Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

The Hellmann verdict doesn't exist. It would be interesting to see another jurisdiction that attributes a "final" legal value to something that legally doesn't exist, that is not legitimate under any law or authority and it is not recognized by any jurisdiction. The verdict would be attributed to the name of what sovreign power? In the name of whom would the verdict stand?
The Hellmann verdict has the same legal value of a verdict issued by a council made of my cousins presieded over by my grandmother.

You are talking about a document that does not have a legal status in any system or under any authority, jurisprudence or law. The US would have to "invent" a source of legitimization (a law, a legal authority) that currently doesnt exist.

What he says about the denial of Ms Knox's procedural rights not only exists but will be the undoing of the Calunnia case at the ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

Ah, I understand. The Italian attorneys and perhaps the Italian DNA experts wanted an outside source, the American DNA experts, to look over the records, etc. Is that correct?

Do you know what process (judicially speaking) would need to take place to have the American DNA experts consultation admitted to the court record? And a letter, while good, probably doesn't have the same impact as directly questioning a witness (by both sides).

The point is that the electronic data files are the automatically-generated raw data with respect to the DNA profile determination. These files are electronic documents that belong to the case file, and the case file must be made available to the defense, according to ECHR case-law.

 

[Bill Williams]

Neutral, weighing testimony....geeez. This is a trial that includes Judge Massei assigning Mignnini to investigate the interrogation, as if he was a unbiased neutral person.

This whole Italian case shows a system as a circus of idiots, with the main "evil" Rudy the Rapist Murderer getting away with everything for playing the game and will walk out soon with a free college degree.

Theres the Italian justice system....

I wont go into forensic teams who destroy harddrives, cant count circles on tennis shoes, and dont know how to store bloody samples....and dont test semen stains located beside the murdered raped victim...

Then there is the online pro guilt lobby of which Machiavelli leads the league. A defence expert explains that the bra clasp would be worthless as evidence even if Amanda's DNA had been found on it, and Machiavelli says, "Even defence experts once said Amanda's DNA was on the clasp"!!!

Andrea Vogt writes, wrongly, that Amanda confessed to her mother with a secret prison recording where Amanda said, "I was there." It does not matter to the cub reporter that Amanda was telling her mother she'd been at Raffaele's.

How does Machiavelli interpret this? He says Amanda is using Mafia code to communicate to Raffaele that unless he cooperated, she'd turn on him.

The pro-guilt lobby has no end to bending the evidence. Why do they need to do that, if the real evidence is so convincing?

 

[Bill Williams]

The point is that the electronic data files are the automatically-generated raw data with respect to the DNA profile determination. These files are electronic documents that belong to the case file, and the case file must be made available to the defense, according to ECHR case-law.

No, you are wrong, Numbers.

Machiavelli has made it clear that the defence must first abide by the technician's conditions before they can be turned over.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Machiavelli made an error and this request for data was in September 2008. At least that is what I get from the letter/document from Stefanoni to Pascali.

I would be interested to know what the judge ruled on this request but have not seen that documentation.

The letter from Stefanoni is not to Pascali. It is to the judge, Micheli. A careful reading of it (coupled with a proper understanding of the science and of reasonable disclosure requirements) shows clearly that Stefanoni is (improperly and wrongly) trying to convince the judge that Pascali's request for the EDFs is unreasonable. She even tries to insinuate that the only reason Pascali might have any need for the EDFs is if he believes she (Stefanoni) has been fraudulent in her work!

It ends with the cute (and very carefully constructed) offer that if the judge rules that Pascali really should see the EDFs, then - in the interests of openness and cooperation - Stefanoni will of course provide them. But only under circumstances and conditions that are (to any proper scientist, but hopefully not to an underinformed judge ) totally unreasonable, unworkable and out of order.

The obvious primary aim of that letter is to get the judge to refuse Pascali access to the EDFs. The secondary aim, if Micheli somehow grants Pascali access, is to ensure that the conditions of access make it impossible in practice for Pascali to see and examine the EDFs properly. And the third aim is to leave the judge with the impression that Stefanoni is being totally open and reasonable, and that she's acting entirely in accordance with international standards and practice.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, you are wrong, Numbers.

Machiavelli has made it clear that the defence must first abide by the technician's conditions before they can be turned over.

Well it's worse even than that. The letter makes it clear that even access under these crazy conditions is entirely contingent upon the judge, Micheli, ordering that Pascali should have access to the EDFs.

