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

[Machiavelli]

Carlo dalla Vedova confirmed in a 2011 interview that the defense had asked for the complete forensic files and never received them. I have linked to this story many times.

Carlo dalla Vedova lied several times, including the yesterday hearing.
A good question about your source is, if you just have what he 'declared' or told you, of if instead you have any trial documentation which supports what you say.
Again, in the yesterday hearing, Prosecutor General Crini said that, as from the file, it appeared to him that the defence experts (namely, Potenza and Tagliabracci, the one who mentioned them) just didn't ask them.

 

[Diocletus]

You can run for elections, than write a law that says so.
The current jurisprudence is a bit different, as for what matters and what doesn't.

Actually, any DNA finding is - by definition - contamination. Not just the bra clasp. Just any DNA trace finding. If DNA is found on a door handle, it certainly doesn't belong to the door handle, it has another source, it's the trace from something/someone else; it means the door handle is contaminated.

Any DNA trace is contamination.
The relevant question as for a legal point of view, is its significance; that means, an assessment about what was the probable cause of that contamination. Significance aka probative value, is a logical inference/assessment about its probable origin.
The assessment about this probable cause, this is what makes the evidence.
The evidence consists in the assessment about plausible origin, not in the trace itself.

It makes no sense to say 'this is contamination'. Definitions are irrelevant, academic definitions are less than irrelevant, questions about "purity" referred to traces or objects or scene are irrelevant; what is relevant, is the question about its plausible origin. This is what matters, as by the present law.

Oh, I see. So "contamination" doesn't have any actual meaning. It's just something that defendants have to prove.

 

[Grinder]

It would appear that Italian is decades behind in updates. To argue any deposit of anything is contamination is dumb.

The idea that the most plausible explanation by under-educated in science jurors should be the end decision is sad and plain wrong.

The arguments that pick at technical aspects of the law instead of getting to the truth show the sad, sad state of Italy.

What do the courts and the prosecution fear from releasing the DNA data? Why would they not help the Kerchers in finding the truth as they have requested?

 

[Grinder]

Oh, I see. So "contamination" doesn't have any actual meaning. It's just something that defendants have to prove.

 

[Machiavelli]

Simple. Now the supreme court has dictated that the defense must prove exactly how contamination occurred. So, they now require the records.

Yes, Bongiorno made that argument.

But the prosecution thought it was unconvincing; that it was not true that the raw data could be of any use to prove contamination. That seemed clear by citing testimonies describing what the data files are, and Bongiorno couldn't explain how this kind of machine data (the source data of a chart) could be used to show the trace was the result of contamination. The court agreed with the prosecution.

And anyway, why shouldn't they have them? If they can't be used to show contamination, then all that will have happened is that the prosecution will have turned over the records and they will never play a roll in the appeal. Is it just because it's too much of a bother for the prosecution to turn them over? I don't believe that. People who hide records are hiding something.

But nobody is hiding. This is just an appeal, not a trial de novo; even less an investigation or a preliminary hearing. These requests of further documentation are investigation preliminary requests which the defence experts chose to not do, for strategic reasons.

Justice doesn't have an expiration date.

You know, it's curious but Knox's defence made the exact opposite argument yesterday, they argued - bringing up alleged Constitutional grounds - that a trial should not go on forever and search for justice should have an expiration date.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, I see. So "contamination" doesn't have any actual meaning. It's just something that defendants have to prove.

Exactly, contamination doesn't have any meaning, or better: it doesn't have any implication and meaning as long as seen in generic terms and as the quality of an object.

 

[Diocletus]

Carlo dalla Vedova lied several times, including the yesterday hearing.
A good question about your source is, if you just have what he 'declared' or told you, of if instead you have any trial documentation which supports what you say.
Again, in the yesterday hearing, Prosecutor General Crini said that, as from the file, it appeared to him that the defence experts (namely, Potenza and Tagliabracci, the one who mentioned them) just didn't ask them.

OK, but now, for sure, they have been requested. So why shouldn't they be produced?

I thought this was all about logic and truth. If there is exculpatory information in them, shouldn't the defendants have access to it before they are thrown in jail on the basis of some hocus pocus cooked up in a dirty lab in Rome, notwithstanding whatever any expert or even their own lawyers asked for several years ago? There's plenty of time NOW for the production of these records.

 

[Supernaut]

I reckon "touch DNA" is going to be something of a buzz-phrase in the near future.

LCN or LT DNA samples CAN be evidence that some-one touched an object, but unless incredibly stringent precautions are taken during collection there's PLENTY of opportunity for secondary transfer. With the clasp, the cops filmed themselves as good as demonstrating how to transfer DNA from object to object.

[ETA >> and context is vital as well. Touch DNA from Guede was found and used as eviednce, but there was little or no way it could be attributed to secondary transfer, he had never been in the flat before, unlike Raffaele.]

This is about about amplifying samples which are usually so small they are invisible to the naked eye, and often even microscopically, where the material is mixed with other detritus.

It's quite distinct from a scenario where visible and identifiable material from the donor is found (tissue, blood, saliva, mucus, whatever), which makes direct transfer much safer to infer (but not necessarily a certainty).

I don't like quoting myself, but this needs mentioning;

Actual blood or any other biological material left by one of the protagonists in the MURDER ROOM (hello PMF'ers!) would provide compelling, if not conclusive DNA evidence.

