Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

The Carabinieri provided the EDFs to the court and defended as far as I know, but because the defences and the Carabinieri agreed to do so at the opening of the incidente probatorio, on a defence request.



The Cassazione makes sentences become final. They can't be appealed. Cases can be re- opened but it's something different.
They cannot be speaker technically not even to the ECHR or to the constitutional court.


Because the Cassazione finalized only part of the calunnia case, while annulled another part of the Hellman decision on it.
This is possible because an aggravating circumstance is like a charge itself. You can decide on them separately, like annul the aggravating charge finding but not the charge finding.(Obviously you can't have an aggravating circumstance without finding guilt on a charge.)



I would day no. Nencini could only find her guilty or not guilty for murder, or at least of a crime connected to murder, while the aggravating charge depends on whether she is guilty or not of a second crime. Because it is an aggravating charge if continuance, this means it requires the suspect to be guilty of more than one criminal action. A continuance of calunnia alone, as a repeated action? Also possible maybe, in theory. But this specific charge of continuance referred to the same "criminal design" that included murder.

So the aggravated calunnia is dependent on the murder conviction? If the Murder convictions are annulled, then the aggravated calunnia is annulled as well? And does cassation have the ability to annull the convictions, but order a dismissal of the charges without a re-trial - for example, for lack of evidence necessary to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm asking theoretically of course, I'm aware of your beliefs.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually she also said she was ready to provide the EDFs, if examined under controlled conditions. The defence did not pursue that opportunity, and Kaosium explained why: because Pascali (but I read "Hampikian") wanted the EDFs in order to use them in other venues and to change the settings, so to produce new files not deposited with the trial papers. Thus, this is the reason why the defence turned down Stefanoni's offer, according to Kaosium. This seems the real reason, the one you should focus on if you want to understand the case.

That's one way of putting it, another is 'exposing the fraudulent interpretation of Stefanoni with the exculpatory evidence she omitted.'

Numbers' dilligence suggests the ECHR has already ruled on this issue and Stefanoni's goose is already cooked. From what I have read on her dispute with Pascali, what she is trying to do is re-brand 'fraud' and 'constructive incompetence' as something akin to 'teaching the rest of the world how to do DNA forensics.'

Here's an article you might want to read, Stefanoni's malfeasance is hardly unprecedented and just part and parcel of the faulty practices that have arisen at several labs in this field worldwide, not just in Stefanoni's lab or the American ones. Here's another paper you've seen referenced dozens of times in these threads, give the whole thing a read. If you want to skip to the part on EDFs go to page 11.

The longer you keep reading the better it gets. The next section is on contamination and I'd give that one a long read too. My point here being is that the sort of malfeasance Stefanoni engaged in was not that uncommon and the problems associated with it have been identified, corrected and punished the world over. The rest of the world is showing Italy how to detect incompetence and fraud in DNA forensics.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's one way of putting it, another is 'exposing the fraudulent interpretation of Stefanoni with the exculpatory evidence she omitted.'

Numbers' dilligence suggests the ECHR has already ruled on this issue and Stefanoni's goose is already cooked. From what I have read on her dispute with Pascali, what she is trying to do is re-brand 'fraud' and 'constructive incompetence' as something akin to 'teaching the rest of the world how to do DNA forensics.'

I wouldn't call that a dispute with Pascali. What happened is, a prosecutor in the town of Potenza appointed Pascali as DNA expert with the task testing the clothes of Elisa Claps' for DNA.
The preliminary judge thought Pascali's report was unconvincing, and decided to appoint another expert in order to make an assessment on Pascali's work. The other expert was Patrizia Stefanoni.

Patrizia Stefanoni did not have the task of testing items, but just to review Pascali's work. Stefanoni said Pascali's tests were unsatisfactory, and he did not investigate the objects properly.

So the judge ordered that the Carabinieri RIS from Rome should perform tests on the items. The result was that the Carabinieri found multiple instances of DNA of a suspect, Danilo Restivo (a serial killer who was indicted in another state for another murder).

I don't think this was a dispute between Stefanoni and Pascali. We are talking about an expert (Pascali) who egregiously failed to acomplish his duty. Had his work not been reviewed, Elisa's family would be still awaiting justice.

*
As for the reasons why Pascali wanted the EDFs, it doesn't really matter what the defence purpose was, what matters is that - as for the procedure code - they only have to explain the judge why they want that evidence, and why the couldn't request it before. Now you parse a judgemental phrase: "fraudulent interpretation .. exculpatory evidence..", which is rhetoric, but it is nothing but judgmental, there is no factual information in it.

