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

[christianahannah]

A further point, a question: what is the date of their e-mail request? And that of Stefanoni's answer?

This from Candace Dempsey gives a timeframe of the requests and answers and a translation thereof. Charlie Wilkes may have the official documents.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...evidence-judge-tells-amanda-knox-prosecution/

 

[LondonJohn]

Here you go: "Sono soddisfatta anche perché è stata acquisita una nostra consulenza di parte sul computer di Sollecito. Conferma infatti il suo alibi". It sounds like Nencini refused to order an independent report on the computer but accepted the report compiled by Sollecito's expert, assuming the quote is accurate.

But, but.... Machiavelli stated this not 24 hours ago:

Massei, Hellmann and Nencini refused to even accept the last update of their report, by now.

Does that mean Machiavelli was wrong? Does that even perhaps mean he was..... lying?!

 

[RoseMontague]

If I was innocent, I'd be at the trial in my Sunday best. That's her life they are talking about and she isn't even there. Crazy.

People on the internet who don't know her making a passionate case for her innocence, and she can't even be bothered to show up for the trial? That seems like a slap in the face.

That would like people showing up to watch Lebron James play and he just decide he doesn't want to play that game. She's the star of this show and she's sitting it out while her fans in the stands still cheering her on.

Seriously, Goe?

I think it is more like skipping a trip to the zoo because all they have is a stick and a dead horse.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

this message bears repeating

If the system doesn't provide transparency, disclosure and fairness, then it's going to get hit with legitimacy challenges. That's because it doesn't appear legitimate. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

There simply is no good reason why the lab information should not be made available to the defendants and why the prosecution should have resisted disclosure, as it did.

This needs to be hammered home, again and again. Prosecutors should seek to do justice, not win convictions. And justice must be seen to be done, or people rightly lose confidence in the system.

 

[RoseMontague]

If the system doesn't provide transparency, disclosure and fairness, then it's going to get hit with legitimacy challenges. That's because it doesn't appear legitimate. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

There simply is no good reason why the lab information should not be made available to the defendants and why the prosecution should have resisted disclosure, as it did.

This needs to be hammered home, again and again. Prosecutors should seek to do justice, not win convictions. And justice must be seen to be done, or people rightly lose confidence in the system.

Not testing the possible semen stain, no attempt to recovery Amanda's hard drive, no audio-metric testing to determine if Nara could hear a scream from Meredith's room or the sounds steps on the driveway or metal stairs, not breaking the knife handle apart, no confirmatory tests for blood on the Luminol prints after hiding negative TMB results all show the same thing.

They are not interested in determining the truth. They have already decided what the truth is and evidence that runs contrary to that is not to be looked at.

Instead they spend a small fortune on a cartoon.

 

[christianahannah]

This needs to be hammered home, again and again. Prosecutors should seek to do justice, not win convictions. And justice must be seen to be done, or people rightly lose confidence in the system.

I think most do as you say (seek to do justice) and I believe that is true in this case.

In fact the prosecution did not argue against giving the information requested by the defense in the summer of 2009. I think though, neither party was exactly sure what the information was they were requesting.

Can you give a timeframe of when all this data of DNA (other than the official report and perhaps some background material) was given to defenses? Has it always been standard when DNA has been used to prosecute cases? Was it so five years ago?

 

[Bill Williams]

But, but.... Machiavelli stated this not 24 hours ago:




Does that mean Machiavelli was wrong? Does that even perhaps mean he was..... lying?!

What has Machiavelli said about the Ris Carabinieri report? And you know me so I have to ask, what has Andrea Vogt written about the Ris Carabinieri DNA report?

The ONLY sources I can find which say that the report confirms Knox's guilt are from Guilter sources. I have not checked Edward McCall's Wiki yet, but dollars to donuts he's vilifying Knox as we speak, and calling Bruce Fisher names....

But.... here's the deal. Hey Machiavelli: are the Carabinieri now criminals too? Looks to me like the topics the Carabinieri covered suggest that Conti & Vecchiotti are confirmed..... other sections of the Carabinieri, supposedly, will now NOT be rushing off the arrest Conti and/or Vecchiotti.

