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

[Diocletus]

Part of the reason that i raise the point about bias, is because on the day of Knox's release, one of my american friends mailed me in celebratory fashion "we got back the girl!!!" Now she didn't have the first clue about the details of the case, and whether the evidence supported knox's realease as a good thing. It was simply a rallying slogan that they used on each other to pat themselves on the back for winning.

Honestly, you seem to have odd friends.

 

[Diocletus]

How exactly does a crimescope determine DNA? How would taking a swab for DNA destroy the pillowcase? This explanation is bogus.

Not only is it bogus, but since when are a bunch of shoeprints more important than a semen stain? Oh, wait, I know: shoeprints are more important than a semen stain when you think you can prove that one of them might be from Amanda Knox, and the semen stain obviously is not.

 

[RoseMontague]

In order to perform DNA testing on the two stains wouldn't you have to cut both areas in order to test?

Do you know if the defense put forth a request to have the stains tested in May 2009 (when Vinci first did the crimescope images of the pillowcase)?

As far as preservation and testing of crime scene evidence there is legal protocol as to what can be done, can't be done, and how it should be done applying to both sides of a case. It could be that one side or the other didn't make a valid legal argument to have something tested or made no legal argument at all. This is in general and may or may not apply to this case.

My understanding is it will be swabbed regardless if it is cut out or not. They would normally cut out a stain that is not easily transportable, like a stain on car upholstery. In this case, the evidence is already in the lab.

 

[TofuFighter]

Honestly, you seem to have odd friends.

I cannot argue with you on that point.

 

[Diocletus]

Many thanks for once again confirming that the raw data was specifically asked for in court in 2009 and denied by Massei.

As you indicated before, Stefanoni had a strategy based on what data to release and when to release it.

The purpose of that strategy in my opinion, was to withhold data that might make the kids look innocent and release data that could make the kids look guilty. This is unethical. Stefi is a lying cheater.

It appears to me your entire argument on the subject of the raw data boils down to the defense lawyers were not able to explain exactly how that data would be relevant to the defense experts. Of course, the lawyers are not experts themselves and if Massei denied the requests based on the fact that the defense lawyers did a poor job of explaining things, then that is just sad.

It is clear from the testimony that the experts felt they were hamstrung by lack of data, including the raw data. The fact that the court still refuses this to the defense speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Now we come to this new appeal and the court is wanting the defense to prove contamination. The defense tells the court their experts need the raw data in order to show contamination. Once again the court denies the request because the lawyer was not able to properly explain things or point out a specific testimony from an expert properly explaining why it is needed. If this is the case, as you suggest, it's doubly sad.

One day, the truth will come out. I hope the lying cheating "scientist" is exposed for the corrupt female dog she is. It is obvious to me the court is not pursuing justice. They are afraid of the truth.

Yeah, it's clear that the raw data was requested, and requested more than once, and not produced. It's also clear that Stefanoni has withheld evidence unfavorable for the prosecution, and also the data that would have allowed the defendants to undermine the lab work.

I think that we are going to hear more about the raw data, though.

That said, I coming to the conclusion that the court doesn't care about the defendants. But not only that, it doesn't care about the Kerchers and it doesn't care about the truth. It cares only about protecting the system, and here's how it will go down:

The verdict will be "not guilty." Nencini will write an opinion that says that there are two possibilities: 1) Guede did it, or 2) all three did it. The evidence doesn't exclude either possibility, and there is evidence that makes either scenario reasonable. Based on two possibilities, there is reasonable doubt, but the defendants might have done it. End of story. The system looks thoughtful. Everyone else gets trashed.

But what Nencini needs, in order to write such an opinion, is for the record to be devoid of any evidence that could prove or disprove one of the possibilities. That means no computer/alibi analysis. And also, no analysis of the lab work, because that could shift the balance of probabilities, and also make the system look really, really bad.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Although there remains the question whether this was under duress

Which, IMHO, they were - which is no small matter. The contents of the confession say a lot about what the police believed to have happened at the time, and nothing at all to explain the physical evidence at the scene. It's exasperating how many think this is a reflection on her rather than her interrogators.

Part of the reason that i raise the point about bias, is because on the day of Knox's release, one of my american friends mailed me in celebratory fashion "we got back the girl!!!"