The nearest that's been disclosed is the DNA from 'epithelial' (skin) cells of Rudy Guede's, found in Meredith's vagina, but perhaps other samples of such cells were found on Meredith's clothing, bra etc' (disclosure isn't a feature of this case).

But what about the infamous wank-stain - sorry - semen-stain?

Wouldn't this be unequivocal, direct-transfer DNA evidence? The ONLY unequivocal, direct-transfer DNA evidence?

I can't IMAGINE why the Italian CPS [edit > I just went all Anglo-Saxon - CPS = Crown Prosecution Service] are so unwilling to get it tested (or reveal the results of the tests they've ALREADY done).

 

[Diocletus]

You know, it's curious but Knox's defence made the exact opposite argument yesterday, they argued - bringing up alleged Constitutional grounds - that a trial should not go on forever and search for justice should have an expiration date.

And they're right. It's not a two-way street.

The state has an obligation to provide a fair trial, and that requires a fair and speedy process.

Innocent people should be allowed to raise meritorious defenses at any time.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, Bongiorno made that argument.

But the prosecution thought it was unconvincing; that it was not true that the raw data could be of any use to prove contamination. That seemed clear by citing testimonies describing what the data files are, and Bongiorno couldn't explain how this kind of machine data (the source data of a chart) could be used to show the trace was the result of contamination. The court agreed with the prosecution.

Who gives a rat's ass what the prosecution thinks? They are the opposing side. They have all of the records. And anyway, they're flat wrong: the raw data clearly can show contamination, or for that matter, lack of contamination, in certain lab processes. The court is wrong, too. Excuse me, but these Italian legal people sound kind of dopey.

 

[Machiavelli]

You did say that Italy as a problem with excessive length of trials, so I don't see your point.

I said Italy has a problem with excessive lenght of trials (a problem related with the number of trials); but I also pointed out that this is not the same thing as saying: Italy laws provide systematic violations of human rights. The latter statement is too generic compared to the first. Some Italian laws (allowing a big number of trials) tend to produce a kind of inefficiency that causes one specific problem related to human rights; Italian laws do not allow some generic array of systematic violation of human rights.

 

[Diocletus]

I've come to the conclusion that it's just dangerous and a bad idea for Italians to have access to any sort of DNA machines. They should have to trade in all of their ABI 7700s for bloodhounds and magnifying glasses.

 

[Diocletus]

Italian laws prosecutors do not allow some generic array of systematic violation of human rights.

There, fixed it.

 

[Machiavelli]

And they're right. It's not a two-way street.

The state has an obligation to provide a fair trial, and that requires a fair and speedy process.

Innocent people should be allowed to raise meritorious defenses at any time.

Guilty people should not?

 

[Supernaut]

Hey, "Machiavelli" - I find the colourful, if random, second-language English the other guy uses much more entertaining.

Can we have him back?

 

[Diocletus]

Guilty people should not?

I guess they should. If they have a meritorious defense. But then they would be innocent.

 

[RoseMontague]

Carlo dalla Vedova lied several times, including the yesterday hearing.
A good question about your source is, if you just have what he 'declared' or told you, of if instead you have any trial documentation which supports what you say.
Again, in the yesterday hearing, Prosecutor General Crini said that, as from the file, it appeared to him that the defence experts (namely, Potenza and Tagliabracci, the one who mentioned them) just didn't ask them.

Right after the requests for additional data were denied in 2009, one of the defense experts testified and complained yet again that he needed the data to present an effective defense. My recollection of this is that it was Tagliabraci, but it doesn't really matter. Massei made a ruling that denied Amanda and Raffaele a fair trial. Four years later and they still don't have the raw data.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dates and figs

Carlo dalla Vedova lied several times, including the yesterday hearing.

The date of the story was 2011, and it was from the AFP: "'But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over,' he said."

I really could not give a fig what baseless accusations you conjure up, unless you reveal your identity. Then I will begin to take them seriously.

 

[RoseMontague]

OK, but now, for sure, they have been requested. So why shouldn't they be produced?

I thought this was all about logic and truth. If there is exculpatory information in them, shouldn't the defendants have access to it before they are thrown in jail on the basis of some hocus pocus cooked up in a dirty lab in Rome, notwithstanding whatever any expert or even their own lawyers asked for several years ago? There's plenty of time NOW for the production of these records.

Here is a Google translation of Bongiorno's summary of the prosecutions struggle to get the necessary data (raw data is mentioned twice).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pascali

Again, in the yesterday hearing, Prosecutor General Crini said that, as from the file, it appeared to him that the defence experts (namely, Potenza and Tagliabracci, the one who mentioned them) just didn't ask them.

Dr. Pascali asked for them, as can be gleaned from Raffaele's appeal. IIRC someone also posted a link to Bongiorno's motion in or around September of 2009 in the previous thread, which is consistent. We also know that Dr. Hampikian asked the defense lawyers for them in 2010, and we know that Dr. Krane asked for them via the defense some time before 2010. Even if the earlier experts did not, there would be zero reason to deny the request now. To take just one of many reasons, there have been some new faces among the defense experts over time.
ETA
I see that RoseMontague has provided a link to Bonjiorno's summary of the defense's struggle to get the data.