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

[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.

And here is a Google translation Bongiorno questioning Tagliabracci in court. It sure sounds like he is saying he needs the data to me. Is the court blind?

 

[Supernaut]

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.

Have you presented and argued this line of reasoning to some-one who actually works with DNA forensics?

All DNA "is contamination"? "Definitions are irrelevant, academic definitions are less than irrelevant"?

Et-frikking-cetera.

Well, let's not bother asking them, we can just defer to this metaphysical bovine-manure.

 

[Supernaut]

I said earlier;

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

To clarify - Guede was present in the flat ONLY during the murder. This is known, certain. Never once before or after.

Raffaele, on the other hand, visited the flat on several occasions before the murder, and was there when on its discovery - he tried to shoulder Meredith's door open, which (if you try it) probably involved holding tightly onto the door handle.

Hence, the presence of Guede's DNA anywhere in the flat, never mind on Meredith's clothing and inside her body, is damning evidence.

The presence of Raffaele's, a single trace easily attributable to the sloppy practises of the crime-scene "investigators", barely qualifies as circumstantial.

 

[billyryan]

I think that back in Micheli's court the defence complained that they were being denied the DNA data to properly defend their clients,Judge Micheli requested stefanoni hand over the requested data,to which she replied "they have all they need"Judge Micheli then shrugged his shoulders at the defence and said "well I did ask her"he then proceeded to send two innocent young people of very good character into a terrible nightmare

 

[Grinder]

Chris et al.I suggest a trip to .org for a very enlightening post on the semen stain by Yummi.

Apparently testing the stain can't be good for Raf so the court is protecting him.

Yummi can only think that the stain could be from Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. But what if it came from someone else? what if it came from Kokomani or some other member of the Albanian gang?

According to Yummi all the requests for data are because the defense is desperate and the prosecution has an open and shut case.

Btw, if I were facing this court system I'd be desperate from day one.

 

[Grinder]

Evasive how? Stefanoni was asked, during open court, about the decision to use the pillow for footprint and handprint analysis and not for "pillow sperm" because there was no evidence the the stain was biological and that the real importance of the pillowcase was identifying the prints.

The prints on the pillow were identified albeit incorrectly in the case of the "smaller" print which turned out to a fold over Rudy shoeprint.

It is amazing that the PGP can't see that the shoe print could be photographed just like the luminol prints. Actually the luminol prints had a short window to photograph while the pillow prints could have been photographed until the perfect shot was taken.

It boggles the mind why in the face of the Kerchers request for a full investigation with every stone turned, the PGP continue to argue against.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am mystified

Chris et al.I suggest a trip to .org for a very enlightening post on the semen stain by Yummi.

Apparently testing the stain can't be good for Raf so the court is protecting him.

Yummi can only think that the stain could be from Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. But what if it came from someone else? what if it came from Kokomani or some other member of the Albanian gang?

According to Yummi all the requests for data are because the defense is desperate and the prosecution has an open and shut case.

Btw, if I were facing this court system I'd be desperate from day one.

I am hesitant to give them a click. However, the CSC has effectively said that there must have been multiple attackers. If the semen stain belonged to Kokomani or some unidentified individual, then we would have multiple attackers. Yet the court won't test the stain?! Can the defense argue that the Florence court is not following its marching orders?

 

[JREF2010]

Evasive how? Stefanoni was asked, during open court, about the decision to use the pillow for footprint and handprint analysis and not for "pillow sperm" because there was no evidence the the stain was biological and that the real importance of the pillowcase was identifying the prints.

The prints on the pillow were identified albeit incorrectly in the case of the "smaller" print which turned out to a fold over Rudy shoeprint.

It is amazing that the PGP can't see that the shoe print could be photographed just like the luminol prints. Actually the luminol prints had a short window to photograph while the pillow prints could have been photographed until the perfect shot was taken.

It boggles the mind why in the face of the Kerchers request for a full investigation with every stone turned, the PGP continue to argue against.

This was captured from Barbies twitter feed:

one twitter by the beast says...at 14h

"Sollecito Lawyer asking for time to make requests, judge says this is not a Taliban court, there s time for every request."

another at the closing day at..7h

" judge back in court, rejecting much of what was requested, no check on pillow sperm, reserves right to decide on other items."