I have not the slightest doubt that Knox elicits a lot of sympathy in the US which is founded in nothing more than brutish chauvinism. There's a woman called Schapelle Corby who is a household name in my home country of Australia because she's sort-of attractive (if you like the type) and has been imprisoned for 20 years by brown men in Indonesia for attempting to bring a large quantity of marijuana into their country. Corby's tearful protestations of innocence drew a lot of sympathy from her countrymen, the noted jurist Russell Crowe being but one example among many. However, a key distinction with Knox's case is that Corby is as guilty as sin.

 

[Grinder]

As far as I know, the testing of the putative semen stain is due to the fact that, at the beginnig of the investigation, a decision on a test was delayed, because the test would have destroyed the pillowcase (and there were many shoperints on it).
The pillowcase was kept by the print-analysis department, and remained "freezed" there in that status for the purpose of print analysis.
Vinci has analysed the pillowcase stains under crimescope light together with Stefanoni; he did not require a test.

IIRC that's how the stain came to fore. The crack scientific police totally missed it.

Repeating. There is no reason to keep the shoe prints after they were examined and photographed. Certainly a small cut could have been made were the stain was and then tested.

There is no credible argument for not testing, period.

 

[tsig]

Who is behind this fix – the ‘dark’ forces referred to by Supernaut, Mary H, Kevin Lowe and others?

Apparently the entire Perugian police force decided to frame her then got the entire Italian Justice System to go along with it because they hate people doing cartwheels in their police stations.

 

[Grinder]

Many thanks for once again confirming that the raw data was specifically asked for in court in 2009 and denied by Massei.

As you indicated before, Stefanoni had a strategy based on what data to release and when to release it.

The purpose of that strategy in my opinion, was to withhold data that might make the kids look innocent and release data that could make the kids look guilty. This is unethical. Stefi is a lying cheater.

It appears to me your entire argument on the subject of the raw data boils down to the defense lawyers were not able to explain exactly how that data would be relevant to the defense experts. Of course, the lawyers are not experts themselves and if Massei denied the requests based on the fact that the defense lawyers did a poor job of explaining things, then that is just sad.

It is clear from the testimony that the experts felt they were hamstrung by lack of data, including the raw data. The fact that the court still refuses this to the defense speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Now we come to this new appeal and the court is wanting the defense to prove contamination. The defense tells the court their experts need the raw data in order to show contamination. Once again the court denies the request because the lawyer was not able to properly explain things or point out a specific testimony from an expert properly explaining why it is needed. If this is the case, as you suggest, it's doubly sad.

One day, the truth will come out. I hope the lying cheating "scientist" is exposed for the corrupt female dog she is. It is obvious to me the court is not pursuing justice. They are afraid of the truth.

It raises the question: How can a judge like Massei even understand the request. If he fully relies on the scientific police then we get the answers that have been forthcoming. Obviously Stefanoni both feels and has the power to decide for the court what's what.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Ah OK, sorry I think I did misunderstand you then. By 'procedural' I thought you meant that the requests had nothing to do with the merits of the case, i.e. that they were purely technical, with no real substance. I'd just read the comments from the court where they distinguish between the re-hearing of Aviello (purely procedural) on the one hand, and the test on the knife sample (to supplement existing evidence) on the other, so that's why I jumped to conclusions a bit.

I have to partly disagree with you, though, on your suggestion that ordering the knife test was just "a matter of unfinished work" in the same way that Aviello's testimony obviously is. You're right that this was an element of the SC's argument, i.e. that the testing should have been carried through to completion. However, the tone of the SC's argument with regard to this test is very strong, much different to the argument on re-hearing Aviello, in which they acknowledge that this might well only reinforce his unreliability - in other words re-hearing him is just a matter of correct procedure. They certainly never refer to his testimony as "decisive".

With regard to the knife, on the other hand, they say this new trace needed to be addressed "more than any other", that not ordering the test meant the decision was flawed by failure to acquire "decisive evidence", and that the foundation on which the judges made their decision was "obviously incomplete" due to evidence having been ignored which was "not only significant, but decisive". I just searched through the SC report, and the phrase "decisive evidence" occurs only in relation to this test: once in the prosecution's original objection to it not being tested, and then several times in the SC's argument as to why it should have been tested.

