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

[Diocletus]

Suppression of Exculpatory Controls by Italian LE

This issue about Stefanoni’s suppression of the control records is fascinating.

In October 2008, Stefanoni brings two control documents with her, claiming that she didn’t produce them originally, because she is totally “objective” (in other words, above all scrutiny). She claims that she has the knife control results with her, and also “can include” all of the other controls in the court record. However, there is no evidence that she ever supplemented the court record by producing all of these other (non-knife) controls.

Moreover, there is evidence that Stefanoni did not even deposit the knife controls with the court. AFAIR, in 2011, Stefanoni and Commodi try to present two knife control documents to the court, claiming that they were previously deposited (I guess in Oct. 2008, as decribed above). The court gives the prosecution time to locate the control documents in the court record, but they fail, and in the meantime, a juror discovers that the coding information on the proffered documents does not correspond to what the controls are said to represent. The submissions are rejected, but this rejection is not cited by the Supreme Court as a reason to vacate the Hellmann judgment.

Bottom line: Stefanoni brought something to court in 2008, but it appears that she never filed it or any other controls of record with the court. Further, the items that she was claiming as the previously-deposited controls did not bear the correct coding, and therefore were not what Stefanoni said they were.

This appears to me to be strong evidence that Stefanoni and Comodi actively worked to deceive the court and suppressed from the defense crucial records concerning the validity of the tests. They are hiding something.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'd like to see someone post the appendices for this report.

Filomena's testimony is there as well and I have posted a Google translation in the first trial transcripts page at IA. Rinaldi's testimony (Google translation) is on the Quarto Grado thread at IA.

I am so glad to see more documents coming out.

 

[Strozzi]

I'll be honest with you Dan. I think all this about her being a Doctor is nonsense. Stefanoni isn't stupid. And she's educated. I don't think it makes a bit of difference if she has only a BS vs a PHD.

What she is, is a shill. Steff damn well knows what she is doing. She is "playing" the game to get ahead in Italy. She did what she was "told" to do. FIND THE EVIDENCE that will lock up Amanda and Raffaele, because we damn well know she did it. I'm confident that those were instructions. I'd also bet that that they didn't tell her to fraudulent create the evidence. But I KNOW she did that on the knife for sure and probably the bra clasp as well.

Both were handled very very differently than all the other evidence. So you have to ask why? Everything Stefanoni has done in regards to the DNA evidence stinks to HIGH HEAVEN. It is VERY CLEAR that Stefanoni is hiding her wrongdoing. Otherwise, it would be, "sure, here are the EDFs", sure, here are the "actual negative control documents".

I think particularly with the knife, Stefanoni never meant that to be real evidence. Just enough so they could keep Raffaele in jail. So it was equivocal. But then Stefanoni was over her head...in for a penny, in for a pound. She really tried to put Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp.

I am thoroughly convinced of this.

acbytesla, I agree with you that Dr. Stefanoni is a police shill who understood she was to "find something" (evidence) on the knife and then the bra clasp. I believe she falsely interpreted results from highly-amplified but still inadequate LCN DNA from the knife blade to falsely claim it matches Meredith's DNA on the knife blade. I also believe she may have planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp - and I explain this below.

The Knife

I pointed out earlier what Raffaele wrote in his book Honor Bound as he stood by and watched police officer Finzi take the first knife out of Raffaele's cutlery draw. Finzi and ask his colleague "Will this knife do?", to which the answer was, "Yes, yes, it's great". They left all the other knives in the Raffaele's cutlery drawer and just collected the one on top, the mean-looking carving knive with the 8" blade. They were not collecting kitchen knives for forensic examinaton, they collected one kitchen knife from Raffaele's cutlery drawer - a mean-looking knife - to be the murder weapon .

In addition to Finzi's selective collection of one kitchen knife, there are other problems associating the knife to the murder. The large knife is alleged to having been carried by Amanda in her purse from Raffaele's flat to her house (and back) without causing any cutting damage to the inside cloth lining of her relatively-small purse. Additionally, the knife does not match the knife insertion (stab) wounds in Meredith's neck. It also does not match the bloody knife outline left on Meredith's bedsheet when Rudy sat down on her bed to remove his bloody shoe and momentarily set down the knife (thank you, Mary_H).