 

[codyjuneau]

I am hesitant to give them a click. However, the CSC has effectively said that there must have been multiple attackers. If the semen stain belonged to Kokomani or some unidentified individual, then we would have multiple attackers. Yet the court won't test the stain?! Can the defense argue that the Florence court is not following its marching orders?

.
It is not this court's job to solve the crime, despite what the Supreme Court implied. It is this court's job to determine if Raffaele and Amanda were involved. If this court does not feel their is sufficient evidence to convict, and the prosecution does not want to test the semen stain, then so be it.

If the Supreme Court wants further investigations, then they should appoint competent investigators to perform them, not expect an appeal court to perform them, IMO.
.

 

[Machiavelli]

And here is a Google translation Bongiorno questioning Tagliabracci in court. It sure sounds like he is saying he needs the data to me. Is the court blind?

p. 7:
BONGIORNO " (...)abbiamo formulato in data 3 luglio 2008 una nuova richiesta, chiedevamo a questo punto di... una sorta quanto meno di supplemento di indagine, acquisire presso i laboratori della Polizia Scientifica i valori numerici RFU e i picchi relativi a tutti i reperti o in alternativa ottenere dalla Polizia Scientifica il CD rom contenenti i dati grezzi RFU e picchi, è ovvio che sono difficili per tutti da seguire quello che richiedevamo, quello che sto dicendo è che noi sin dall’inizio c’eravamo accorti che mancava tutto il supporto c’erano le conclusioni, questo DNA è di Raffaele Sollecito mancavano i documenti che ci consentivano l’attribuzione e quindi inizia questa rincorsa e troverete documentate agli atti queste due istanze." ...


p. 8: (...)" il 16 settembre 2008 la Difesa reitera, ripete, insiste che mancano degli atti, reitera la richiesta di acquisire i valori numerici RFU e i picchi relativi a tutti i reperti o in alternativa di acquisire CD rom contenente i dati grezzi di RFU e picchi " (...)


p.9
"(...) In data 25 settembre viene depositato in udienza dalla Zugarini per conto della Dottoressa Stefanoni il CD rom contenente questi dati che avevamo richiesto".
(...)

"Prendendo atto finalmente che erano arrivati alcuni dati li diamo ai nostri consulenti e i nostri consulenti ci spiegano che ancora una volta non sono i dati completi, ma che serve il file di servizio, il file di servizio detto log file. Perché ci serviva questo file di servizio? Perché questo file di servizio ovviamente la cui importanza io poi ho appreso successivamente era essenziale proprio perché conteneva una serie di informazioni che ancora una volta non erano state depositate, qui (...)"

"il G.U.P. nel momento in cui doveva prendere una decisione del genere nell’ambito dell’Ordinanza dice: “ma io tutto sommato ho chiesto alla Stefanoni che mi ha detto che tutto sommato questo file di servizio non è così importante per voi”. Ora io veramente sia proprio perché lo sono per formazione e rispettosa di tutto sia perché la Dottoressa Stefanoni mi è sembrata veramente competente e quindi io non è che contesto che la Dottoressa Stefanoni abbia detto qualcosa di sbagliato al G.U.P. cioè contesto la procedura stessa nel senso che se un G.U.P. deve decidere se quello che ha depositato la Stefanoni è completo secondo me non doveva chiederlo alla Stefanoni"(...)

p. 10
(...) "Questi file di servizio sono dati rilevanti per non dire indispensabili perché segnalano l’altezza dei picchi e l’altezza dei picchi è un parametro che deve essere corroborato e valutato insieme ad altri parametri come ad esempio l’area". (...)

The above are relevant passages where Bongiorno speaks about her requests (what she requested), both in July and in Sept. 2008 she points out that she didn't ask specifically for the raw data files.
She learns that the raw data files (but note: she does not call them raw data) are important only subsequently to that, as her consultants tells her so (so she says); she calls the missing file "log file". So she asks the G.U.P. (the Preliminary Judge) to have this further file, the judge (Micheli) rejected further the request on the ground that Stefanoni had described those data as irrelevant. Bongiorno says she does not think Stefanoni said anything wrong, but censures the fact that the judge asked only Stefanoni.
Then Bongiorno explains why the raw data are important. Well, what she says is their importance is related to the height and area of peaks; it's about knowing numbers. So it is essentially a use related to the reading and interpretation of the electropherogram chart.
(the use she described is in no way useful to determine whether Sollecito's profile was transferred on the clasp during the murder or in a different event).