Will Machiavelli just fade away now - or will we get another 3000 word piece of dietrology explaining why even the Carabinieri are now criminals; and/or paid of by the Masons, like M. says Hellmann was. (Rumour has it that Zanetti drives the same low-budget car in Italy, so it could not have been much of a bribe. Just saying.)

ETA: The Daily Mail is reverting to old habits with a headline: "Knox's DNA found on Murder Knife!" Extra points awarded to the first poster who can spot the error here....

 

[Bill Williams]

I think most do as you say (seek to do justice) and I believe that is true in this case.

In fact the prosecution did not argue against giving the information requested by the defense in the summer of 2009. I think though, neither party was exactly sure what the information was they were requesting.

Can you give a timeframe of when all this data of DNA (other than the official report and perhaps some background material) was given to defenses? Has it always been standard when DNA has been used to prosecute cases? Was it so five years ago?

If it is not standard in Italy, then you're simply highlighting a potential injustice embedded in the system there.

At the heart of systems which are fair is a subject known as "full disclosure", meaning in theory that the prosecution has to turn over to the defence ALL evidence so that a full defence-case can be made at trial. There should be no surprises at trial, no last minute witnesses from the prosecution's side, etc....

In a fair system the defence should not even need to request: as soon as the prosecution finds something that is in the accused's favour it should go to both the defence lawyer as well as the judge. If I am reading things right, this is was the Ris Carabinieri DNA team did with this latest testing....

..... submitting both positive and negative control testing, as well as raw data to the defence, without much fanfare - and very definitely without the legal-brinkmanship in the 2009, Massei trial where all this was refused (or so it seems).

Doesn't it bother you that when this brinkmanship is done, they convict? And when the process of natural justice is followed they acquit?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I suggest that everyone read all of her statements

I tend to agree with this.

If Knox had accused an innocent black man of murder in the United States, nobody would think she is innocent.

Having met a number of supporters of Knox and Sollecito, I can say that none gave evidence of being racists; quite the contrary, one in particular discussed racism with me in a thoughtful way. If anyone behaved in a racially prejudiced manner in this case it was the PLE. They swapped one black man for another into their ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Some in the US (Alan Dershowitz) and in Great Britain (Craig Murray) have taken the false accusation itself as strong evidence of guilt. Both of these individuals have credentials in human rights, and one might hope they would know more about the Reid Technique's ability to produce false statements than they apparently do. Briefly there are at least two reasons to reject the Dershowitz-Murray position. One, many false confessions are also false accusations which tend to minimize one's own involvement; therefore, we can and should apply what we know about false confessions to this case. Two, if one actually reads Ms. Knox's two signed statements they are full of holes either as confessions or accusations. Moreover, Ms. Knox's two handwritten statements and her letters to her lawyer are now available. They offer first a partial retraction, then a full retraction within about 36 hours of the two police-written statements. MOO.

 

[christianahannah]

If it is not standard in Italy, then you're simply highlighting a potential injustice embedded in the system there.

At the heart of systems which are fair is a subject known as "full disclosure", meaning in theory that the prosecution has to turn over to the defence ALL evidence so that a full defence-case can be made at trial. There should be no surprises at trial, no last minute witnesses from the prosecution's side, etc....

In a fair system the defence should not even need to request: as soon as the prosecution finds something that is in the accused's favour it should go to both the defence lawyer as well as the judge. If I am reading things right, this is was the Ris Carabinieri DNA team did with this latest testing....

..... submitting both positive and negative control testing, as well as raw data to the defence, without much fanfare - and very definitely without the legal-brinkmanship in the 2009, Massei trial where all this was refused (or so it seems).

Doesn't it bother you that when this brinkmanship is done, they convict? And when the process of natural justice is followed they acquit?

I understand full disclosure and definitely agree with it. But my question is more along the line of was this raw data always included as full disclosure.

Obviously when you have a result that differs from the accused or in addition to the accused profile (another profile/profiles) that should have always been submitted. But was all the background work always considered full disclosure and submitted (and not just in Italy, but in other countries)? Or is it a relatively recent addition (recent meaning a few years time) now that DNA has become more widely used in cases and the defense has become more knowledgable in all aspects of it?