When Stefanoni analyzed the knife, she claimed she found DNA on the blade (in a groove no one else can see). Wouldn't you know it - the DNA was a low copy amount consumed in her one test, which cannot be replicated. She then "cherry picked" the alleles so as to claim they match Meredith's alleles profile.

Stefanoni and The Bra Clasp

As for the bra clasp, the forensic squad returned to Perugia in mid-December, six weeks after the crime, to collect the clasp. The specific purpose of the trip was to recover it to tie Raffaele to the crime, as the police had learned through wiretaps that Raffaele's father was going on TV to repudiate the police's false claims that Raffaele's shoes match the bloody shoeprints at the crime scene. (The shoeprints do NOT match.)

It is only recently that I learned that the forensic police tech seen in the videotape holding the bra clasp, turning it over in her visibly-dirty glove, stroking the metal hooks, dropping it to the floor for photographing in-situ, and then picking it up again while grandstanding for the camera is Dr. Staffanoni herself. Does anyone believe Dr. Stefanoni returned to Perugia from Rome to recover the bra clasp to tie Raffaele to the crime and that she was going to possibly find that it had NO DNA on it??? A wasted trip? In front of the camera? There is no way that Dr. Staffano was go to Perugia to recover the clasp and "NOT discover" Raffaele's DNA on the clasp.

I believe she wiped the clasp hook with an item containing Raffaele's DNA. It may in fact have been done in her lab. But it is possible that she already (deliberately) had Raffaele's DNA on her glove when she stroked the clasp's hook.

When Stefanoni analyzed the DNA on the hook (none on the cloth part of the clasp or elsewhere on the bra) she expected to find it belongs to Raffaele. She also discovered that DNA indicators of 2-3 other males are on the clasp as well, something she has tried to conceal. Something she did not anticipate. So she withholds details on the other contributors and stores (immerses) the clasp in a liquid-filled storage vile to preserve it. Surprise, it is ruined and cannot be tested a second time!

She is not only a police shill - I believe she massaged her analysis of the LCN DNA on the knife blade to be able to claim it is a match to Meredith's DNA and that she likely rubbed Raffaele's DNA on the hook of the bra clasp.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the notion that the negative controls were deposited in 2008 is absurd

It's clear from her subsequent answer that she thinks the negative controls are files related to the testing - which they are.

The negative controls are not done independantly, they are related to the testing, as part of the testing.

C+V made this abundantly clear.

We know with certainty that the negative controls were never deposited in the form of electronic data files (which is by far the most useful was to have them). But if we are to accept the story that Stefanoni deposited them in some form, then this implies that the defense somehow failed to recognize this fact all along. That is absurd. Even Mark Waterbury (who has a professional interest in forensics but is not a DNA forensic profiler) noted their absence around 2009 or so at his blog (ScienceSpheres). And many people who have advised the defense formally or informally (Hampikian, Krane, etc.) or who have commented on the case in blogs (Anjaria) understand their importance. Dr. Anjaria specifically noted the importance of doing a control in exactly the same way as 36B was generated. Therefore, I dismiss the notion that the negative controls were deposited in 2008 as utter hogwash.

 

[js202]

acbytesla, I agree with you that Dr. Stefanoni is a police shill who understood she was to "find something" (evidence) on the knife and then the bra clasp. I believe she falsely interpreted results from highly-amplified but still inadequate LCN DNA from the knife blade to falsely claim it matches Meredith's DNA on the knife blade. I also believe she may have planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp - and I explain this below.

The Knife

I pointed out earlier what Raffaele wrote in his book Honor Bound as he stood by and watched police officer Finzi take the first knife out of Raffaele's cutlery draw. Finzi and ask his colleague "Will this knife do?", to which the answer was, "Yes, yes, it's great". They left all the other knives in the Raffaele's cutlery drawer and just collected the one on top, the mean-looking carving knive with the 8" blade. They were not collecting kitchen knives for forensic examinaton, they collected one kitchen knife from Raffaele's cutlery drawer - a mean-looking knife - to be the murder weapon .

