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

[billyryan]

For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

so you finally admit that FSA's and the EDF's were never handed over,did you not argue for a long time that they were part of the case file and were advailable to the defence to examine

 

[Machiavelli]

so you finally admit that FSA's and the EDF's were never handed over,did you not argue for a long time that they were part of the case file and were advailable to the defence to examine

Try to recall correctly what I claim: I claimed that Stefanoni has ever denied any data request. They were not in the "case file", they were (are) in the laboratory archive, they were obviosuly available to the defence experts on request, and the defence experts did not request them. Bongiorno requested them for the fist time in 2009 in court, but actually - now that I remenber better - she did not really say it was a fixed request, she said that only as an option, as she said the raw were not really neccessary but the electropherograms charts with figures would have been equally ok.

This lack of request by the defence is actually a concept that was mentioned also by prosecutor general Crini in his argument today.

 

[christianahannah]

he produced a letter to be read into the record. I guess non-silence must be declared just like being a suspect.

So the transcript is available but it has no questions for the witness. Mignini read the letter for him, right?

There is quite a bit of questioning from the defense to Rudy but probably not all the questions we would like to see asked of him and answered by him.

If you have the time and inclination to do so, read the transcript Machiavelli references. If the video of Rudy's testimony is available perhaps watch that also (may be possible to somewhat follow with the English transcript).

Whatever one's opinion of Rudy it can't be said he kept silent, either by letter or voice during the Hellmann appeal.

 

[Diocletus]

Try to recall correctly what I claim: I claimed that Stefanoni has ever denied any data request. They were not in the "case file", they were (are) in the laboratory archive, they were obviosuly available to the defence experts on request, and the defence experts did not request them. Bongiorno requested them for the fist time in 2009 in court, but actually - now that I remenber better - she did not really say it was a fixed request, she said that only as an option, as she said the raw were not really neccessary but the electropherograms charts with figures would have been equally ok.

This lack of request by the defence is actually a concept that was mentioned also by prosecutor general Crini in his argument today.

Let's assume that you are right. Why should these defendants not have this material that they have requested that is obviously relevant to their defense? Is their a time limit for fairness and justice?

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you're right about Aviello being simply procedural - the Court stated that specifically - but the test on the 'i' trace is different: it's being done for the purposes of acquiring evidence, not simply as unfinished business left over from the previous appeal. The Supreme Court themselves, after all, described this test as "not just significant, but decisive". Aviello won't affect anything (unless by some miracle he comes up with a plausible story, which let's face it, isn't going to happen) but the testing on the knife potentially could.

I agree on the photos, I think they were just accepted into the case file but are unlikely to have any major influence on the verdict.

No no, maybe you didn't understand and I didn't explain myself sufficiently. When I say 'procedural', or 'due' I mean there must been something substantial, it must not be a formality nor an obvious minutia.
The refusal fo hear Aviello was a violation of the code because the topic he should have been questioned about was obviously relevant. The witness might have been totally unreliable. But an assessment about reliability can't be done halfaway, because there must be consistency: the judge (Hellmann) summoned him thus he decided he was reliable (potentially so) and so the judge must go on with that preliminary position, the witness cannot be preliminarily reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Once he is preliminarily 'reliable' meaning he is accepted, there is a substantial violation if the judge prevents questioning on a relevant topic.

The relevance of the topic (the claim of having offered a false testimony in exchange of money) caused the procedural violation.

Actually, the DNA test was described by the SC basically as a matter of unfinished work. The fact that the evidence is potentially decisive is a quality that causes the substantial iolation, just like in the first case.
The DNA profile in this case is not only relevant, but potentially decisive because it was the first purpose the Vecciotti-Conti test was ordered for. Recall, the ordnance appointing Vecchiotti and Conti said that their primary task was to search for DNA on the knife; only in the event the primary task was impossible to carry out, the secondary task would have been to assess the reliability of the previous result. But that was only the second-chance task.

Now, in my opinion, the knife result could not affect anything in this trial. It could have affected theoretically the evidence set, if the evidence set was seen under the perspective of Hellmann.

 

[Machiavelli]

he produced a letter to be read into the record. I guess non-silence must be declared just like being a suspect.

So the transcript is available but it has no questions for the witness. Mignini read the letter for him, right?

No, the prosecution produced a letter of Guede, the letter had been sent to a newspaper months before; Guede he was just questioned about it to confirm he was the one who wrote it.

I think your guess is incorrect: silence must be declared, not non-silence. Guede declared he would use his right of being silent about topics related to the murder.
Whether he wrote the letter or not, whether he told confidential things to Alessi, these were topic which he was a witness about, these are subsequent facts it's not questions directly about the murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Nencini and Crini truly believe this, they are feckless beyond measure. As I have discussed and documented many times, the EDFs of the negative controls can detect problems that no other evidence can. The EDFs of the evidence have a number of uses, not the least of which is to look for small peaks that the original analyst may have left out.