 

[Bill Williams]

If the system doesn't provide transparency, disclosure and fairness, then it's going to get hit with legitimacy challenges. That's because it doesn't appear legitimate. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

There simply is no good reason why the lab information should not be made available to the defendants and why the prosecution should have resisted disclosure, as it did.

This needs to be hammered home, again and again. Prosecutors should seek to do justice, not win convictions. And justice must be seen to be done, or people rightly lose confidence in the system.

Not testing the possible semen stain, no attempt to recovery Amanda's hard drive, no audio-metric testing to determine if Nara could hear a scream from Meredith's room or the sounds steps on the driveway or metal stairs, not breaking the knife handle apart, no confirmatory tests for blood on the Luminol prints after hiding negative TMB results all show the same thing.

They are not interested in determining the truth. They have already decided what the truth is and evidence that runs contrary to that is not to be looked at.

Instead they spend a small fortune on a cartoon.

Other than all these points you raise, you have to admit AK and RS got a fair trial in 2009......!

Why? Well Andrea Vogt reported it. Out of all the things (like the stuff mentioned above) that could have been the REAL scoop of a story here.... Andrea Vogt fixated on Amanda Knox, quoted Amanda Knox saying that she thought the process which convicted her was fair.

What Vogt may have missed out in this stellar example of unbiased reporting was that Knox was still in jail, and her parents were being targetted for criminal charges - strangely, for things said in a British newspaper where neither the publisher nor the reporter (John Follain) were named as co-defendants.

Ok... this is not in the timeline properly, but what Vogt missed was that Knox was being held virtual hostage; what do you expect her to say with the Italian system not done with her?

Better to get out of Dodge and write a book when free... and better for RS to go public, while free, with his own observations of the "fairness" of what fell on his head.

Raffaele has always been clear.... when other journalists like Piers Morgan go all ga-ga asking Raffaele similarly loaded questions: "Meredith is dead, and you're alive, what do you have to say about that?", or, "Do you ever regret meeting Amanda Knox?"......

Raffaele simply tells the truth. It's an unimaginable tragedy that Meredith was killed. And it's not Knox's fault that the PLE and Italian courts mishandled all this.....

Point is - now that they are free from coercion (that's what this has always been about, BTW) they are speaking their minds.

So... other than that the PLE/Courts actually did not want to solve this case, as per RoseM, what could anyone possibly complain about?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

regrettably Michigan attempted to exempt itself from full disclosure

I think most do as you say (seek to do justice) and I believe that is true in this case.

In fact the prosecution did not argue against giving the information requested by the defense in the summer of 2009. I think though, neither party was exactly sure what the information was they were requesting.

Can you give a timeframe of when all this data of DNA (other than the official report and perhaps some background material) was given to defenses? Has it always been standard when DNA has been used to prosecute cases? Was it so five years ago?

Charlie Wilkes has more of the documentation than I do, and one of his recent posts alludes to these documents. He was also present in 2010 when Greg Hampikian told Knox's lawyers exactly what he needed to perform a proper case review. I doubt that the lawyers were unsure of what was needed as of the time of this meeting because I have also corresponded extensively with two DNA forensic scientists who made requests for the electronic data files through the defense on more than one occasion. The prosecution turned these requests away, and this had to have happened prior to early 2010.

In the United States and in most of the world, these files are released according to Professor Dan Krane, and one can find standard discovery files on the websites of some forensic consultant companies (I have given links a long time ago). Although it is true that in the U.S. some prosecutors (such as one in Michigan) have tried to argue against turning the files over because letting the defense have them is evidence-tampering, this argument is so absurd as to offend one's intelligence, as Professor William Thompson has indicated.

 

[Bill Williams]

I understand full disclosure and definitely agree with it. But my question is more along the line of was this raw data always included as full disclosure.
Obviously when you have a result that differs from the accused or in addition to the accused profile (another profile/profiles) that should have always been submitted. But was all the background work always considered full disclosure and submitted (and not just in Italy, but in other countries)? Or is it a relatively recent addition (recent meaning a few years time) now that DNA has become more widely used in cases and the defense has become more knowledgable in all aspects of it?