In addition to Finzi's selective collection of one kitchen knife, there are other problems associating the knife to the murder. The large knife is alleged to having been carried by Amanda in her purse from Raffaele's flat to her house (and back) without causing any cutting damage to the inside cloth lining of her relatively-small purse. Additionally, the knife does not match the knife insertion (stab) wounds in Meredith's neck. It also does not match the bloody knife outline left on Meredith's bedsheet when Rudy sat down on her bed to remove his bloody shoe and momentarily set down the knife (thank you, Mary_H).

When Stefanoni analyzed the knife, she claimed she found DNA on the blade (in a groove no one else can see). Wouldn't you know it - the DNA was a low copy amount consumed in her one test, which cannot be replicated. She then "cherry picked" the alleles so as to claim they match Meredith's alleles profile.

Stefanoni and The Bra Clasp

As for the bra clasp, the forensic squad returned to Perugia in mid-December, six weeks after the crime, to collect the clasp. The specific purpose of the trip was to recover it to tie Raffaele to the crime, as the police had learned through wiretaps that Raffaele's father was going on TV to repudiate the police's false claims that Raffaele's shoes match the bloody shoeprints at the crime scene. (The shoeprints do NOT match.)

It is only recently that I learned that the forensic police tech seen in the videotape holding the bra clasp, turning it over in her visibly-dirty glove, stroking the metal hooks, dropping it to the floor for photographing in-situ, and then picking it up again while grandstanding for the camera is Dr. Staffanoni herself. Does anyone believe Dr. Stefanoni returned to Perugia from Rome to recover the bra clasp to tie Raffaele to the crime and that she was going to possibly find that it had NO DNA on it??? A wasted trip? In front of the camera? There is no way that Dr. Staffano was go to Perugia to recover the clasp and "NOT discover" Raffaele's DNA on the clasp.

I believe she wiped the clasp hook with an item containing Raffaele's DNA. It may in fact have been done in her lab. But it is possible that she already (deliberately) had Raffaele's DNA on her glove when she stroked the clasp's hook.

When Stefanoni analyzed the DNA on the hook (none on the cloth part of the clasp or elsewhere on the bra) she expected to find it belongs to Raffaele. She also discovered that DNA indicators of 2-3 other males are on the clasp as well, something she has tried to conceal. Something she did not anticipate. So she withholds details on the other contributors and stores (immerses) the clasp in a liquid-filled storage vile to preserve it. Surprise, it is ruined and cannot be tested a second time!

She is not only a police shill - I believe she massaged her analysis of the LCN DNA on the knife blade to be able to claim it is a match to Meredith's DNA and that she likely rubbed Raffaele's DNA on the hook of the bra clasp.

I concur. At a minimum, the clasp collection - with the video, and the presentation to the camera as if Stefanoni were Vanna White, unveiling the next prize on Wheel of Fortune - is an absurd piece of grandstanding. The amateurism and blatant chicanery are breathtaking.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hehe, this is interesting but note that there is probably a huge bias for the birthdays of football players to be concentrated in the first half of the year to start with.

Not in the UK and most of continental Europe, in fact. I know what you're getting at - the Freakonomics-style analysis showing how Canadian ice hockey players are more likely to be born in Jan-Mar owing to youth-level age segregation by calendar-year cut-offs. But in the UK and much of Europe, youth age year-segregation occurs in three different ways: by school year (September-to-August); by calendar year (Jan-to-Dec); and by absolute age (under 16, under 18 etc). Therefore, there's something of a self-correcting effect regarding date of birth.

(For example, school teams for (say) football would obviously be run on school-year lines, but county and international junior teams are run on pure age lines (U16,U18))

Back to your regular programming......

 

[Bill Williams]

I may talk about the RIS report. I may talk about the content of Vogt's article if you quote it.
But I am not going to talk about "the thing that Bill Williams says Vogt says about what the RIS report says about what C&V report says".

