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

[Machiavelli]

This is just more Italian double-speak BS.

The fact of the matter is that the supreme court didn't like the outcome of the Hellmann court, and so the supreme court second-guessed Hellmann's findings of fact. If the rule of law had been followed, the supreme court could not have done this. The fact that the supreme court did it, and what the supreme court said in doing it, has deprived the defendants of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court can do this indeed, they can decide whether the logical quality of a verdict is sufficient and they can look at its consistence with evidence documentation, and they do this under the rule of law.

 

[Diocletus]

The problem with premediation is evidence. There is just not enough evidence to conclude that the sexual violence was premeditated, as for Massei.

Premeditation isn't relevant to sexual violence. It's relevant to murder.

Anyway, of course Guede's sexual violence was "pre-meditated." He stripped her, put a pillow under her hips, assaulted her, and left a puddle of semen on the ground. And this was all after he had stabbed her to death and gone to get towels so he could avoid making too big of a mess.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Italy falls between these two. They have the machines. But, the Italians have a very loose sense of the procedure and protocol that would be necessary to obtain a reliable result, and no effective legal structure concerning transparency, admissibility and value of this evidence. It's really a very bad situation from the standpoint of justice.

There in't any admissibility rule on any piece of evidence in Italian law, of any kind. There can't be under the procedure code.

When you talk about pieces of evidence, the question whether something is absolutely certain under the scientific point of view, is simply pointless; if something is uncertain, it may well be just probable instead of certain; a piece of evidence might be a proof if it is 100% sceientific and certain, otherwise if it is just probable it will be just a piece of circumstantial evidence. Which might be all what is needed in a trial.

 

[Diocletus]

The Supreme Court can do this indeed, they can decide whether the logical quality of a verdict is sufficient and they can look at its consistence with evidence documentation, and they do this under the rule of law.

Not really. Italian statute prohibits this. The only basis for them to do so is their own decision in a different case where they gave themselves the power to revisit the facts.

Not a good example of the "rule of law".

 

[Machiavelli]

Premeditation isn't relevant to sexual violence. It's relevant to murder.

Anyway, of course Guede's sexual violence was "pre-meditated." He stripped her, put a pillow under her hips, assaulted her, and left a puddle of semen on the ground. And this was all after he had stabbed her to death and gone to get towels so he could avoid making too big of a mess.

Violence on Meredith was committed long before she was stabbed to death.
Dead or dying people don't suffer bruises. They don't have enough blood pressure.

 

[Diocletus]

There in't any admissibility rule on any piece of evidence in Italian law, of any kind.

Yes. This seems to be the problem.

 

[Diocletus]

Violence on Meredith was committed long before she was stabbed to death.
Dead or dying people don't suffer bruises. They don't have enough blood pressure.

Sure. And this probably explains the lack of vaginal bruising. She was dead or dying when Guede committed his sex act.

 

[Grinder]

I wrote up stream asking about this, and got some helpful answers. Now, this DNA thing keeps going on. I was informed that Stefanoni swabbed one area and with the help of her machines on high crank she got data that interpreted the existence of Meridith's DNA. This was the unrepeatable test because the sample produced by the swab was used up. In the 'last trial" C&V swabbed again at another area and they found the now famous starch. (Halides I think told me that they also did a repeat swab at the same area of the previous DNA location but nothing was found.)

So, in this marvelous dispute about CD, when she says, "In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch," how do we know which speck the police were talking about? Are we sure they were talking about a speck produced from the "DNA" location? Did the police think that the other area had her DNA? Could CD have been thinking that, or had reasonable basis for thinking that? (Sorry I don't have the sample ID's memorized.)

Grinder you do a good job at keeping everybody "clean". Maybe you can clarify this point because every time I hear you say the "DNA speck turned out to be starch" I can't help but think that is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. It was, according to the CD quote, "the speck claimed by the police..."

So which specks did the police claim? And what is the source for any of that? Especially if we are going to call CD a liar.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this conversation even with your helpful insistence on precision of speech. For instance, every time I hear people talk about the DNA found on the knife I can't help but think that is terribly wrong also. Nobody has "seen" DNA. They do a swab and submit the sample to a machine and data is produced after chemical manipulations, and that data is in turn interpreted with graphs and so on. So what they "found" what data which was turned into graphs that hopefully represent a finding of DNA. So it does seem a little strange to be arguing about stating that DNA was found here or there in the first place.