Van Oorshot and colleagues wrote, "From a theoretical perspective, any DNA deposit that is not immediately relevant to the crime being investigated can be viewed as contamination. In this light, gross or sporadic contamination may appear at any point: (1) before the crime has been committed; (2) in the interval between the crime and securing the crime scene; (3) during the investigation of the scene; and/or (4) within the laboratory." There is DNA on the clasp that is not relevant to the crime; therefore it is contaminated.

"From a theoretical perspective"

Maybe the judges are not asking about "theoretical perspective" of "contamination". They are asking if there is a plausible (probable) alternative explanation for Sollecito's DNA to be on the bra clasp. A credible scenario for how did it get there.
This is the question. Not a question about "contamination" as phenomenon defined in theoretical perspectives.

 

[RandyN]

No, no, no. It isn't pro defendant, it is pro defense attorneys. One big case can last a lifetime. Where's Anglo when I'm attacking lawyers.

They also believe jails there are so cushy, it's good to be incarcerated.

Yep just ask Toto...opps errr. Never mind.

 

[Grinder]

Or else I read it to you. “Viterbo, March 7, 2010. As usual in this beloved beautiful country of ours there are many false people, devoted to mendacity, just as there are those who give a voice to people without having the slightest conscience to ask whether it is worthwhile to provide space for certain speculations. In recent days I have heard nothing but profane allegations against me, false rumors that have done nothing other but looting from here and there for the news reporting TV channels, even though for those with common sense they are the pure inventions of a wicked mind. It must be said that what I heard in the past days from the media, about all that was falsely stated by this foul being called Mario Alessi, whose conscience is nothing but stinking scum, just and only ramblings of the sick and twisted mind of his, fantasized and false statements of a monster as it is known throughout Italy, stained with a horrendous murder, where he took life of a small human angel. That man mendaciously now is saying things that I’ve never said and I did not ever told him, things that are neither in heaven nor on earth, in his opinion or better call it his own rotten statements, my intention is to put pen to paper to clarify that I was never a confident to this be filthy man, apart from the fact that I have nothing to confess or in so far and in as much everything that I had to say I’ve already said it to the Judges and will continue as long as I live to scream and fight until the truth itself and justice itself prevails over such lies and moreover I’ve not spoken individually, or together with other inmates about what is my case proceedings and if in case I had something to say don’t you think that I would have spoken to my lawyers? To give rise to or credit to what is a profane statement from an unsound mind, a monster who had no mercy on a little boy, with this further stage-act, which myself, my lawyers and my family by now have become so accustomed on the part of - here illegible - this latest one Alessi the monster I hope that the Italian people and the rest of the world do realize what filth they’ve to deal with, who are the slime and stink of lies, but who nonetheless go around to show their faces and suffocate people with their stench of falsehood for their umpteenth stage-act does nothing but give me the strength and conscious awareness to fight more than ever so that the truth that they intending to hide be known to everyone. With regards to myself, I have the serenity and the tranquility of the full ataraxia mind of those who in fairness does not boast this unjust suffering but because in fairness I trust the justice system and the good sense of the Italian people and finally I hope that sooner or later the Judges become aware of my complete innocence in what was a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Guede Rudy”.

This is supposed to be a letter to his attorneys, please.

The last sentence accuses Raf and Amanda yet he wasn't fully crossed on that point.

I'm sure the Kerchers would like Rudy to be fully crossed.

Rudy accuses the kids and isn't forced to testify. BS.

The defense was only allowed a short narrow questioning.

 

[RandyN]

For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

Which should prove to you conclusively that the Italian justice system is severely flawed and hopelessly corrupt. What qualifies Nencini or Crini to make a conclusion about the importance of the EDF's? Nothing!

Do they both have a firm grasp on DNA analysis? No! These two clowns are parroting Massei and Mignini.

The real question should be ....why allow a look at the phantom i sample meanwhile denying a look at the complete data files? What can it hurt? Nothing!

The fact is that the EDF are exactly for the purpose of identifying contamination or OR disproving contamination. So what is the prosecution afraid of? What is the judge afraid of? Finding contamination or proof of corruption perhaps? Certainly!

 

[RandyN]

Yes, now the transcript is actually public on the wiki page, I think.

However bear in mind that Rudy Guede is a former co-defendant of Knox and Sollecito and so he can refuse to answer. He decided to remain silent about the crime so there are no questions the defence could put him on the topic.

Please provide evidence that Guede is a co-defendant of AK and RS...I think this argument is crazy!