Mach's assertion that controls aren't part of the corpus of Stefanoni's work, and thus must be specifically requested, boggles the mind. One wonders what he makes of the fact that both the RIS report and the C&V report include control data without anyone having specifically asked for it.

It's clear he simply will not talk about it.

Stefanoni at trial (as above: she was in cahoots with Comodi) said that none of the normal control data was needed because as Stefanoni testified, she was objective.

Contrast this with, as you say, what the RIS Carabinieri brought to court - everything. Would the RIS Carabinieri do this because they doubted themselves, doubted in their own minds that they were objective?

Machiavelli.... takes a third view. He simply won't talk about it.

But Andrea Vogt does Even given her legendary bias in this case, she now admits that as a result, the C&V report is valid and in front of Nencini's court.

So Machiavelli..... IS ANDREA VOGT NOW AN APPROXIMATE REPORTER!

 

[Diocletus]

"Six Day" Gap

Let's get some info. out there on this "six day" gap. First, let's realize that the "gap" is just something that Comodi has alleged, but it has not been proved by the prosecution in the sense that it has produced the records that show that the lab was doing something else during the gap. In fact, the "gap records" have been suppressed.

Basically, the alleged "gap" appears to represent the period of time between 11/6, when the lab stopped processing the initial wave of evidence (because they had to when suspects were identified), and 11/12, when the lab picked up its testing after notification of the defendants.

Do we believe that Stefanoni really did no work on this case--the highest profile case in the world--and instead, worked on some other case during that time? We can't answer this for sure, because there are gaps in the produced records. These gaps are set out below:

Days without any records:
November 7 to November 11 = 5 days (includes 2 weekend days and one hearing day)

Sample Numbering Gap:
End: 47234 (11/6)
GAP: 47235-47310 (Abt. 75 Possible Gap Samples between 11/6 and 11/~12)
Start: 47311 (11/~12)

Extraction Run Gap:
End: 260/row L (11/6)
GAP: 261/rows A-G (Abt. 70 Possible Gap Samples between 11/6 and 11/~13)
Start: 261/row H (11/~13)

RT-qPCR Runs:
End: 544 (11/6)
GAP: 545-548 (Abt. 144 Possible Gap Samples between 11/6 and 11/23)
Start: 549 (11/23)

Qubit:
54 Samples, allegedly between 11/6 and 11/14

STR Runs:
Unknown, no records produced

Concentration:
Unknown, no records produced

Electrophoresis Plate:
End: 358 (11/~6)
GAP: 359-364 (Abt. 84 Possible Gap Samples between 11/~6 and 11/~13)
Start: 365bis (includes 36b) (11/~13)

Electrophoresis Serial No.:
End: 692 (11/~6)
GAP: 693-756 (Abt. 65 Possible Egrams in Gap of 11/~6 to 11/~13)
Start: 757 (11/~13)

So basically, the lab was doing unknown things with about 70 samples during the 11/7 through 11/11 "gap," and one of the first samples to go through testing after the end of this records "gap" is 36b.

As far as I'm concerned, the "Gap" is a 5-day records gap, and not a 6-day "testing" gap. Disturbingly, this records gap immediately precedes the testing of 36b. So, the "gap" records may very well be critical records that have been suppressed by the prosecution, and now the "gap" created by this records suppression is being used to the detriment of the defendants. Unbelievable.

 

[MDDVS]

Not in the UK and most of continental Europe, in fact. I know what you're getting at - the Freakonomics-style analysis showing how Canadian ice hockey players are more likely to be born in Jan-Mar owing to youth-level age segregation by calendar-year cut-offs. But in the UK and much of Europe, youth age year-segregation occurs in three different ways: by school year (September-to-August); by calendar year (Jan-to-Dec); and by absolute age (under 16, under 18 etc). Therefore, there's something of a self-correcting effect regarding date of birth.

(For example, school teams for (say) football would obviously be run on school-year lines, but county and international junior teams are run on pure age lines (U16,U18))

Back to your regular programming......

Yes, I think you're right. I had tested this with the portuguese national team and it appeared to be true but I think it was accidental. I did it again now and there are a few new players born in December. I also looked at the English national team and the effect is not visible there either. Thanks and sorry for the derail.