Briefly, Stefanoni "found" something in a tiny crevice on the knife blade. She had already at that point tested the knife for blood and that test had come up negative. She took this tiny amount of matter and ran it through the testing machine but the results came up "too low" so she kept amplifying the matter until she was able to get a reading which she interpreted to Meredith's DNA. (That was a lay description and I concede that the scientists here may well correct details but I believe what I've written describes the process fairly).

This was not done to protocol for Low Copy Number or "touch" DNA in collection, transportation, or testing. The lab she used was not set up for or certified for this type of DNA. LCN DNA is fundamentally different than regular DNA that has been "traditionally" used in crime forensic work. DNA at first was used to identify substances found at a crime scene such as blood, semen, saliva on a cigarette but this "new" type is used to analyze things that don't "show" a DNA containing substance but rather find the tiny trace on something like the bra clasp or knife. One of the problems with this is that these low amounts can be transferred by touch and even re-transferred from one person to an object and picked up by another person from that object and moved again.

The knife "DNA" was so tiny that she was not able to split it in order to do a second confirmatory test or test to see what sort of matter it was. While that is not to scientific standards to me this is the smallest of problems. Had the objects been handled with LCN protocol in effect I think the second test wouldn't be damning but I'm sure the experts here will disagree.

I realize I covered area here you probably didn't need to hear.

There was only one piece of matter (the speck) that Stefanoni claimed was Meredith's DNA. That is the only piece that CD could be referring to and no one ever claimed it was starch that was a credible source.

Now C&V did find another speck which has been tested by the Carabinieri but we haven't heard the official results. They also found starch where the blade and handle meet. I'm not sure if they found starch elsewhere, but because the tiny speck was destroyed in testing it is impossible for them to find it was starch.

There was no claim by ICSI or the police in general that there was another piece that was Meredith's DNA.

She "found" the matter with a electron microscope IIRC and then initiated the tests. If it was by a swab, I believe she was using it to get a specific thing she had seen. I'm sure I'll be corrected no matter what but surely if I'm significantly wrong.

Basically C&V judged that because of the methodology used, the results were not reliable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really. Italian statute prohibits this. The only basis for them to do so is their own decision in a different case where they gave themselves the power to revisit the facts.

Absolutely not.
Italy btw does not have a "statute", it has a Constitution.
The law provides the SC with power to reviw the evidence procedure; and the code allows the SC to review things which include the merit of evidence under the paragraphs known as "powers 'd' and 'e' of art. 606".

 

[Machiavelli]

Sure. And this probably explains the lack of vaginal bruising. She was dead or dying when Guede committed his sex act.

The lack? The presence of bruising of the external labia, is what the autopsy reveals.
Moreover, she had over 30+ further bruises.

 

[Diocletus]

In other words, challenging Hellman's interpretation. What is the legal basis that allows the SC to do this?

They discuss this in the cassation opinion. The cite to a statute that says that they can't revisit the lower court's findings of fact. Then they refer to one of their prior opinions where the decided, in contravention of the statute, that they can revisit the facts. Based on that, they ignore the statute and make a bunch of their own erroneous findings of fact without having heard any real evidence. Embarrassing, really.

 

[Diocletus]

The lack? The presence of bruising of the external labia, is what the autopsy reveals.
Moreover, she had over 30+ further bruises.

Oh good (?), then she wasn't dead when Guede assaulted her. But, if she had such bruising, then I'm going to guess that it wasn't caused by Guede's finger.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely not.
Italy btw does not have a "statute", it has a Constitution.
The law provides the SC with power to reviw the evidence procedure; and the code allows the SC to review things which include the merit of evidence under the paragraphs known as "powers 'd' and 'e' of art. 606".

Italy does have a statute. It's called the criminal procedure code. The reference that you give is to the CP code. If those subparagraphs that you cite legitimately give the supreme court the right to revisit any findings of fact, then the supreme court would not have had to cite its own prior opinion to justify its effort to do so. Therefore, they don't permit the Supreme Court to reinvent the facts.

 

[Grinder]

"The DNA"? Meredith's DNA was in Stephony's lab in copious amounts, there's no question of that.

