni or Dr. Novelli to be able to make claims about the forensic data without their having to back it up with EDFs (Stefanoni) or an explanation of methodology (Novelli) is ridiculous and unfair. Some issues have shades of grey to them, but this one is as black and white as it gets.

 

[Grinder]

I think we are losing the forest for the trees. The DNA on the knife means almost nothing. Even if the machine records show that a few cells of Meredith's DNA was found it doesn't mean that they got there during a murder.

Were the knives at PL's bar checked and to what result?

Amanda's DNA on the knife has absolutely no value in that she was living at the flat and used the knife while cooking or slicing bread. In that Raf's wasn't on it, the indication is that it had been washed (PGP it is normal to wash utensils) and Amanda put it away.

The greater issue for me is that the stain on the pillow wasn't ever tested. That stain is much more of typical DNA to be tested in a crime investigation. There is a stain on a pillow case that one would think MK would have washed after the stain was made. It is far more likely that the pillow case was washed than that the floors were yet they tested the floors and not the case.

 

[Briars]

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.

In the second part he says one finds themselves there . Someone may be there because on an incident others may have other motive. I found myself there in the middle of this, Its better to not find this or be involved. His Italian use of the conditional and subjunctive tenses were correct. There was nothing sloppy in his message or grammar.

 

[Diocletus]

he says one finds themselves there . Someone may be there because on an incident others may have other motive.

Huh? He's definitely high if he uttered that mishmash.

 

[Briars]

Huh? He's definitely high if he uttered that mishmash.

It isn't a direct translation of course and I probably didn't do it justice, however he was clear that he happened to be in the square due to his circumstance, a witness not by choice. What I wrote is closer to what he said rather than what Annella imagined. Someone asked what he was saying and that's basically it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It isn't a direct translation of course and I probably didn't do it justice, however he was clear that he happened to be in the square due to his circumstance, a witness not by choice. What I wrote is closer to what he said rather than what Annella imagined. Someone asked what he was saying and that's basically it.

Are you saying that he is not slurring his words?

 

[Diocletus]

he happened to be in the square due to his circumstance

Let's call a spade a spade. He was in the square because he lived there.

 

[Mary_H]

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.<snip>

My point is I wish Amanda and Raffaele would stop feeling the need to defend themselves, especially about the sexual aspects of the accusations. If anyone wants to know Amanda's and Raffaele's stories, they can read their books and watch the many interviews that already have been broadcast on TV and radio.

When the Italians players start giving interviews and writing books, they will reveal themselves instantly. That's why they don't do it.

 

[Briars]

Are you saying that he is not slurring his words?

I don't hear slurring nor do I hear any hesitation or confusion in what he says. He also walked at a pretty fast clip with his cane. I do agree with the poster up thread he spent a lot of time in the square , whether he eventually went to his room or not the square was his second home.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think it went something like this:

C&V: Please give us the EDFs.

Stefanoni: You don't need them.

C&V: Um, yes we do. Judge Hellmann, could you give us a hand here?

Judge Hellmann: Give them the EDFs.

Stefanoni: Well, they already have what they need. Also, the EDFs are not relevant. Anyway, those cheaters might manipulate the EDFs just to make me look incompetent.

Judge Hellmann: Give them the EDFs.

[Stefanoni hands over .pdfs generated by the EDFs, but not the EDFs.]*

C&V: Well, those are good enough to show us that Stefanoni screwed the pooch, so here's the report.


* = it's at this point that you would have expected the prosecution to be sanctioned by the court.


My question you is, in what universe is a criminal defendant not entitled to see the lab data for scientific evidence that is to be used against him? It's absurd.

The only people who hide information in litigation are people who have something to hide.

So essentially Judge Hellmann didn’t instruct Stefanoni to hand over the EDF’s requested by
V & C, is that correct?

 

[Diocletus]

So essentially Judge Hellmann didn’t instruct Stefanoni to hand over the EDF’s requested by
V & C, is that correct?

Why no, that's not correct. To quote from the above, Judge Hellmann said "give them the EDFs."