 

[yimyammer]

.
For a premeditated murder, sure, but she was convicted of NON premeditated murder.

Anyway, besides the amazing coincidence that Amanda just happened to be carrying in her purse a large kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment with which to perform a NON premeditated murder, there were two other rather remarkable coincidences that night. Most of you know this already, but for the benefit of newer people:

1) Sometime around 10 pm the night Meredith was murdered, a lady named Lana received a bomb threat phone call to her house. She telephoned the police and they investigated that night. They reported finding nothing. The next morning the lady found both of Meredith's cell phones in her yard. The police say it was a boy's prank. It would appear that the only evidence it was a boy's prank is the word of the police. I don't believe the telephone record of the bomb threat phone call has ever been produced.

2) Sometime around 10:30 pm the night Meredith was murdered, A car broke down directly opposite the entrance to the cottage where Meredith was murdered.

.

Did ILE determine if Amanda had a large purse? If so, was it found and tested for Meredith's blood that most assuredly would have left traces in or on said purse?

 

[RoseMontague]

So basically, the lab was doing unknown things with about 70 samples during the 11/7 through 11/11 "gap," and one of the first samples to go through testing after the end of this records "gap" is 36b.

As far as I'm concerned, the "Gap" is a 5-day records gap, and not a 6-day "testing" gap. Disturbingly, this records gap immediately precedes the testing of 36b. So, the "gap" records may very well be critical records that have been suppressed by the prosecution, and now the "gap" created by this records suppression is being used to the detriment of the defendants. Unbelievable.

Thanks for this. Another myth shot down.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's clear he simply will not talk about it.

The only think I will ot talk about, is reasoning based on Bill Williams' interpretation of other people's positions.

Stefanoni at trial (as above: she was in cahoots with Comodi) said that none of the normal control data was needed because as Stefanoni testified, she was objective.

She also said that the Police never attached control data.

Contrast this with, as you say, what the RIS Carabinieri brought to court - everything. Would the RIS Carabinieri do this because they doubted themselves, doubted in their own minds that they were objective?

So what? The RIS may attach what they want in their report, we can speculate why they attach something or not something else: because we are in 2013, because they have only one DNA test to perform, because it's up to them to include what they want in their report. And so?

(...)
But Andrea Vogt does Even given her legendary bias in this case, she now admits that as a result, the C&V report is valid and in front of Nencini's court.

So Machiavelli..... IS ANDREA VOGT NOW AN APPROXIMATE REPORTER!

You're like Dalla Vedova: stop putting your words in people's mouth. If you want to report what Vogt sayts, then quote her words, link the source.
Don't try to parse and twist.
If you want to claim something else, like about content of trial files or Nencinis words or the RIS report, then again, quote the direct source.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you say she asked for "the files related to the testings," but Stefanoni suppressed the controls?

Since the controls are "files related to the testings," then Stefanoni has failed to provide the requested material.

You can make any argument you want about how "specific" the request should have been, but the fact remains that the controls are within the scope of the request that was made (i.e., files related to the testings), and Stefanoni neither produced the controls nor made any argument about insufficient specificity of the request.

(...)

The fact is that Vechiotti was caught cheating. That's all. I undertand that you don't want to admit it but it's manifest in Vecchiotti's questioning, and there is no need for me to explain again why. The combination of all what Vecchiotti said and asked, and its context, speaks for itself. The Supreme Court called C&V "superficial" for failing to verify the existence negative control files, but they were generous.

 

[Grinder]

I hoped.


No, I understood your point. I know that pictures of similar things made their way home from Vietnam....but this takes that to a whole new level. It is really unbelievable that they could be so stupid not to erase the damn files. It really is incomprehensible.

I know that Grinder will say..."see, anything is possible". And while that might be true, I do think some things AREN'T.

Actually I've never said that and it is just another straw man of yours. C&V did say something like that why not harp on that?