What was the defence seeking? Was the defence seeking whether there was evidence of laboratory contamination in the negative controls of the contested samples, or even in those of other samples? If that's what they were looking for, they should have explained this to the judge. And they didn't.
Pascali only said he needed to know the peaks areas, this is what he explained the judge on Oct. 4. Stefanoni also deposited the negative controls she had with her. Here I'm not stating that the judge would have said "yes" to any request on the part of Pascali, but the fact is Pascali and the defence did not make the request, and they did not explain the intent of their requests in terms compatible with how you explain them, the defence did not say anythig on the lines of seeking "contamination that was not revealed" and see possible "fraudulent behaviours". They did not describe such alleged purpose to expose omitted evidence to the judge in the terms that you describe. They describe their purposes in such terms that a further investigation in electronig data wouldn't seem necessary to the judge: they did not explain such alleged purpose to the judge.

I do not want to draw any conclusion as for what purposes Bongiorno and Pascali had in their minds. As for Stefanoni and prosecution I can well see many good reasons for not wishing to release raw data, without any neeed to think at any conspiracy or fraud. So I don' do mind-reading. I only limit myself to recording trial facts. Those are the facts.
Stefanoni did say she was ready to present log files, but she had reservations about the way they could be manipulated, the "offer" was known to the parties insofar it belonged to the court documentation available to them, and on the hearing the defence did not make some requests, and they did not express the motivations that you attribute to them.

 

[Magister]

Gosh,
I seem to recall discussing the keys almost 5 years ago,
while Amanda + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] were in prison.
so I did a Google search of ISF, my moniker, and foyer, here's some old info:






Gosh,
have a look at that pic, there's a phone on the wall!
Too bad that phone on the wall did not work,
heck Rudy mighta been able to "save Meredith" when Amanda + Raffael ran away(*),
leaving poor Rudy alone with a dying girl. I wonder what Rudy did next?


(*) - Right...

Hi RWVBWL
Do you remember if Giacomo was asked to identify those keys?

Wasn't that phone part of the intercom system connected to the front gate?

 

[Dan O.]

The thing that makes me most suspicious about what happened downstairs is Guede saying he heard someone.

If we consider the possibility that Meredith had decided to check on the cat before returning to her own apartment, Rudy was in the bathroom upstairs and could have heard Meredith closing the downstairs door. This gives Rudy just enough time to finish his paperwork as Meredith walks around the corner past the bathroom window (where the light is probably on because who takes a dump in the dark) and enters through the front door. As she locks the door behind her (an instinctive habit that she has learned because the door won't stay closed otherwise), she calls out in Italian: "Hello, is anybody home". ...

 

[Diocletus]

If we consider the possibility that Meredith had decided to check on the cat before returning to her own apartment, Rudy was in the bathroom upstairs and could have heard Meredith closing the downstairs door. This gives Rudy just enough time to finish his paperwork as Meredith walks around the corner past the bathroom window (where the light is probably on because who takes a dump in the dark) and enters through the front door. As she locks the door behind her (an instinctive habit that she has learned because the door won't stay closed otherwise), she calls out in Italian: "Hello, is anybody home". ...

But if she had checked on the kitty, sweet Meredith would never have gone upstairs leaving the poor animal to die by itself from blood loss!

 

[Dan O.]

I believe the boys downstairs were intimated by the police and prosecutor.
I think many people in Italy find their police/judicial system intimidating, based on MOF and this case. People know how easily they can be framed or charged with calunnia or defamation. These are laws and practices from the 1930s.

Giacomo was growing mj. Could he be charged if the cops/prosecutor wanted?

Of course, they "were" intiminated. But to maintain the conspiracy today you have to show that they still "are" intiminated. The boys don't live in Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

So the aggravated calunnia is dependent on the murder conviction? If the Murder convictions are annulled, then the aggravated calunnia is annulled as well? And does cassation have the ability to annull the convictions, but order a dismissal of the charges without a re-trial - for example, for lack of evidence necessary to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm asking theoretically of course, I'm aware of your beliefs.

No, only the aggravating circumstance (its full name is aggravating charge of continuance to be precise) is depending on the murder charge. The rest of the calunnia conviction will stand in any event.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are many within Italy who recognize this continuing wrongful prosecution for what it is:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/1005/Berlusconi-allies-use-Amanda-Knox-case-to-lambast-Italy-s-judicial-system

Berlusconi allies use Amanda Knox case to lambast Italy's judicial system
Politics aside, however, the Amanda Knox case also highlights mounting public frustration with a judicial system seen as deeply flawed.
By Anna Momigliano, Correspondent OCTOBER 5, 2011

MILAN, ITALY — Two days after an Italian appeals court threw out the murder convictions of American college student Amanda Knox and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in what has been described worldwide as one of Italy's greatest judiciary flops, supporters of embattled Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are seizing upon the case to decry what they call judicial "witch hunts."