At the end of the day, C&V got what they needed to assess the labwork as deficient. I suspect that they were trying to give Stefanoni a chance to produce records that validated her work, but since she insisted on hiding her records from the court-appointed experts, in the end, they just said: ef her--here's the report. As I recall, Stefanoni then tried to sneak in some records and Hellmann precluded her from doing so, which seems fair, doesn't it?

In most courts in the US, Stefanoni would have gotten reamed, probably precluded, and maybe sanctioned for her shenanigans. I'm sure it's the same in the UK, even in Coulsdown.

Anyway, what's your point: the records shouldn't be produced? Of course they should. Criminal defendants are entitled to them. A trial isn't legitimate or fair without disclosure. Doesn't it kind of bother you just a little bit that Stefanoni has a whole bunch of records that she has decided to keep to herself?

 

[Diocletus]

I do agree with the poster up thread he spent a lot of time in the square , whether he eventually went to his room or not the square was his second home.

Wait a minute. I thought the park was his home and jail was his second home. How many homes did this guy have?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Why no, that's no correct. To quote from the above, Judge Hellmann said "give them the EDFs."

At the end of the day, C&V got what they needed to assess the labwork as deficient. I suspect that they were trying to give Stefanoni a chance to produce records that validated her work, but since she insisted on hiding her records from the court-appointed experts, in the end, they just said: ef her--here's the report. As I recall, Stefanoni then tried to sneak in some records and Hellmann precluded her from doing so, which seems fair, doesn't it?

In most courts in the US, Stefanoni would have gotten reamed, probably precluded, and maybe sanctioned for her shenanigans. I'm sure it's the same in the UK, even in Coulsdown.

Anyway, what's your point: the records shouldn't be produced? Of course they should. Criminal defendants are entitled to them. A trial isn't legitimate or fair without disclosure. Doesn't it kind of bother you just a little bit that Stefanoni has a whole bunch of records that she has decided to keep to herself?

I am just trying understand how a witness, based on what you describe can refuse the request from a Judge and nothing happened. I am trying to get to grips with Hellmann’s thinking, it’s all well and good blaming Stefanoni but whatever way you package it Hellmann allowed it to happen. It was within his powers to halt proceedings until the requested information was produced, I assume Italian court procedures have an equivalent to contempt of court?

 

[Diocletus]

I am just trying understand how a witness, based on what you describe can refuse the request from a Judge and nothing happened. I am trying to get to grips with Hellmann’s thinking, it’s all well and good blaming Stefanoni but whatever way you package it Hellmann allowed it to happen. It was within his powers to halt proceedings until the requested information was produced, I assume Italian court procedures have an equivalent to contempt of court?

As I said, at the end of the day, C&V gave up trying to get anything from Stefanoni, issued the report castigating her work, and the judge precluded Stefanoni from getting any more documents into the record.

And yes, it seems to me that the judge could have rung her up, but he abstained because he knew that she was going to get nailed, and so disciplining her wouldn't matter anyway.

Don't you agree that the prosecution should fork over all of the heretobefore-withheld records? Seems to me that that has to happen.

 

[Briars]

Wait a minute. I thought the park was his home and jail was his second home. How many homes did this guy have?

His most important home was Piazza Grimana not a busy place where he observed the defendants , A place where anyone new or acting in an unusual manner would stand out to someone so familiar with the space.

 

[Antony]

I am just trying understand how a witness, based on what you describe can refuse the request from a Judge and nothing happened. I am trying to get to grips with Hellmann’s thinking, it’s all well and good blaming Stefanoni but whatever way you package it Hellmann allowed it to happen. It was within his powers to halt proceedings until the requested information was produced, I assume Italian court procedures have an equivalent to contempt of court?

Presumably yes, but the fact that Hellman tolerated the contempt shows just how far he bent over backwards to maintain the pretence that the prosecution had some legitimacy. The other violation he allowed was to uphold Amanda's conviction for callunia against Lumumba, on the basis of statements obtained by the police in a grossly irregular way.

We can only imagine that he aimed to do the minimum possible in going against the prosecution, and still let the students go free. It's not a given that the next court will be so eager to appease the Mignini crew, particularly as it's now clear that Hellman's appeasement had so little effect.