The truth is Mignini DID READ a letter supposedly written by Guede but which the judge Zanetti found odd and questioned Guede about himself since apparently Guede could not read his own handwriting or even understand some of the words...or at least that was the conclusion after Zanetti questioned Guede.

Guede made allegations in "his" letter that AK and RS were involved in this murder. A fair and non corrupt system would require that the defendants and co-accused be allowed to question Guede about his written claims. The lawyers demanded to be allowed to cross examine Guede but the judge (Hellmann) failed to grant this request. This was actually a point of law the SC should have ruled on but failed to do so. That is illogical and illegal. But not in Italy I suppose.

 

[yimyammer]

I'm sure the Kerchers would like Rudy to be fully crossed.

Rudy accuses the kids and isn't forced to testify. BS.

The defense was only allowed a short narrow questioning.

This whole questioning/not questioning/Mignini reading his statement/vague responses from Rudy is the most maddening thing about this case to me.

The man was found guilty & given a fast track trial, yet he cannot get on the stand and give us a narrative as to what happened???

Am I supposed to believe ILE accepts his statement that he was on a date with Meredith taking a dump at her place when A&R came home and killed Meredith? He got 19 (or whatever it was) years for that?

Come on!

Something stinks but apparently everyone that matters in this case has congestion

 

[Wildhorses]

Actually, as far as I'm aware she's expressed this twice, i.e. in two interviews. S

She isn't "harping on about it", rather, the sources from which people like you "inform" yourself are quoting it, ad nauseam, hence it's all over the media.

because that's what most so-called reporters/journalists seem to think reporting/journalism consists of - quoting each other.

That would be twice too many times.

Of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about...

I only saw her talk about it with Diane Sawyer. The Guardian said she talked about it in "a string of interviews" and I took their word for it.

People like me? You know nothing about me. I only want to see her acquitted. I hate seeing her shoot herself in the foot.

Although... one day into the trial, I already see the writing on the wall. So I guess it doesn't matter what she does.

 

[RandyN]

I believe that if proper protocol had been followed that the results would need to be accepted unless specific contamination could be identified. The part the Italians seem to ignore is following protocol.

Does proper protocol eliminate the possibility of contamination? The latex glove case in Germany demonstrated a case where protocol was followed but contamination occurred anyway. Had the police/prosecutors in Germany arrested someone that fit the DNA found, it would have been incumbent on the defense to find that contamination.

I fail to understand this contamination issue. The bra clasp had 2 or 3 other male DNA samples on it which apparently were not even tested to compare who those might belong to. So either 4 men played with MK bra hook or it was contaminated. Is the prosecution claiming that the sex game now involves 6 people or 7? Are they stating that 5 men plus Knox and Kercher were involved in this sex game? It has to be that or else this clasp hook is hopelessly contaminated. No other fact can be concluded except for those two...so I would turn the case on that. Who does the prosecution claim are the other actors in this sex game? No clue? How about its contamination! When did that happen? You tell me...you are the one with the burden of proof.

 

[Wildhorses]

This whole questioning/not questioning/Mignini reading his statement/vague responses from Rudy is the most maddening thing about this case to me.

The man was found guilty & given a fast track trial, yet he cannot get on the stand and give us a narrative as to what happened???
Am I supposed to believe ILE accepts his statement that he was on a date with Meredith taking a dump at her place when A&R came home and killed Meredith? He got 19 (or whatever it was) years for that?

Come on!

Something stinks but apparently everyone that matters in this case has congestion

Rudy is never going to tell the truth. Even before the murder, he was a compulsive liar.

At this point, he'd most likely just point the finger at AK/RS. It probably wouldn't be believable. But it'd sure make headlines, be damaging, and feed the guilters.

 

[yimyammer]

Rudy is never going to tell the truth. Even before the murder, he was a compulsive liar.

At this point, he'd most likely just point the finger at AK/RS. It probably wouldn't be believable. But it'd sure make headlines, be damaging, and feed the guilters.

I'd love to see him try. If he's lying, a good defense attorney should be able to destroy him, if not then we finally hear the truth

win-win

 

[RandyN]

Okay, I'm looking at the pictures from this page and I am still going to maintain that Rudy could not have made his way across that room from the window without disturbing anything in his path or stepping on any of the glass. Filomena kind of makes it sounds like the floor is absolutely covered with her stuff, but there's quite a bit of bare space, albeit none without splinters of glass.

I don't know if anyone has ever suggested before that the inner shutter, when hit with the rock, could have banged into either the wall or the wardrobe, causing the flimsy, unlatched, particleboard upper wardrobe doors to fall open, adding to the "disastrous" look of the room.