Machiavelli seems to want to present this letter as proof that Pascali was granted the opportunity to view the EDFs (and we can argue about the conditions, yadda, yadda). So (in Machiavelli's mind) Pascali must have decided he didn't like the conditions imposed, and this is why he didn't see the EDFs.

But he hasn't read the letter properly (or maybe he has, but he's just trying to mislead). The letter makes it perfectly clear that Micheli would have to make a ruling that Pascali should see the EDFs before the offer would even take effect. If Micheli didn't make that order, then the conditions are moot.

As I said above, the letter is clearly an attempt to persuade Judge Micheli not to rule that Pascali should see the EDFs (the tone and content of the letter, particularly the outrageous insinuation that the only legitimate reason Pascali might need to see the EDFs would be if Stefanoni had been fraudulent, make that obvious). But she's careful to placate Micheli by saying that if he were to order that Pascali should view the EDFs (and remember, Stefanoni is trying to persuade him not to make that order), then she would of course comply (she's honest and open, remember, with nothing to hide!). But of course then those ludicrous and improper conditions would kick in - conditions which I'm sure Stefanoni reasoned that Micheli, even if he did ignore Stefanoni's pleadings and grant Pascali access to the EDFs, would not have the temerity or understanding to realise would make it near-impossible for Pascali to analyse the EDFs properly in any case.


Any guesses from the class as to whether Micheli granted the order for Pascali to be able to view the EDFs? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you. I couldn't remember Gentile.

Dan O your last sentence isn't a true representation and may be one with the desire of being provocative for provocative's sake.

But MichaelB's original point was about the Kercher family lawyer opposing the admission of evidence that was detrimental to Guede. He just (obviously, given the context and the very point he was making) made a typo mistake by writing "Guede's attorney Francesco Maresca" rather than "The Kerchers' attorney Francesco Maresca".

So with the appropriate correction, the point still stands: why would the lawyer for the Kercher family be trying to oppose the introduction of evidence that was detrimental to Guede? With that in mind, DanO's (deliberately flippant) comment makes a little more sense, no......?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well it's worse even than that. The letter makes it clear that even access under these crazy conditions is entirely contingent upon the judge, Micheli, ordering that Pascali should have access to the EDFs.

Machiavelli seems to want to present this letter as proof that Pascali was granted the opportunity to view the EDFs (and we can argue about the conditions, yadda, yadda). So (in Machiavelli's mind) Pascali must have decided he didn't like the conditions imposed, and this is why he didn't see the EDFs.

But he hasn't read the letter properly (or maybe he has, but he's just trying to mislead). The letter makes it perfectly clear that Micheli would have to make a ruling that Pascali should see the EDFs before the offer would even take effect. If Micheli didn't make that order, then the conditions are moot.

As I said above, the letter is clearly an attempt to persuade Judge Micheli not to rule that Pascali should see the EDFs (the tone and content of the letter, particularly the outrageous insinuation that the only legitimate reason Pascali might need to see the EDFs would be if Stefanoni had been fraudulent, make that obvious). But she's careful to placate Micheli by saying that if he were to order that Pascali should view the EDFs (and remember, Stefanoni is trying to persuade him not to make that order), then she would of course comply (she's honest and open, remember, with nothing to hide!). But of course then those ludicrous and improper conditions would kick in - conditions which I'm sure Stefanoni reasoned that Micheli, even if he did ignore Stefanoni's pleadings and grant Pascali access to the EDFs, would not have the temerity or understanding to realise would make it near-impossible for Pascali to analyse the EDFs properly in any case.


Any guesses from the class as to whether Micheli granted the order for Pascali to be able to view the EDFs? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Machiavelli goes on to make this point, but from the other side of the fence. In Machiavelli's mind, the ONLY reason to ask to see the EDFs, is because one is saying that Stefanoni is dishonest and fraudulent.

Strawman.

Seeing evidence against you, ALL the evidence against you, is guaranteed in the Italian Constitution, Article 111. But, no, let's play personalities and strawman accusations. The trouble is: this worked!

This is what I mean by Machiavelli's agenda being a limited hang-out. It's a bait and switch argument. "What? You're accusing me of dishonesty? I wonder what Mr. Mignini will think about that when I get him to file charges against you for calunnia!!!!!"

It's a "raise the stakes" game, and it shows how much is riding on these points.

Even asking for the EDFs is liable to provoke a calunnia/defamation charge, especially relevant when one considers who controls the charge process.