So the above snippets summarize the whole the raw data issue from the defence point of view seen from 2009, what exactly was requested, when they requested them the rad data for the first time (after sept. 25), what use she intended to make of them. You also discover that Stefanoni never denied them, not even the prosecution denied them actually, it was always the judge who decided they were irrelevant (if we identify them with the log file).

This is Ghirga's claim, slightly diffferent:
(p. 20)

GHIRGA: "(...)sono incompleti non solo e non tanto nella presenza dei registri quotidiani ma anche nella mancata allegazione dei file grezzi relativamente alle corse elettroforetiche e il file analisi metodo utilizzato (inc.) campione 36 attraverso i quali... file grezzi attraverso i quali sotto un profilo scientifico, operativo strumentale proprio quello come si fa le analisi è possibile ripercorrere con il dato di partenza del quantum del DNA estratto ripercorrere tutte quelle tappe che la Dottoressa Stefanoni ci ha detto, dato estratto abbiamo saputo 20, 30 (inc.) diluito, riconcentrato, sequenziatore eccetera eccetera quindi neppure oggi riteniamo che la Scientifica di Roma abbia adempiuto all’invito quanto mai opportuno di questa Corte di dare tutte le carte relative alle operazioni,(...)"

Ghirga specifically tells Massei that he wants the raw data, the use he wants to make of the raw data is: reconstruct the testing processing session followed by Stefanoni. He is mostly focused on the Knife.

Comodi objects:
(p.27)

(...) "i file di log sono appunto file di servizio, è un dato non
R.G. 8/08 - 14/09/2009 c/ Knox Amanda Marie + 1 28
scientifico ma informatico che serve esclusivamente per controllare come ha lavorato la Stefanoni ma non nel merito, come ha lavorato fisicamente, quando è intervenuta, quali sono state le date, le ore, i vari passaggi dal punto di vista temporale cioè si vuol controllare..." (..)

The log files are not scientific data, they are merely service data useful to know technicality of the working process, they are only useful to know how exactly Stefanoni worked, in terms of timings and sequence, but not meaningful in the merit of the work.

(...)"chiedere i file di servizio o i file di log che dir si voglia è come chiedere al Giudice di depositare oltre alla Sentenza anche la brutta copia della Sentenza, le varie cancellature che ha fatto, le ricerche giurisprudenziali che ha fatto, quando le ha fatte, perché le ha fatte, su quale sito le ha fatte, se questo è ammissibile lo riterrà la Corte". (...)

Comodi says, to ask service tiles is like asking the judge to submit informations about the drafts and the writing process of what he wrote; she says, it is up to the court to decide if the request is admissible.

Tagliabracci speaks starting from p. 36; he speaks mostly about quantities and about SALs. He is interested in the DNA quantification above all.

I don't find a description about the raw data by Tagliabracci. Do you know the page? Maybe it's somewhere else.

 

[Machiavelli]

Chris et al.I suggest a trip to .org for a very enlightening post on the semen stain by Yummi.

Apparently testing the stain can't be good for Raf so the court is protecting him.

Yummi can only think that the stain could be from Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. But what if it came from someone else? what if it came from Kokomani or some other member of the Albanian gang?

According to Yummi all the requests for data are because the defense is desperate and the prosecution has an open and shut case.

Btw, if I were facing this court system I'd be desperate from day one.

A bit inaccurate as a summary of what I wrote, I think.

 

[JREF2010]

.
If this court does not feel their is sufficient evidence to convict, and the prosecution does not want to test the semen stain, then so be it.

.

If I recall, wasn't it stated that Meredith only had sex with the boy downstairs, not in her room? Seems someone mentioned that.

If true, that would leave a stronger possibility that the semen stain was an unknown party. (if it is in fact semen)

The boy should be able to answer that question easily.

add:
Giacomo added: "It was a few weeks after that, around the middle of October-that we kissed for the first time at a student party. Then we made love a couple of days later in my flat.

 

[Dan O.]

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

Machiavelli is letting his words get ahead of him. He'a redefined contamination so now it's the prosecution that has to prove how Raffaele's DNA contaminated that hook.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli is letting his words get ahead of him. He'a redefined contamination so now it's the prosecution that has to prove how Raffaele's DNA contaminated that hook.

This is what the rest of circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is for. The bra claps is one of the pieces. The whole set of pieces of evidence proves how it got "contaminated".