I agree that this test is 'decisive' specifically in the context of the testing ordered by Hellmann, because obviously if he hadn't ordered more testing in the first place, the sample wouldn't exist. But the point is that the new court is working in exactly that context, too - they have the same evidence to consider as did Hellmann, including the Conti-Vecchiotti report. If it was 'decisive evidence' for Hellmann, then it must also be decisive evidence for the new court, too. It would be a different story if the SC had ruled that ordering an expert review was illegal and that C & V should be disregarded, but of course they didn't do that.

I think this has turned into a bit of a problem for the prosecution, though at this stage I'm not sure how serious a one. They had to present this new trace as crucial evidence to strengthen their grounds for appeal, and so they really hammered home the importance of it. But now the SC has agreed with them that it's important, a potentially decisive piece of evidence. So what happens if (as is likely) the test comes out negative? The ordering of the test could turn out to be a bit of a double-edged sword. Certainly not something that would automatically lead to acquittal, but it may call the knife evidence into question.

 

[JREF2010]

But what Nencini needs, in order to write such an opinion, is for the record to be devoid of any evidence that could prove or disprove one of the possibilities. That means no computer/alibi analysis. And also, no analysis of the lab work, because that could shift the balance of probabilities, and also make the system look really, really bad.

Which would make this court a failure. Lazy, comes to mind, political talking heads without any passion for the truth.

Nencini might also do like Massei, reject more learning, reject more tests, and vote a guilty verdict.

And then in year, or three, or ten, the ISC will spend a couple hours on the case and make another decision whether to allow another appeal...

I think I will have learned more from the TV show, and the guy climbing the wall in seconds, than this trial..

 

[RoseMontague]

Yeah, it's clear that the raw data was requested, and requested more than once, and not produced. It's also clear that Stefanoni has withheld evidence unfavorable for the prosecution, and also the data that would have allowed the defendants to undermine the lab work.

I think that we are going to hear more about the raw data, though.

That said, I coming to the conclusion that the court doesn't care about the defendants. But not only that, it doesn't care about the Kerchers and it doesn't care about the truth. It cares only about protecting the system, and here's how it will go down:

The verdict will be "not guilty." Nencini will write an opinion that says that there are two possibilities: 1) Guede did it, or 2) all three did it. The evidence doesn't exclude either possibility, and there is evidence that makes either scenario reasonable. Based on two possibilities, there is reasonable doubt, but the defendants might have done it. End of story. The system looks thoughtful. Everyone else gets trashed.

But what Nencini needs, in order to write such an opinion, is for the record to be devoid of any evidence that could prove or disprove one of the possibilities. That means no computer/alibi analysis. And also, no analysis of the lab work, because that could shift the balance of probabilities, and also make the system look really, really bad.

What you say makes sense. That's the problem, imo. I wish I could be at least this optimistic.

 

[Diocletus]

I think this has turned into a bit of a problem for the prosecution, though at this stage I'm not sure how serious a one. They had to present this new trace as crucial evidence to strengthen their grounds for appeal, and so they really hammered home the importance of it. But now the SC has agreed with them that it's important, a potentially decisive piece of evidence. So what happens if (as is likely) the test comes out negative? The ordering of the test could turn out to be a bit of a double-edged sword. Certainly not something that would automatically lead to acquittal, but it may call the knife evidence into question.

I agree with this. One caveat, though. There is DNA in 36i. So what will the egram show? My thought is that it is most likely that we see a jumbled, uninterpretable mix. Alternatively, we might see Knox or Sollecito DNA. Or, maybe some unknown person. All of these results are bad for the prosecution, because they suggest contamination and/or undercut the argument that the knife was used to stab Kercher simply because maybe one cell of her non-blood DNA was on the blade.

The only good result for the prosecution would be if Kercher DNA is in 36i. I believe that there is almost no chance of this.

In effect, the 36i argument was a Hail Mary by the prosecution in order to make the appeal stick. But, now they are going to have to live with the consequence of this strategy, and the consequence is likely to be the destruction of the knife as a serious piece of evidence.

They cut off their nose to save their face.