 

[Strozzi]

In my wiki page “Kercher case people" under the heading "Guede", sub heading defense I have listed: Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile.

Francesco Maresca is the lawyer representing the Kercher family.



But Rudy is almost family so why shouldn't Maresca be representing him too

There is an interesting Sept 2010 ABC news report about Guede's attorney Walter Biscotti taking offense at media reports in the U.S. that were also printed in Italy quoting former FBI major crime investigator Steve Moore accusing the persecution of falsifying evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Biscotti beats his breast in defense of Italian honor. See it at:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-lawyer-protests-fbi-agents-defense/story?id=11568465

 

[Kaosium]

I don't think it's a matter of an authority to set conditions; we can see Stefanoni told the judge she was ready to allow Pascali to see the ED files, but also warned the judge that those data should be only seen under some standard paramenters, otherwise they could be manipulated or used improperly. Now, Stefanoni is factually the subject who keeps custody of the data in her laboratory, and I think this what makes her naturally feel a responsability about the possible improper uses of the material. It's clear she considers the electronic data as potentially sensitive or double-use, and she is concerned about not releasing them for undue uses, outside controlled procedures.

This is tantamount to an admission of guilt on Stefanoni's part.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensics in fantasyland

LondonJohn makes some excellent points, and it is worth expanding upon them. Stefanoni was not actually extending an offer, and putting the issue into the hands of a judge is inferior to statutory requirements for full disclosure. The ABA standards do not say that a scientist must visit the lab where the data were taken and only use the processing parameters that the forensic police used.

There are many reasons to want the EDFs. A long time ago I documented the point that different versions of the processing software can give different peak heights, for example. In this case just getting the FP to provide the peak heights or peak areas took some time. Another reason for full disclosure is that how the DNA on the knife was quantitated would have been something the defense would have known going into the trial, as well as how little DNA there actually was. This information might have changed the strategy that the defense took.

But two reasons to have the electronic data files and other records is to check against incompetent work or fraudulent work. Only in some fantasyland do these problems never occur.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think it's a matter of an authority to set conditions; we can see Stefanoni told the judge she was ready to allow Pascali to see the ED files, but also warned the judge that those data should be only seen under some standard paramenters, otherwise they could be manipulated or used improperly. Now, Stefanoni is factually the subject who keeps custody of the data in her laboratory, and I think this what makes her naturally feel a responsability about the possible improper uses of the material. It's clear she considers the electronic data as potentially sensitive or double-use, and she is concerned about not releasing them for undue uses, outside controlled procedures.

This is tantamount to an admission of guilt on Stefanoni's part.

I disagree. This is Machiavelli saying this, not Stefanoni.

However, at Stefanoni's corruption trial, I doubt her lawyer will be calling Machiavelli as a witness. Not a friendly one, anyway.

"She had to cook the DNA evidence, y'Worship, or else the Witch of Seattle would have walked!"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In the essay "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" Professor William Thompson wrote, "The claim that defense reanalysis of electronic data could,under any circumstances, amount to “evidence tampering” is absurd given that defense experts work only with a copy of the original data...But to deny access to digital data on grounds that the defense might analyze it improperly eviscerates the right to discovery."

 

[Strozzi]

The point is that the electronic data files are the automatically-generated raw data with respect to the DNA profile determination. These files are electronic documents that belong to the case file, and the case file must be made available to the defense, according to ECHR case-law.

I am just stunned by Stefanoni's insistence that she could allow defense experts to examine forensic data files but only if they look at them in her lab or under her supervision, using her lab equipment, using her software, and with the same parameters she used. This is tantamount to her looking at a fingerprint under 200x magnification, and insisting to the court that she refuses to share the data file unless the defense experts look at the fingerprint under her same chosen 200x magnification, not 400x magnification. I hope the ECHR reviews these conditions that the police forensic lab demanded as a condition to provide evidence for defense review.

 

[Planigale]

One of the more successful weekends. It seems fairly conclusive that Stefanoni refused to provide a copy of the EDF to the defence saying she would only permit then to examine the original under her supervision.

There also seems to be be good evidence that the finding of Sollicito's DNA on the bra hook may have resulted from Meredith depositing his DNA herself. (This does not preclude other explanations such as Gill's deposition by the Forensic scientists gloves.)