 

[codyjuneau]

If I recall, wasn't it stated that Meredith only had sex with the boy downstairs, not in her room? Seems someone mentioned that.

If true, that would leave a stronger possibility that the semen stain was an unknown party. (if it is in fact semen)

The boy should be able to answer that question easily.

.
To be clear, I think the alleged semen stain, should have been tested, and still should be tested, but not by this court IF this court has already concluded that there is insufficient evidence to find R & A guilty, which is what I believe they have done.

I think we have become very cynical because of some court decisions pre and post Hellmann and Zanetti. There is no reason to assume that the Florence magistrates suffer from the same confirmation bias and deficiencies of logic that the Perugian magistrates do. It may very well be, that to the Florence magistrate and jurors, this case against R & A is as obviously illogical and preposterous as you and I think it is.
.

 

[billyryan]

The above are relevant passages where Bongiorno speaks about her requests (what she requested), both in July and in Sept. 2008 she points out that she didn't ask specifically for the raw data files.
She learns that the raw data files (but note: she does not call them raw data) are important only subsequently to that, as her consultants tells her so (so she says); she calls the missing file "log file". So she asks the G.U.P. (the Preliminary Judge) to have this further file, the judge (Micheli) rejected further the request on the ground that Stefanoni had described those data as irrelevant. Bongiorno says she does not think Stefanoni said anything wrong, but censures the fact that the judge asked only Stefanoni.
Then Bongiorno explains why the raw data are important. Well, what she says is their importance is related to the height and area of peaks; it's about knowing numbers. So it is essentially a use related to the reading and interpretation of the electropherogram chart.
(the use she described is in no way useful to determine whether Sollecito's profile was transferred on the clasp during the murder or in a different event).

So the above snippets summarize the whole the raw data issue from the defence point of view seen from 2009, what exactly was requested, when they requested them the rad data for the first time (after sept. 25), what use she intended to make of them. You also discover that Stefanoni never denied them, not even the prosecution denied them actually, it was always the judge who decided they were irrelevant (if we identify them with the log file).

This is Ghirga's claim, slightly diffferent:
(p. 20)



Ghirga specifically tells Massei that he wants the raw data, the use he wants to make of the raw data is: reconstruct the testing processing session followed by Stefanoni. He is mostly focused on the Knife.

Comodi objects:
(p.27)


The log files are not scientific data, they are merely service data useful to know technicality of the working process, they are only useful to know how exactly Stefanoni worked, in terms of timings and sequence, but not meaningful in the merit of the work.



Comodi says, to ask service tiles is like asking the judge to submit informations about the drafts and the writing process of what he wrote; she says, it is up to the court to decide if the request is admissible.

Tagliabracci speaks starting from p. 36; he speaks mostly about quantities and about SALs. He is interested in the DNA quantification above all.

I don't find a description about the raw data by Tagliabracci. Do you know the page? Maybe it's somewhere else.

Just going on memory,the defences requested the DNA raw data,judge Micheli told Stefanoni to hand over what was requested,Stefanoni made excuses,Micheli shrugged his shoulders and said ,well I did ask her"what exactly were Mike Heavey's words again "A fraud a fiction and a farce"

 

[Dan O.]

This is what the rest of circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is for. The bra claps is one of the pieces. The whole set of pieces of evidence proves how it got "contaminated".

And yet you still can't provide a detailed narative of the events that night that fits the evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.

Interestingly, I had not even seen this post when I wrote mine (about criticizing Amanda). Maybe it is a Seattle thing, Wildhorses! No, wait -- I know someone in Ohio who feels as I do.

No, I haven't done extensive polling or focus group analysis. I doubt anyone has. I'm not offended by the remarks. I just think they serve no positive purpose and gave fodder to the press and the pro guilt crowd. I certainly understand the Kerchers' response.

About 90% of people think exactly like I do.

Me too!

I'm not being alienated. I firmly believe that the evidence in this case does not rise to the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since I'm commenting, as are you, on a Internet forum it is difficult to claim moral authority. However, I have much respect for a number of people that have expertise in certain fields. I don't argue DNA, phones or computer records. I may argue how to present information because that is something I've done for years.

Fair enough.

I don't think what is written here impacts public opinion directly. I think many here have given suggestions that would make the case better than the actual people in charge are making. I've laid out how I'd approach many aspects and surprisingly think I've done a good job.
<snip>
She, herself, made comments that reflected some of the above. I clearly don't believe that the case has been made for guilt but Amanda has a forum and I'd use it far differently.