 

[Diocletus]

What you say makes sense. That's the problem, imo. I wish I could be at least this optimistic.

Nencini could go even farther. He could engage in a complete character assassination and at the same time extol the Italian justice system. He could say that the police and prosecution work was excellent. He could say that Knox and Sollecito objectively appear, and indeed are probably, guilty . . . BUT, it so happens that there is just this one little niggling fiber of reasonable doubt that maybe Guede acted alone, and for this reason, due to the fairness and thoroughness and greatness of the Italian system, they must be set free (even though in an Anglo Saxon country they would certainly have been imprisoned for life with no appeal and maybe even executed).

In fact, I think that's pretty much what his opinion will say, except that it will be 400 pages long. It will be a self-serving, 400-page lie.

 

[Dan O.]

As far as I know, the testing of the putative semen stain is due to the fact that, at the beginnig of the investigation, a decision on a test was delayed, because the test would have destroyed the pillowcase (and there were many shoperints on it).
The pillowcase was kept by the print-analysis department, and remained "freezed" there in that status for the purpose of print analysis.
Vinci has analysed the pillowcase stains under crimescope light together with Stefanoni; he did not require a test.

Here again Machiavelli is spouting total crap. Anyone can lookup for themselves what a test for semen involves and see that it can be easily done without disturbing the evidence. You can even order a home testing kit for about $50 and try it yourself.

The real reason that the prosecution didn't test the semen stain is because their forensics team didn't notice it and it had to be pointed out to them by the defense. After that, the stain is an embarrassment to them and they cover it up with the lie that testing it would have destroyed the all important print evidence. Now their position is that it's not relavent because they have already decided what happened that night and the test will not change that.

Testing the stain might not change the prosecutions story. But if it is tested and found to be semen it will change the believability of at least one witness. Can any court honestly adjudicate this case without knowing that information?

Testing the stain for the presence of semen only takes a couple of minutes. If the test is negative, the issue goes away. If the test is positive, a DNA test to identify the depositor will be required.

 

[billyryan]

Yeah, it's clear that the raw data was requested, and requested more than once, and not produced. It's also clear that Stefanoni has withheld evidence unfavorable for the prosecution, and also the data that would have allowed the defendants to undermine the lab work.

I think that we are going to hear more about the raw data, though.

That said, I coming to the conclusion that the court doesn't care about the defendants. But not only that, it doesn't care about the Kerchers and it doesn't care about the truth. It cares only about protecting the system, and here's how it will go down:

The verdict will be "not guilty." Nencini will write an opinion that says that there are two possibilities: 1) Guede did it, or 2) all three did it. The evidence doesn't exclude either possibility, and there is evidence that makes either scenario reasonable. Based on two possibilities, there is reasonable doubt, but the defendants might have done it. End of story. The system looks thoughtful. Everyone else gets trashed.

But what Nencini needs, in order to write such an opinion, is for the record to be devoid of any evidence that could prove or disprove one of the possibilities. That means no computer/alibi analysis. And also, no analysis of the lab work, because that could shift the balance of probabilities, and also make the system look really, really bad.

I agree Diocletus,in the interests of the Italian criminal justice system this has to be ended in a way that somehow saves their honour,Hellmann tried that with the conviction for Calunnia,but in general the credabitity of the Italian criminal justice system was reduced to less than junk status by the Hellmann court

I have seen a report where the judge made a statement "This is not a Taliban court you know"although I can't for the life of me see how the judge could claim that this whole process in Perugia under Mateini Micheli and Massei could even reach the standard operated by the Taliban as infamously bad as the Taliban system of justice was,but I do take from the judge's comments how sensitive they are to criticism

To force Stefanoni to release the FSA's or EDF's or to examine the phones or investigate who ordered the destruction of the hardrives,would be to invite more shame more humiliation on the Italian criminal justice system and the people who live a privileged life because of it could not be sure that the Italian people would stay passively accepting such corruption such abuse of power,after all the people of Libya Syria and Egypt have turned violently on their oppressors

My guess and predicting the future is dicy business,is the court will find Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and find a way to cover up as much as possible the lying the framing the corruption the gross incompetence of all involved on the prosecution side

 

[Wildhorses]

I agree with this. One caveat, though. There is DNA in 36i. So what will the egram show? My thought is that it is most likely that we see a jumbled, uninterpretable mix. Alternatively, we might see Knox or Sollecito DNA. Or, maybe some unknown person. All of these results are bad for the prosecution, because they suggest contamination and/or undercut the argument that the knife was used to stab Kercher simply because maybe one cell of her non-blood DNA was on the blade.