Which has nothing to do with starch. You should reread my comments which going as far back as you want will consistently say that contamination could not be ruled out and that the DNA on the knife and bra were and are bogus.

She produced a chart showing RFU peaks which are barely above the 'noise-floor' the machine produced, i.e. at the very limits of its ability to differentiate them from nothing - by definition in the LCN range.

Yes there was/is issues with her interpretations but that doesn't make the speck starch. Since the protocol and procedures weren't followed the interpretation is mute

Her own notes show that the blade tested negative for human tissue or blood, yet she claims she found a "speck" (which she didn't photograph), and which she claims was the source of this infitesmally small amount of DNA.

My recollection she that decided to test for DNA instead of human tissue but it is clear that she tested for blood and it was negative. Still none of that means it was found to be starch.

C&V confirmed no human tissue or blood, only visible traces of vegetable starch.

Nope.

Assuming Stephony DID actually find a "speck", then in all likelihood it TOO was starch, and the DNA was from elsewhere in the lab

Nope

Once again - since this matter [ETA >> i.e. the starch] was on the blade, at the junction with the handle, exactly where one would look for something missed by cleaning, what rationale could there possibly be for Stephony ignoring it, while just happening to get lucky with the single other "speck" on the blade that yielded DNA? Do you honestly find that remotely credible?

Nothing to do with the DNA really being starch. I have never found the DNA on the knife or the bra clasp to be credible. Nothing to do with starch.

Whatever, had she produced charts for negative control runs which showed only noise (the controls aren't an "option" to "just make sure" of the results, they are an integral part of those results), then it would be credible that her "speck" did indeed yield the few picograms of DNA.

She did a lousy job and the DNA should never have been allowed in a court of law and may well be the the point that extradition denial is based on.

I will bet that the defense lawyers in Italy and here if needed will not claim that the DNA was really starch.

The only thing then standing in the way of presenting it as "evidence" would be complete, unambiguous records/documentation of the "chain of custody" of the knife, proving that the absolutely mandatory procedures for sterile collection, handling and storage had been observed ........ er, oh dear.

Most everything you have put forward is a straw man argument regarding the issue of it being starch.

Methinks you really need make some effort to get a more thorough grasp of this "DNA science stuff", if only a 'lay' one.

I would think you might study logic and argument. I have never, ever said the DNA discussed was anything but bogus but that doesn't mean that Dempsey can say it was starch, bread, turnip juice, uranium or whatever she thinks would be the cutest or whatever she think her description was.

BTW, I have to assume you don't bother reading at IIP (it's too "biased", I suppose), because if you had, you'd be aware of the time and effort Diocletus has put into doing exactly that, and I doubt you'd be so ready with the condescending tone when discussing this particular issue with him.

I have suggested Dio, Kao, and Chris as well as any other of our experts here should write a book for use in court by juries and judges on this subject. If I have been condescending to him I formally apologize as that certainly isn't reflective of how I regard his knowledge.

If this has occurred please PM me Dio and I will apologize privately.

 

[Diocletus]

When you talk about pieces of evidence, the question whether something is absolutely certain under the scientific point of view, is simply pointless; if something is uncertain, it may well be just probable instead of certain; a piece of evidence might be a proof if it is 100% sceientific and certain, otherwise if it is just probable it will be just a piece of circumstantial evidence. Which might be all what is needed in a trial.

This is crap. Unreliable scientific evidence doesn't prove anything.

1000 bogus electropherograms can't make an innocent person guilty.

 

[Grinder]

Well, as for Guede, the issue of premeditation is relevant just as much as for the other two.
I think about Knox and Sollecito, exactly what you think about Guede: that their feelings are irrelevant in terms of proving their involvement.
The difference between me an you is that you think evidence against Knox and Sollecito is insufficient, this is why you think the prosecution should show some kind of animosity.
But I think the evidence is solid and beyond reasonable doubt, and also I think Massei assumed the same thing. On this basis, I don't want the prosecution to demonstrate any specific motive, plan, narrative or premeditation; it is indifferent to me if Knox and Sollecito had any animosity. The question of motives, psychological motivations, is something where I can see a dynamic suggested by the personalities, but such explanation is anyway irrelevant to me because I already see evidence beyond doubt of their involvement, and I don't need further elements.