The best analogy I can find is that what happened was akin to this.

You give me $100 to bet on the horses down at the race-track, because I am going and you are not. I take your instructions on which horses to bet on.

When the ten races are all done, you ask how your money did, meaning, "Did I win anything". I say no.

You then ask to see the racing results as printed in the paper, with winners, placers, and showers, odds and winning-payouts, as well as the times for each horse in the race.

I refuse. I say, "You have to prove that I'm lying before I give you the listing of racing results. What, you don't trust me? I'm insulted!"

I've reprinted way, way upthread the snippet from Massei's motivations report which is, essentially, this reasoning why Massei would not order the release of the raw results.

Would you want to lay bets again?

Machiavelli seems to be saying that unless the defence formally asks for this before the trial starts, they have no right to ask for it once the trial is underway. Even if Machiavelli is correct, that is a system which has a horrible potential for abuse built in.... meaning I cannot decide which is more horrible: if Machiavelli is telling the truth or if he's fudging.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

7 November

I can't see the police giving her a name or telling her they think it was a black man who did it. The idea is to get independent corrobaration of certain facts in the case... If you read her writen declaration it looks like she is trying to leave herself an out by saying she isn't sure if Patrick was there.

If you read her second memoriale (7 November), then you will see that she completely retracts her statement. PM Mignini quoted back the relevant portion to her in his cross-examination. The reason you can't see it is because the police have never released a recording of the interrogation itself. Funny how some of the most potentially damaging evidence against the pair never materialized.

 

[christianahannah]

Charlie Wilkes has more of the documentation than I do, and one of his recent posts alludes to these documents. He was also present in 2010 when Greg Hampikian told Knox's lawyers exactly what he needed to perform a proper case review. I doubt that the lawyers were unsure of what was needed as of the time of this meeting because I have also corresponded extensively with two DNA forensic scientists who made requests for the electronic data files through the defense on more than one occasion. The prosecution turned these requests away, and this had to have happened prior to early 2010.

In the United States and in most of the world, these files are released according to Professor Dan Krane, and one can find standard discovery files on the websites of some forensic consultant companies (I have given links a long time ago). Although it is true that in the U.S. some prosecutors (such as one in Michigan) have tried to argue against turning the files over because letting the defense have them is evidence-tampering, this argument is so absurd as to offend one's intelligence, as Professor William Thompson has indicated.

Well in summer 2009 the defense was given documentation but whether it was all that was asked for I can't say not having seen the document. The meeting you describe and the documentation asked for would have happened post-conviction, right?

Has all this documentation of DNA always been turned over to the defense in the United States (and other countries) from the beginning when DNA has been used in a case? If not do you know when (or approximately when) it became important for the defense to have this documentation? Was there a particular case where this information became known by the defense, was requested and fought over in court and after that became the norm as full disclosure?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cross examination in 2009

I think her written declaration is really all they need for a conviction.

Here is a portion of the second memoriale, as quoted by PM Mignini:
"GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain these concept to me?

 

[christianahannah]

The best analogy I can find is that what happened was akin to this.

You give me $100 to bet on the horses down at the race-track, because I am going and you are not. I take your instructions on which horses to bet on.

When the ten races are all done, you ask how your money did, meaning, "Did I win anything". I say no.

You then ask to see the racing results as printed in the paper, with winners, placers, and showers, odds and winning-payouts, as well as the times for each horse in the race.

I refuse. I say, "You have to prove that I'm lying before I give you the listing of racing results. What, you don't trust me? I'm insulted!"

I've reprinted way, way upthread the snippet from Massei's motivations report which is, essentially, this reasoning why Massei would not order the release of the raw results.

Would you want to lay bets again?

Machiavelli seems to be saying that unless the defence formally asks for this before the trial starts, they have no right to ask for it once the trial is underway. Even if Machiavelli is correct, that is a system which has a horrible potential for abuse built in.... meaning I cannot decide which is more horrible: if Machiavelli is telling the truth or if he's fudging.