The only good result for the prosecution would be if Kercher DNA is in 36i. I believe that there is almost no chance of this.

In effect, the 36i argument was a Hail Mary by the prosecution in order to make the appeal stick. But, now they are going to have to live with the consequence of this strategy, and the consequence is likely to be the destruction of the knife as a serious piece of evidence.

They cut off their nose to save their face.

Would you mind summarizing the history of 36i and what is thus far known about it? I'm unable to find a discussion of it in the C&V report.

The SC report says it's "near" the trace that purportedly yielded Meredith's DNA. C&V notation, plus your comment about the destruction of the knife, lead me to believe it is near/under the handle.

Seems to me testing of this trace is great news. I'm fine with the prosecution cutting off its nose.

 

[Diocletus]

Would you mind summarizing the history of 36i and what is thus far known about it? I'm unable to find a discussion of it in the C&V report.

The SC report says it's "near" the trace that purportedly yielded Meredith's DNA. C&V notation, plus your comment about the destruction of the knife, lead me to believe it is near/under the handle.

Seems to me testing of this trace is great news. I'm fine with the prosecution cutting off its nose.

It's basically a bunch of crud that they scraped off of the intersection of blade and handle:
http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...lysis-of-individual-dna-extracts-samples-a-m/

It seems like most of it is food debris, but they amplified it and ended up with some very small amount of amplification product, which would be human DNA.

I guess that the Carabinieri will combine the different amplification wells and concentrate the resulting mix and run an egram.

 

[Machiavelli]

Many thanks for once again confirming that the raw data was specifically asked for in court in 2009 and denied by Massei.

As you indicated before, Stefanoni had a strategy based on what data to release and when to release it.
(...)

Your accusation is based on nothing. Stefanoni released all data that she was requested.
You are wrong when you say that the defence are not expert themselves: the defence had their experts, Potenza and Vinci; they were explicitly granted access to Stefanoni's laboratory.
They decided to not access the laboratory. Only Vinci accessed the laboratory database, but he only required to access to the pillowcase and its data.
Nobody from defence experts ever attempted to access DNA data.
That was their strategy.
Moreover, nobody from the defences ever objected to that Stefanoni did the tests alone, they never required judte-appointed experts to carry on the tests. That was their strategy too.
Vinci and Potenza and Torre are experts themselves, as well as Tagliabracci and Pascali (a guy who is now indicted for corruption and false expert report in another case) and they always knew what they intended to request, and what they intended not to request.

Stefanoni is not required to release anything unless requested.
She is only required to write a technical report and offer a court explanation. She is not requested to release to the defences nothing more than what she explains to the court. So the 'strategy' about what to release is just a necessary choice inherent to the functioning of the court system.
Actually Stefanoni does not release anything at all to the defences, she deposits her trial documentation at the Court's chanchellery (the trial documentation is elaborated material, this intrinsically mplies choice about information). She kindly offered to deal with the defence experts in her laboratory if they required data, they could require further data of their choice. But they didn't make any request.

So Stefanoni is a 100% honest person, who acted ethically, and did exactly what all experts are required to do and what they always do, on all cases not just the Kercher murder (nobody ever used to deposit raw data at the clerk's office).

 

[Grinder]

It continues to boggle that the "stain" is not worth testing in part because it can't be dated but footprints left in an unknown substance which can't be dated either is a key piece of evidence.

Did the defense ask for reference prints from all people that lived in the upstairs apartment at any time that the floor remained as it was on murder night. Even a diluted blood print could last for years and not test positive for blood with the TMB test.

I wished the defense would make a presentation on video showing what the prosecution refers to as foot prints that are "compatible" with Amanda. The PGP discussing the case seem to think the prints match her feet.

Back in the day the best available was blood type. It wasn't precise and many were convicted when the evidence really was too low probability.

Italy seems to long for those days of yesteryear.