ETA: Yes, Ron Hendry did mention that: "If the outer top shelf door at the wall had been left open by Filomena, then the action of the rock being thrown threw the window from the outside may have induced several articles of clothing to fall from the top shelves. When the large rock impacted the inner solid wood shutter, it would have induced a strong rotation of the shutter. This rotation may have slammed the inner wood shutter into a fully opened wardrobe door and this contact may have induced a strong twisting and jostling action of the wardrobe closet to the extent that many of the overstuffed clothing items fell to the floor. The several photos of the inner solid wood shutter and the top shelf door show varying positions between the two. One position we don’t see is the inner shutter swung around to the wall until it was well out of the way. The shutter’s position in the various photographs is always such that it could have been stopped by contact with the wardrobe door."

However, after reading the whole page, I am still not at all convinced Rudy came in through the window.

I think Filomena is a snake.

She is at least a blowhard. During her testimony she played lawyer and droned on endlessly and it became so bad that the judge... Massei had to shut her up.

Plus we know she sleeps even tho unmarried at her boyfriends house plus everyone complains that AK and RS kissed outside the cottage the day of discovery but no one complains that a pic is available of Filomena with her hand inside the rear pant pocket of her boyfriend so she must be an insensitive whore certainly.

Here is a hint that Guede entered the cottage thru Filomenas window...everything Ron Hendry said...plus the fact that a piece of broken glass is found in MK room. No matter how many clowns try to pretend this glass is not important...it is. And RG brought it in there since his presence besides MK is the only certain and proved one in that room. It was likely stuck on his sneaker bottom...or perhaps stuck to his clothing...there is no other plausible explanation...not that this court will be considering any of the facts apparently. So its a forgone conclusion.

No contamination so RS did it plus 3 other guys plus Guede...but not Knox. That no other evidence is available except that the ISC knows for certain that Guede had accomplices...although nothing except for wild speculation proves this but hey...what's a little thing like evidence anyway. This is Italy. Where they admit on TV that they can solve crimes without evidence and can simply decide a case by philology (ok I just made that up) or intuition or something like that. Its the osmosis principle.

 

[Grinder]

That would be twice too many times.

Of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about...

I only saw her talk about it with Diane Sawyer. The Guardian said she talked about it in "a string of interviews" and I took their word for it.

People like me? You know nothing about me. I only want to see her acquitted. I hate seeing her shoot herself in the foot.

Although... one day into the trial, I already see the writing on the wall. So I guess it doesn't matter what she does.

Thanks again Wildhorses. I saw her say it at once on another interview, not Sawyer. What does she or her advisers think will happen with such a provocative statement? Of course it will be picked up across the board and then again when the Kerchers predictably responded.

Rudy is never going to tell the truth. Even before the murder, he was a compulsive liar.

At this point, he'd most likely just point the finger at AK/RS. It probably wouldn't be believable. But it'd sure make headlines, be damaging, and feed the guilters.

But if he were put through a solid cross things would be hard for him to make fit. He said he arrived at about 9 and the scream was at 9:20. Is he going to stick to that and blow all the witnesses but the one that saw him out of the water.

He made enough statements between the Skype call, the German interrogation which probably was recorded (rich Germans) and some later interviews with Mignini.

Questions about the lawyers' office break-in, the Milan break-in, his finances, where he ditched the knife er shoes and other aspects he never had to answer to.

Why did he say the kids weren't involved? Did he supply drugs? Did he see Kokomani?

I think he would be a pretzel by the end of the questioning.

 

[RandyN]

Rudy is never going to tell the truth. Even before the murder, he was a compulsive liar.

At this point, he'd most likely just point the finger at AK/RS. It probably wouldn't be believable. But it'd sure make headlines, be damaging, and feed the guilters.

I don't see how the lawyers will ever get to call RG. Did they ask for and were granted the opportunity? I see that the the defense is up to its usual low standard...no matter. It was defense....no soup for you day!@

 

[Wildhorses]

But if he were put through a solid cross things would be hard for him to make fit. He said he arrived at about 9 and the scream was at 9:20. Is he going to stick to that and blow all the witnesses but the one that saw him out of the water.

He made enough statements between the Skype call, the German interrogation which probably was recorded (rich Germans) and some later interviews with Mignini.

Questions about the lawyers' office break-in, the Milan break-in, his finances, where he ditched the knife er shoes and other aspects he never had to answer to.

Why did he say the kids weren't involved? Did he supply drugs? Did he see Kokomani?

I think he would be a pretzel by the end of the questioning.

Have you seen a solid cross in this case? Perhaps you have. I have not. My gut says Rudy would be shielded from crucial question by his lawyer or the court.

What I envision is a Lumumba scenario. Incentives for sticking to the good old boy party line.

As to the matter of Knox's advisors: IMO she is woefully under-protected. Seems to be a Seattle thing: no criticism allowed. It's a pity. She'd benefit greatly from more guidance and be spared stuff like broadsides from PIP Bill Maher.