I'm not a betting kind of girl but if I were I'd trust you Bill Williams.

Seriously, I understand what you are alluding to here and agree with you. I think some of what is written concerning Italian procedures is not totally correct. Not because I think people are lying but rather it can be difficult to understand a system which one is not familiar with that is different from how your own country does things (and that applies to any country).

I am not so sure what you write is what Machiavelli has been saying (but he can speak to that himself).

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not a betting kind of girl but if I were I'd trust you Bill Williams.
Seriously, I understand what you are alluding to here and agree with you. I think some of what is written concerning Italian procedures is not totally correct. Not because I think people are lying but rather it can be difficult to understand a system which one is not familiar with that is different from how your own country does things (and that applies to any country).

I am not so sure what you write is what Machiavelli has been saying (but he can speak to that himself).

Highlighted part is a BIG MISTAKE! But thank you..... but it is still a BIG MISTAKE!

And one thing I have noticed is Machiavelli's ability to speak for himself.... I'm just saying, and perhaps should leave it at that - the moderators are watching!

 

[Kaosium]

No, moment: I did bring a newspaper link reporting this statement, something which Vecchiotti said on the hearing of May 21. 2011. I linked this already on this forum.
Maybe I quoted two newspaper links, months ago.

Here there is another one:

http://www.leggo.it/index.php?p=articolo&id=122817

Here are the requisite passages of these two articles put through the Gobble machine:

The new deadline is set by the judges at the request of their experts who in recent days had requested an extension of 40 days to respond to the questions raised. Experts have appeared this morning in the House, explaining that they have obtained all the scientific data required. They have, however, highlighted the need to be able to see a record of the seizure of the knife and the testimony in the first trial of the agents that followed the raid at Sollecito's house. Documents that the Court has ordered are now provided to experts. In the courts of one of the experts stressed the "full cooperation" provided by forensic technicians who performed the assessments in the course of the investigation.

This one instead is La Nazione Umbria:

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/05/21/509949-processo_meredith_risultati_della_nuova_perizia_entro_giugno.shtml

Meanwhile in the House, this morning, experts have explained that they have obtained all the scientific data required.

The new deadline for the investigation was set by the judges at the request of their experts who in recent days had requested an extension of 40 days to respond to the questions raised.

They have, however, highlighted the need to be able to see a record of the seizure of the knife and the testimony in the first trial of the agents that followed the raid at Sollecito's house.

Documents that the Court has ordered are now provided to experts.

In the courts of one of the experts stressed the "full cooperation" provided by forensic technicians who performed the assessments in the course of the investigation.

Notice anything?

Here they are in Italian formatted the same way with a curiosity highlighted:

Intanto in Aula, stamani, gli esperti hanno spiegato di avere ottenuto tutti i dati scientifici richiesti. Il nuovo termine per gli accertamenti è stato fissato dai giudici su richiesta dei loro periti che nei giorni scorsi avevano chiesto una proroga di 40 giorni per rispondere ai quesiti posti.Hanno comunque evidenziato la necessità di poter consultare il verbale relativo al sequestro del coltello e le deposizioni nel processo di primo grado degli agenti che seguirono la perquisizione in casa di Sollecito. Documenti che la Corte ha disposto vengano ora forniti ai periti. Davanti ai giudici uno degli esperti ha sottolineato la "massima collaborazione" fornita dalla polizia scientifica che ha eseguito gli accertamenti tecnici nel corso delle indagini.

Il nuovo termine è stato fissato dai giudici su richiesta dei loro periti che nei giorni scorsi avevano chiesto una proroga di 40 giorni per rispondere ai quesiti posti. Gli esperti sono comparsi stamani in Aula, spiegando di avere ottenuto tutti i dati scientifici richiesti. Hanno comunque evidenziato la necessità di poter consultare il verbale relativo al sequestro del coltello e le deposizioni nel processo di primo grado degli agenti che seguirono la perquisizione in casa di Sollecito. Documenti che la Corte ha disposto vengano ora forniti ai periti. Davanti ai giudici uno degli esperti ha sottolineato la «massima collaborazione» fornita dalla polizia scientifica che ha eseguito gli accertamenti tecnici nel corso delle indagini.

