Tell me instead, first when you think the the prosecution was “caught”. Because I could recall several moments, but the choice it depends on what moment you ‘chose’ to say that the defence ‘caught’ someone. Chose an event, which you call the ‘defense catching’ someone, and I’ll demonstrate that – whatever event and moment you chose – there was a previous moment when the prosecution revealed the key information first.
In July 2009, for example, Manuela Comodi stated in court that the total amount of DNA on the metal bra clasp was 1.4 nanograms.
Only at that point, the defence complained that they didn’t have that information.
Comodi replied the information was in the SALs and in the quantization data.
Bongiorno requested the data and complained that she didn’t have them. Comodi pointed out that it was her fault if she didn’t have them, and said the prsecution did not object that they have it now (but they should have thought about it before).
So the judge ordered laboratory to give the ‘documentation’. The laboratory turned out the SALs.
Just like this, all the times information release starts from the prosecution. It is never the defence who ‘catches’ anyone.
In other words, for a trial that began circa November '08 information that was gathered by the prosecution the year previous was not known to the defense until July of '09 and Comodi blamed the defense for that?
Absolutely not. The negative TMB results were just noted in the documentation that the prosecution kindly presented to the defence, despite the defence experts had not attended the meetings they were summoned to with the laboratory staff, and despite the defence did not access the laboratory over the nine months investigation despite defence experts were offered free access to the documentation at Rome laboratory, and they never came.
Amanda's defense was still assembling experts when the knife was tested, but Raffaele's defense sent
Potenza whose report of November 28th '07 is available in PDF form in Italian with a google translate available
here.
What other meetings would the defense have been called to that they 'missed.' Can you think of a reason why they would 'miss' these meetings?
And, most important, that information was not contending that the luminol prints were made in blood, from the point of view of the prosecution and their experts. It might have been ‘contending’ that only from the point of view of the defence.
It is not an ‘objective’ and ‘manifest’ contention, despite you think it is, for the reasons I already explained.
Do you I understand you correctly as suggesting the prosecution was
not contending these prints were made in blood? Then why are you
still arguing this absurdity?
Or was it more a case they wanted to
suggest blood, but weren't truly 'contending' it?
As I have already said, all information they used to argue about the TMB was extrapolated by documentation which had been previously released by the prosecution
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, I do agree that they could
guess that ILE did TMB tests and they were negative, however it's far better to go into court showing the negative TMBs and not having to tell the jury they were
guessing that they'd been done and were negative!
Can you understand why?
But now you are entangling yourself in your contradictions. If you assert they offered ‘manufactured SALs’, then you should have a shred of evidence of that which you obviously don’t have, and you know that.
I didn't assert that, what I said is they might get in trouble if they did.
But now if you instead claim that the defence got the information through the video, then you’re definitely entangled: the defence had been having all those videos for years! The defence experts were even supposed to be present when these videos were shot (they could have actually intervened and could have requested “pleas we want a TMB test on that stain”).
I was responding to your suggestion in a previous conversation that the defense could have seen it in the video. I don't know if they did or not, I'm not sure that entire video is available. If the defense was not present would that be because that entire trip was illegitimate and they had asked for a dismissal of charges? I wasn't following the case back that far as you know, and my memory of what I read is fuzzy.
So you are now admitting the prosecution offered all the needed information years before.
No, if the prosecution had it, the defense should have had it. Anything else allows an unscrupulous prosecution to game the system, which it sounds like they did here. Arguing the defense was incompetent is simply an admission on your part that the trial was unfair, that's one of the best grounds for a retrial in our appeals system.
I don't think the defense was that incompetent though, I think Comodi and Stefanoni and friends were not being forthcoming.
Again, the same contradiction. The Stefanoni’s report contains the templates of all tests doen on samples and items. Now, it happens that not always these templates and pages are correct. There is almost always a TMB test indication, either positive or negative. This indication is missing in the luminol sample templates. If it was so easy to expect this test to be done, why didn’t the defence experts immediately notice that it was missing, and why didn’t they ask about it immediately?
Perhaps they didn't think the prosecution would dare to contend (or 'suggest') blood on a sample they didn't confirm the presence of blood for? Lots of luminol hits you don't even have to use a TMB test to eliminate the (practical) possibility of blood for, you can just
look at it at it and see that the reaction probably came from something else.
Or maybe they asked, and Stefanoni explained that she did perform the test?
There's no reason to think so.
If the defence is foolish, it’s not someone else’s fault. But I seriously doubt the defence was foolish. This defence was rather good and they got all the information they wanted whenever they actually wanted to have it. When they wanted to play games and rise pretexts instead, they did so.
If you've got this correct, the gaming of the system here was by the prosecution in attempting to presume blood for a sample that had tested negative and then blaming the defense for not reading their minds and accounting for the prosecution being so disingenuous.
I always remark that you don’t understand the term ‘discovery’ in this system. Discovery means that the defence experts are allowed unfettered access during the investigation, they put their explorer’s helmet on and they to do their research. But they need to actually do their research, they are not supposed to wait for the prosecution to build defence arguments, or to fetch and bring them the material for their research arguments.