As I pointed out a little while back this started when I said in response to Anthony, I believe, that saying the taking of the knife from the flat and returning it to the flat was so improbable that it was evidence they didn't do the crime and I disagreed. (paraphrased)

You are so incapable of turning off what you are sure of that you can't free your mind to consider things without prejudging the situation. Most here see that in and of itself the movement needed for the knife does not absolve the kids. If they were crazed enough to do the crime, the knife movement would not be questioned.

Now you have stated that even if Meredith's blood had been found you still wouldn't consider the knife.

Everything is not possible in the sense you try to use the expression, but crazed killers taking a knife, any knife, with them and returning it doesn't come close to the line of impossible.

 

[Skind]

She also said that the Police never attached control data.

Irrelevant. She is talking about her technical reports. A totally different kettle of fish to having your work reviewed.

She knew her work was up for review. She knew they would want to review her work. She knew her work included the controls. You cannot escape this.

What the police 'usually' do in relation to submitting technical reports to the court is not relevant to the logical and expected behaviour when submitting your work for review. Did her boss not review the control data too? If not, there is no way he can claim her work was valid if he - as you imply - did not see her actual work.

The RIS attaching their control data is proof negative that the police 'never' attach their control data. Unless you wish - by some bizarre pedantism about how they are technically 'military' - to assert that the Caribeneri are not a police force.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for the info. I don't see anything in it to suggest that Meredith was not respectful of Amanda's position with her employer. In fact, just the opposite. It shows Meredith is a fun party girl (she has her own special highball recipe) which seems to fit with what Amanda was and the two girls would have had fun together at the bar with Meredith serving up her special Mojito. They would have invited their friends and Italian guys to come. Tips would be good. Lumumba's cash register would have rung loud that night (unless he had it set to "silent" tax evading mode. ).

No doubt he had special settings on the cash register.

Hopefully I'm allowed to differ and think that if I was working somewhere and my roommate came around and was offered a job above me while my job wasn't expanding (maybe being diminished) I would feel undermined.

Now a few here will read the above and spout off that there is nothing in her psychopathy that would indicate jealousy and it is just "guilter" talk.

 

[Diocletus]

The fact is that Vechiotti was caught cheating. That's all. I undertand that you don't want to admit it but it's manifest in Vecchiotti's questioning, and there is no need for me to explain again why. The combination of all what Vecchiotti said and asked, and its context, speaks for itself. The Supreme Court called C&V "superficial" for failing to verify the existence negative control files, but they were generous.

Only in Italy does an expert "cheat" by failing to the records that the prosecution is suppressing.

Only in Italy would a supreme court be clueless enough to criticize a defense expert for failing to "verify" the existence of records that the prosecution has suppressed.

Bottom line: The control records were requested but Stefanoni never produced to the defense or deposited into the record ANY control records.

 

[Skind]

The fact is that Vechiotti was caught cheating.

Beware, defamation is a criminal act under Italian code.

Vechiotti was not 'caught cheating'. She made it very clear that she had not seen the control files, that they had not been submitted to her despite being part of the testing files (see asked for the testing files NOT the technical report) and that there was no sign of them anywhere they should have been.

It is very clear in the transcripts you have submitted that Stefanoni talked about intent to submit control files. No one could reasonably read this to mean that the control files had already been submitted, nor does intent to submit control files mean they were actually submitted. Vechiotti read the transcript correctly.

Had they been submitted, Comodi would have been able to point out their exact file number. There would have been no need to refer to transcripts which only talk about intent.

 

[Grinder]

Has there ever been any support for claiming that Meredith knew anything about Amanda's job or mojitos, other than from the so-called, alleged interview with Patrick in the Daily Mail? I read Amanda's book but I can't remember if she mentioned it.

It was discussed widely and never denied by anyone. Glad to see you on the Source Police beat.

The "I was there" was denied as were other falsehoods.

 

[Grinder]

Machiavelli - if you now believe that Andrea Vogt is an approximate reporter, and do not want to say so publicly.... send me a PM.

If you are ready to confess your relationships with Candace, Frank and FOA please send me a PM. But this time only to confess.

You seem to have a strange interest in reporters. Vogt, Barbie, Frank and blooger CD.