Outside a minor difference in that one sentence and the first two appearing in different order, they are the exact same. There's no byline so is it possible the same person wrote them both, do La Nazione and Leggo have a business relationship or often purchase articles from the same stringer? If not, did both reporters get that information from the same source and pass it on verbatim?

"... the experts explained they obtained all the scientific data they had requested".

However we know that C&V did not get all the scientific data they requested, as Charlie pointed out in his post and you probably recall from court, at the June 30 hearing there was that brouhaha regarding the negative controls. The context here on May 21st was the independent experts appearing in court to ask for a 40 day extension as Stefanoni did not hand over some of what she did until near the end of their commission, and it sounds like they still needed information regarding the collection of the knife.

From the Conti-Vecchiotti report:

In order to determine whether the interpretation of the stutters in the electropherogram attached to the RTIGF was performed, as the Technical Consultant claimed, according to the “international standards” and according to the recommendations of the ISFG, we examined the electrophoretic graph, sent to us by Dr. Stefanoni via e-mail, on May 10, 2011, with the indications relative to the heights and areas of all the peaks present in the attached graph.

We note that no date of execution of the electrophoretic run is recorded in the graph sent to us on May 10, 2011, but from a comparison between this and the electropherogram dated Sep 25,2009 10:10 AM, where the stutters are indicated, we observe that the peaks present the same heights, so we conclude that the graph sent to us on May 10, 2011 refers to the graph dated Sep 25,2009 10:10 AM.

Stefanoni had sent them data regarding the above on April 29th, but not the electropherogram mentioned above until May 10th, and for the following it was May 11th:

Sample B Run 2

On 11 May 2011, the electropherograms relating to the above runs were sent to us via e-mail, but with the peak heights and areas indicated; these are shown below.

In addition to revealing they didn't get the required electropherogram until May 10th or 11th (leaving only ten days before they had to appear in court) this passage also indicates that some information like when that electrophoretic run was executed was never recorded and they had to try to piece it all together as you can tell by reading the entirety of it at the links. This is not the only instance of that occurring, indeed the negative controls that were withheld are mentioned in the second link above:

In fact, the Technical Consultant did not repeat the amplification of the extract but performed two electrophoretic runs of the same amplification. From a comparison of the two separate runs, the existence of peak imbalance and inversion is immediately obvious, to the point where in some cases there is allele loss or the presence of an additional peak (c.f. electrophoretic graphs, runs 1-2, Sept. 2008).

In addition, it must be noted that neither the negative control – which, as previously mentioned, could have indicated the presence of possible contamination – nor the positive control, which would have allowed the effectiveness of the selected experimental conditions to be monitored, are present in the electropherograms produced.

(emphasis retained)

This is from their final report in which they indicate they still hadn't received all the information required, and when they went into court for the meeting your articles reported upon they had just gotten the electropherograms including the peak area amounts ten days prior, and required an extension of 40 days so they could write their ~100 page report.


So when we get to this quote:

"One of the experts pointed out the scientific police offered 'complete cooperation' "

Either they're referring to other people entirely in the Polizia Scientifica who were indeed cooperative, perhaps meaning it in contrast to how they were treated by Stefanoni, or that was quoted mistakenly--perhaps even taken out of context. What I do know is the same...misleading...information was published in both Leggo and La Nazione virtually verbatim. Do you suppose it was the same person who wrote both articles, or did two different people just include the 'spin' the police/prosecution wanted reporters to write about Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti's appearance in court the day they had to ask for an extension because they hadn't received some information, and got other critical data too late for them to properly analyze and write their report?

Do you want a transcript? I don't have the one of May 21. But it would be easier to manifacture a transcript rather than a link to the news.

Yes, I would be most interested in that transcript, as it does appear in Italy the police and prosecution are able to manufacture the news!

 

[Skind]

No-one should have to point out that being offered 'complete co-operation' and actually being given 'complete co-operation' are not the same thing.