That's one of the problems -- as soon as Amanda says anything people start picking it apart and using it to prove she is inconsistent. My fundamental complaint is that people look at Amanda at all. It is not her job to explain this debacle to everyone.

Tell me how the "visiting the grave" was helpful? The "I'd take a lie detector test" was much better.

The comments(s) about visiting the grave did not strike me as helpful or unhelpful. I just took it at face value, which I thought was neutral.

 

[Diocletus]

This is what the rest of circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is for. The bra claps is one of the pieces. The whole set of pieces of evidence proves how it got "contaminated".

Where's the part that explains how some other dudes' dna got on the clasp?

Is the video of the crime scene clowns considered circumstantial evidence, or is that direct evidence?

 

[Wildhorses]

When I read you guys criticizing Amanda like this, it raises questions in my mind. For example, I wonder whether you actually have your fingers to the pulse of public opinion. Do you know for a fact that other people are offended by the same things you are offended by, and that what you don't like about Amanda's behavior is actually harmful to her situation?

Second, when you imagine the group of people Amanda is not impressing, or may even be alienating, what kind of people are you imagining? Obviously, she is alienating you, but have you checked to see whether there are enough other people just like you out there that their influence is a factor in Amanda's situation? Have you ascertained whether you have the moral authority to be giving her advice versus whether you are just armchair quarterbacking?

Third, your primary concern seems to be public relations, which is great. How do you think it looks to the public, though, when some of Amanda's supporters criticize her, and for essentially the same reasons the Perugians criticized her? In my opinion, a strong united front should be one without cracks, even if you have to bite your keyboards to prevent yourselves from venting.

I know you don't see it this way, but to me, there is a very short distance between, "I wish someone would tell her to knock it off"/"She is a lousy spokesperson" and, "Her situation is nobody's fault but her own." Or worse.

Mary, I've been reading your posts for years and have great respect for your clarity of thought. I do, however, think you have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that it's in Amanda's best interest to put her best foot forward.

I claim no "moral authority." Nothing I wrote has anything to do with morality. I wasn't "offended" by her comment. I was concerned, the same way I’d be concerned if my daughter said something that could be used against her -- though more so because my daughter isn’t facing a prison sentence and isn’t a target of hate web sites.

There is no monolithic "pulse of opinion." A great many people aren't interested enough in the case to care. There is, however, such a thing as common sense and "a take" that registers with people, even if they don't mention it. Why did Bill Maher joke about the Sawyer interview? Did he poll public perception first? No, he just knew a couple comments struck a peculiar note. Same way I knew, the LAST thing the Kerchers want right now is to visit Meredith's grave with her -- and that suggesting it comes off as insensitive. And guarantees reaction.

The Kerchers have Amanda all wrong. They were brainwashed at their most vulnerable. With proper feedback, Amanda could have used moments of, say, the Diane Sawyer interview to soften haters view of her. Instead, she said something that wigged out the Kerchers. Headlines could have read “Knox speaks fondly of her friend.” Instead, they say "Kerchers beg Knox to stay away from the grave."

It hurts her, Mary.

But let me be clear: I don't blame Amanda for ill-advised comments. She's a traumatized kid, with wa-a-ay too much to worry about. I blame her inner circle for not giving her constructive feedback. For not PROTECTING her from the howling wolves. You may think it's kindness to send a traumatized kid to interviews without critical attention to what she says and how she says it. I don't. I think it causes the poor kid unnecessary pain.

Regarding your third point: I favor truth to biting my keyboard. My analysis of the situation leads me to conclude Amanda and Raff are innocent. I'm sticking to it. My analysis of Amanda Knox -- and myself and the rest of humanity -- leads me to conclude no one's perfect. I'm sticking to that as well. Preservation of a united front in Perugia is what caused this mess in the first place -- and what perpetuates it.

Moreover, there’s a HUGE difference between critiquing Amanda’s interviews and claiming she caused the mess. I see Grinder said he’s been helping people present information for years. I have experience in that realm as well, which may be why our views are so different from yours. I see no shame, blame, or accusation of murder in wanting Knox to improve her spokesperson skills. Very few people are naturals. Very few spokespeople don’t get coached on how to present themselves – and on what NOT to say.