The prosecution is able to rely on the state labs and police and not provide to the defense that which belies their contentions. So they use false positives in court and hide the information necessary for the defense to mount their case.
The prosecution has a duty to bring defensive arguments when they find elements that they deem they are actual exculpatory evidence, they are not expected to build specious defensive arguments based on irrelevant findings or pretexts.
That's too subjective when you're dealing with a demented sophist like Mignini. He can
always 'hypothesize' that which would be exculpatory is is irrelevant or a pretext. He still contended mixed blood in the appeal as well as that Raffaele called the
Carabinieri after the postal police arrived. This is just another example: the dilution argument or its equivalent can be made for
any test, without any further tests you cannot still pretend those luminol hits were blood.
Moreover in the Italian system the defence not only is not directly provided the documentation (the documentation is only deposited at the chancellery) but in order to have a copy of documentation, they also need to pay to have them (and the payment is not an irrelevant fee: at that time it was something like 70 euros (maybe more) for each support, such as CDs, there was a high fee for paper documents etc.). You may dislike this feature of the system, it’s a legitimate opinion. But it’s an opinion and here we are talking about facts.
'
Justice for money, what can you say, we all know it's the
Italian way!'
No they are not infinite; but I’m not asking for infinite series, I’m asking for one, likely or plausible substance, or in alternative, a substance whose presence has a corroboration.
I am also asking for a dynamic, which must be also likely and probable.
That's what we need from
you, otherwise you're reversing the burden of proof. I've offered a dozen at least scenarios, most based on the likelihood those hits weren't made at the same time.
I’m sorry but I think this is a rambling away from logic. Frankly I don’t even understand it. Blood getting into moisture? (what does that mean?)
Take a wet sponge and apply it to the floor, add a drop of red food coloring, then step on it and walk around.
I agree instead with Massei when he says there are obvious indication of a cleanup, even just when you look at at bathmat (completely soakad with water) with 10+ diluted stains on it lying on a clean floor: it means cleanup.
No, it means someone used the bathmat for its intended use.
Or when you see an isolated footprint in blood whith no trail of prints leading to it, and no source around for it (there is no ‘flat surface’ where someone has stepped, as Hellmann maintains – and if there was, it had been cleaned). This means cleanup.
If you're referring to the luminol hits, of course there might have been a 'clean-up' of anything else around them--long before the murder. Someone might have stepped in something that reacts with luminol and part of that never got cleaned up or was missed in normal mopping.
Or even when you notice that one of Rudy’s bloody shoeprints in the trail was missing, it was revealed only by the luminol: how did it disappear?
He may have stepped lighter there for whatever reason, the background on that area may have disguised it some and the
Polizia Scientifica just missed it.
Or even just when you notice there are three towels soaked with blood: what purpose would you use a towel for, when you have liquids poured around, if not drying up or cleaning up the liquid?
Rudy has one explanation for that, Charlies Wilkes has another, both amount to it being used in the murder room. It's not impossible Rudy used it elsewhere as well, notably the bathroom.
I can’t prove? It has already been shown that these prints are compatible with Amanda and Sollecito’s. Do you consider this a probable random event?
I consider it meaningless in the case of most, they'd be 'compatible' with many people. I do think some of the ones in Amanda's room are Amanda's but they are of no interest as they tested negative for blood.
I can’t prove they were made at the same time? But where’s the logic in this? In order to explain they were made in two or three separate events, I would need two or three scenarios instead than one! It would be a multiplication of improbability, the improbablity of having an isolated print positive to luminol would be multiplicated for all the times this happened. The isolated prints have features that make them very peculiar and improbable, they have a very strong analogy (they have an incredible analogy with the bloody bathmat prints too), a single event, a single explanation for all of them is logically the most probable scenario.
No, it's not. The same argument could be made for every stain on someone's carpet or any floor caked with luminol. There's nothing about the prints in the hall that connect them to Amanda's room or to the amorphous blob in Filomena's.
There is no ‘falsifier’, because literature flatly says it’s not true that TMB is a falsifier if the luminol stain is sufficiently diluted.
Which would be the same as a negative, wouldn't it? 'Diluted' to zero! You can play this game with
any test. Getting a luminol hit and a TMB negative is
not evidence that you've got blood that's diluted below the TMB threshold, it's very strong evidence that the hit was not blood at all.
Finally, it just makes no sense to say the prints are meaningless people walked there after the murder: nobody walked there barefoot, nobody walked there with wet bare feet, nobody walked there hopping or dragging a towel so to produce isolated footprints; maybe you also like to assert that someone stepped with wet feet in Amanda’s room.
I imagine Amanda stepped in her room with bare feet quite a few times, at some point with something on them--say cleanser or something--that reacted with luminol.
The ones in the hall and in Filomena's are the ones I'm talking about. Also keep in mind that stains can overlay on each other, especially in common areas.