I have never agreed with the motive, background etc. part of the PIP arguments but disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. I alkso disagree with your approach to transparency. Whether the defense asked for file at one point or another there is no reason not to release them.

The prosecution spent huge amounts of money on this case and the additional costs of releasing the file wouldn't be a reason not to do it.

If you haven't responded to the questions about Frank, please do.

 

[acbytesla]

First, there is no reason to take away the knife and the bra clasp, and second, the rest of the evidence is the best possible solid set of circumstantial evidence, the best kind of evidence you can have in a trial and absolutely enough to convict.

Of course there is a reason to take away the knife and the bra clasp. Just because you are unwilling to acknowledge that demonstrates a bizarre sense of reality. In fact, you can pretty much be assured that both would be found non- admissible in a US Court. There is little reason to believe that Stefanoni's results are the result of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder.

As for the rest being a "solid set" of circumstantial evidence is also demonstrates that sense of bizarre. There is nothing solid about them.

The time of death is almost certainly before 10 PM and probably before 9:15. The status of digestion points to that.

The prosecution witnesses do not connect the dots, came forward far too late, and our far more likely to be attention seekers than anything else.

There is NO evidence of the supposed break in being staged.
There is NO logic to Amanda and Raffaele "hanging around" the Piazza during that evening.
There is logic to either Amanda or Raffaele wanting to kill Meredith.
There is NO connection to Rudy. There is little reason for them to help Rudy kill Meredith or cover it up for Rudy.

There are a lot footprints of Rudy in Meredith's blood, fingerprints of Rudy and multiple deposits of Rudy's DNA including inside Meredith and no known reason for Rudy even being with Meredith or being inside the upper part of the cottage. Yet mysteriously, none of this was found for either Amanda or Raffaele.
The Knife taken from Raffaele's is DOWNRIGHT ABSURD. The logic of Amanda carrying this knife back and forth from the flat to the cottage and then back to the flat is not just absurd. IT IS STUPID. It doesn't match the wounds on Meredith and it definitely doesn't match the bloody stain on the sheet.

There is no reason to believe that the Luminol footprint that Stefanoni found to believe that they were blood because of the TMB tests and lack of confirmatory tests. The bathmat footprint doesn't exclude Raffaele as a possible match, but it also doesn't exclude Rudy and therefore it's value is limited to exclusion purposes.

If this is a set of circumstance that Italy believe is solid, I'm confident that it has a significant number of innocent people behind bars.

 

[Diocletus]

The lack? The presence of bruising of the external labia, is what the autopsy reveals.

I don't know anything about this autopsy, but if what you say is true, then why the cop's interest in the Vaseline? This suggests that they were looking for something to explain lack of bruising.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is just more Italian double-speak BS.

The fact of the matter is that the supreme court didn't like the outcome of the Hellmann court, and so the supreme court second-guessed Hellmann's findings of fact. If the rule of law had been followed, the supreme court could not have done this. The fact that the supreme court did it, and what the supreme court said in doing it, has deprived the defendants of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court can do this indeed, they can decide whether the logical quality of a verdict is sufficient and they can look at its consistence with evidence documentation, and they do this under the rule of law.

Of course the ISC *can* do this. This is because there is no oversight of the ISC, as there is no oversight of many national supreme courts.

The issue is, should they do this according to constitution? Clearly not.

I have no idea how "precedent" functions in the Italian legal system, but if it does function the ISC has just ruled that contamination must be proven, that there actually can be a sufficient amount of zero-evidence items in a case, but as long as there are enough of them then a conviction can be allowed. This is equivalent to saying that for numbers above, say 10, if there are 10 or more items which mean nothing in a case - as long as the PM advances more than ten then 10*0 equals conviction.

It also seems to have ruled that prosecutors' speculations and evidenceless theories by themselves are evidence.

Do you really want to live in a State where these are working precedents?

 

[MDDVS]

There in't any admissibility rule on any piece of evidence in Italian law, of any kind. There can't be under the procedure code.

When you talk about pieces of evidence, the question whether something is absolutely certain under the scientific point of view, is simply pointless; if something is uncertain, it may well be just probable instead of certain; a piece of evidence might be a proof if it is 100% sceientific and certain, otherwise if it is just probable it will be just a piece of circumstantial evidence. Which might be all what is needed in a trial.

This is interesting. So what happens when a "piece of evidence" is probable with probability zero?