 

[Numbers]

I don't think it's a matter of an authority to set conditions; we can see Stefanoni told the judge she was ready to allow Pascali to see the ED files, but also warned the judge that those data should be only seen under some standard paramenters, otherwise they could be manipulated or used improperly. Now, Stefanoni is factually the subject who keeps custody of the data in her laboratory, and I think this what makes her naturally feel a responsability about the possible improper uses of the material. It's clear she considers the electronic data as potentially sensitive or double-use, and she is concerned about not releasing them for undue uses, outside controlled procedures.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The defense is legitimately allowed to see the raw data and understand how the prosecution expert handled or manipulated the raw data to come to her conclusions. For the defense to do this, they must receive an electronic copy of the raw data that the can handle and manipulate in order to see if there are alternative explanations, favorable to the defense, that may be derived from the raw data. This is fundamental to "equality of arms" and the adversarial conduct of a trial.

The prosecution is not entitled to control the way that the defense interprets the data.

The intentional withholding of the raw data clearly raises an inference of misconduct by the prosecution expert. There was apparently no such withholding by the Carabinieri DNA experts when they analyzed the DNA sample ("I", IIRC) for the Nencini court.

 

[sept79]

Yes, I agree, however, there were many letters sent on behalf of both the prosecution and defense, but how is a court to weigh the content of letters when they cannot be cross examined by either side? If the prosecution has letters that say everything was done correctly should that be given as much weight as testimony? And can only experts outside of Italy be neutral?

Does it really matter that the prosecution says that everything was done correctly when the record shows that Stefanoni lied in Judge Micheli's courtroom about the knife sample size . . .

 

[Desert Fox]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The defense is legitimately allowed to see the raw data and understand how the prosecution expert handled or manipulated the raw data to come to her conclusions. For the defense to do this, they must receive an electronic copy of the raw data that the can handle and manipulate in order to see if there are alternative explanations, favorable to the defense, that may be derived from the raw data. This is fundamental to "equality of arms" and the adversarial conduct of a trial.

The prosecution is not entitled to control the way that the defense interprets the data.

The intentional withholding of the raw data clearly raises an inference of misconduct by the prosecution expert. There was apparently no such withholding by the Carabinieri DNA experts when they analyzed the DNA sample ("I", IIRC) for the Nencini court.

I would ask Machiavellian exactly how he/she thinks that the DNA evidence could be double used or misused?

 

[Diocletus]

LondonJohn makes some excellent points, and it is worth expanding upon them. Stefanoni was not actually extending an offer, and putting the issue into the hands of a judge is inferior to statutory requirements for full disclosure. The ABA standards do not say that a scientist must visit the lab where the data were taken and only use the processing parameters that the forensic police used.

There are many reasons to want the EDFs. A long time ago I documented the point that different versions of the processing software can give different peak heights, for example. In this case just getting the FP to provide the peak heights or peak areas took some time. Another reason for full disclosure is that how the DNA on the knife was quantitated would have been something the defense would have known going into the trial, as well as how little DNA there actually was. This information might have changed the strategy that the defense took.

But two reasons to have the electronic data files and other records is to check against incompetent work or fraudulent work. Only in some fantasyland do these problems never occur.

London John is right. What stefanoni was doing was not offering the raw data for inspection, but rather, making an adversarial argument to the judge for why the data should not be made available to the defense. Not only is it shocking that the lab tech as opposed to the prosecutor would make such an argument, but it's disingenuous. Stefanoni's alternative argument was: well, if they can see the raw data, then let's restrict their use of it.

Micheli, who appears to have rocks for brains, in effect granted stefanoni's motion to suppress exculpatory evidence. This renders stefanoni an obstructionist and Micheli a ball-less fool.

 

[Kaosium]

I disagree. This is Machiavelli saying this, not Stefanoni.

I believe that Machiavelli is representing Stefanoni's position accurately. What he apparently doesn't realize is that since September of 2008 Stefanoni has admitted to it being low template DNA, the independent experts have panned her work in part for finding alleles she didn't 'call' and Theresa Carragine resigned under fire from the Office of the Medical Examiner of NYC, and she was the one making that same argument here. However in Carragine's instance (to my knowledge) they never proved that she was wrong--unlike Stefanoni and the extra contributors to the bra clasp--it was the fear she might be.

However, at Stefanoni's corruption trial, I doubt her lawyer will be calling Machiavelli as a witness. Not a friendly one, anyway.

"She had to cook the DNA evidence, y'Worship, or else the Witch of Seattle would have walked!"

Currently I'm more interested in the conflict between Stefanoni and Dr. Pascali that Machiavelli has been hinting about. I wish I knew what that was about. It could be that Stefanoni is right, but it could also be something else...