The four-year saga showed the world that "the credibility of [Italy's] justice system is beyond a joke," wrote Giuliano Ferrara, chief editor of the conservative daily Il Foglio in a front page piece comparing Ms. Knox to Mr. Berlusconi.​

 

[Dan O.]

What are your sources for when and where the downstairs keys were found? I am reading some documents/testimony concerning the keys and would like to compare if possible.

I just remember reading it in the testimony of one of the officers that described their activity in the cottage on November 6. As I recal, they found the keys as they were leaving.

It's silly that we have to have this same discussion over and over. Do people actually prefer such silliness over advancing our knowledge of this case? Why can't we document in one place everything we think we know about these keys, who found them, where they were found, color glossy photos with circles and arrows and all the newspaper stories about them.

 

[Desert Fox]

There are many within Italy who recognize this continuing wrongful prosecution for what it is:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/1005/Berlusconi-allies-use-Amanda-Knox-case-to-lambast-Italy-s-judicial-system

Berlusconi allies use Amanda Knox case to lambast Italy's judicial system
Politics aside, however, the Amanda Knox case also highlights mounting public frustration with a judicial system seen as deeply flawed.
By Anna Momigliano, Correspondent OCTOBER 5, 2011

Berlusconi has issues as well such as controlling a huge amount of the media personally.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps the fact that many people are building purpose-built labs to do LCN work is a clue that that no one thinks that the 'old' facilities are appropriate? You could check ENFSI recommendations on documentation and making available records of environmental and ambient exposure records. None of which Stefanoni met.

First, I don't know on what basis you assume that ENFSI recommendations were not followed, such as keeping records or having written procedures. Is your source Vecchiotti?
Second, pleas refer to reccomendations already existing in 2007.

This is an interesting paper from the Netherlands National Forensic Institute
Error rates in forensic DNA analysis: Definition, numbers, impact and communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014
This documents that contamination rates are constant and discusses how they should be presented. (Not just denied.)

By the word "deny" I think you may be hinting again at some twist of Stefanoni's words.

A good practical example of how Stefanoni's lab was not set up for LCN work is the fact that she used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA in the extract - completely inappropriate for a low DNA sample. Then vacuum extraction - a very high risk method for contamination to concentrate the extract.

I don't know anything about risks of the process of vacuum concentration, but I know it has never been an issue risen by any expert in the trial. As for the existence of a Qbit Fluorimeter, this is hardly an argument. Certainly the lab did not perform only LCN analysis.

A side note: by the way, experts Berti and Barni in Florence pointed out that the label "LCN" is considered obsolete. The relevant category of reference to them now seems to be whether a DNA profile is "in a complex condition".

 

[christianahannah]

I just remember reading it in the testimony of one of the officers that described their activity in the cottage on November 6. As I recal, they found the keys as they were leaving.

It's silly that we have to have this same discussion over and over. Do people actually prefer such silliness over advancing our knowledge of this case? Why can't we document in one place everything we think we know about these keys, who found them, where they were found, color glossy photos with circles and arrows and all the newspaper stories about them.

Well it would be nice if all documentation could be in one place but there is a little bit from one source, and a lot from another, and still more from someone else. It isn't that difficult to try to piece it all together here. And with the many new documents on The Meredith Wiki it adds more to the whole story from beginning to end (but with source notes added to the story).

As far as source notes, they are important, when one can see in official documents something discussed here either confirming or denying, that is great. Same with the news articles from journalists and television. There are a lot of erroneous information out there.

Okay speaking of keys, this I noticed - there are keys attached to every door, bathrooms included, with the exception of Meredith's door and (I can't tell from photos whether Filomena's door has a key). Don't know what significance, if any, there is to this but thought it was interesting.

 

[Dan O.]

You would think that ENFSI would have the lab's protocols on file. That would be interesting.

The lab faild to get it's cirtification because it didn't have the procedures written down. They had to correct that before the cirtification would be issued.

 

[Machiavelli]

The lab faild to get it's cirtification because it didn't have the procedures written down. They had to correct that before the cirtification would be issued.

Maybe you are talking about ISO 17025.
But Dan, Vechiotti didn't even have a thermometer in her refrigerator.

 

[Dan O.]

I remember from a photo a key(s) hanging on a hook above Amanda's night table (I think that is correct or maybe I am thinking in her door). The photo should be easy to find but even if there is a key where I say it doesn't mean it is the downstairs apartment keys.

There was a single skeleton key hanging from the bookshelf above her bed. I posted that photo derived from the Spheron images here several years ago but no longer have it in the album on this site as it wasn't important.

I had assumed at the time that this was Amanda's room key. That turned out to be inaccurate as I later discovered that her room key was in the inside lock on her door.

I have no clue what the key hanging in her room is. But it is not a key to a euro-cylinder lock as the cottage has on the exterior doors and is not a European interior room door key as the cottage has on the bedroom and bathroom doors.

 

[Dan O.]

Hi RWVBWL
Do you remember if Giacomo was asked to identify those keys?

Wasn't that phone part of the intercom system connected to the front gate?

It was described as a video phone to the front door. But how would Rudy know that when he claimed he wanted to call but didn't know where a phone was.

 

[Dan O.]

But if she had checked on the kitty, sweet Meredith would never have gone upstairs leaving the poor animal to die by itself from blood loss!

On the way down she would have seen that there were lights on upstairs. She would have returned upstairs to Laura or Filomena for assistance in getting help for the poor kitty as they would know how to contact a vet late at night.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Let's walk through this one step at a time. One, serious labs working at low template levels of DNA know that extra precautions are necessary. The most recent edition of John Butler's textbook has a section on low level DNA that reads (p. 332) in part:

...she [Theresa Caragine] offers five tips to preventing exogenous DNA contamination in forensic casework. First utilize dedicated and protected workspaces...Second wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE)...[including] double gloves...Lab coats are single-use within the evidence exam area...Third, perform regular cleaning of everything...Increased sensitivity with LTDNA or mtDNA techniques means that minute levels of contaminant DNA in labware or reagents may be detected from the manufacturer that would not be seen with conventional STR typing...Fourth, perform quality control testing on all reagents...Fifth, evaluate controls with every batch of samples." IIRC Stefanoni did not understand the difference between positive and negative pressure hoods, and by her own testimony, she obviously has no clue when it comes to gloves.

Frankly I think you are making up testimony. There are no statements to this effect from Stefanoni's testimonies as far as I know.

As you well know these arguments about DNA research not bein "perfect" are extremely weak, to use an euphemism. Those arguments in law are called "in limine", preliminary arguments, and mostly they don't work.

I am also afraid they are unfonded, as for quality controls of reagents or cleaning.

Two, the New Zealand Herald article was indeed discussing LCN DNA, “But the ties Lees said were used to bind her were sent to the United Kingdom's Forensic Science Service which with input from New Zealand forensic scientist Dr John Buckleton pioneered the highly-sensitive process called low copy number (LCN) DNA….LCN puts it through 34 cycles compared to 28 for the standard method (called SGMplus). Though the difference between the numbers doesn't seem much, it involves a 50-fold increase in sensitivity and potentially makes the invisible visible, the undetectable detectable.” I suggest that you read the entire article before commenting next time.

But all this is already known.
One fact is, the knife sample had negative controls. And they were negative.

Three, Stefanoni's lab was not certified for regular STR typing at the time. Whether it is now is irrelevant, both to the case at hand and to whether or not it is equipped to perform true LCN testing. What standards Stefanoni says she follows now is not the point. If she cannot or will not document her work and allow scrutiny that is akin to what other labs in the world routinely accept, her work is subpar, and the idea that a court would accept her as an expert is extremely disheartening.

Probably we have different concepts of what is relevant or irrelevant in a trial. Stefanoni did document her work, within the procedures that were proper of the law at that time.
There isn't any legal requirement for being called to testify as an expert, except the fact of being knowledgable in a field, more knowledgable than the judge. And this is a principle. Anyone can be an expert, no title nor peer review is required.
However, Stefanoni was close to the state of the art available to the Perugia prosecution at that time and in that moment.
It makes sense that you may object in principle that that particular witness did not perform a work that belongs to a peer-reviewed category. However such objection could hardly work in a legal venue, because a trial is not something about Stefanoni, nor about science, and a courtroom is not a molecular laboratory or a contamination-free environment. The court will accept any meaningful evidence and judge about the meaning of pieces of evidence themselves, without requiring certificates.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The neighbors of the cottage are far enough away that it cannot be assured that someone would hear the breaking window. But they are close enough that it cannot be assured that they would not hear it. Someone outside on the upper deck of the car park would probably hear it as would someone walking by on the street.

On the other hand, the window above the small court yard at the lawyers office would probably be heard by the neighbors across the court yard like Sophie Puton if the rock had been thrown through the window instead of being muffled by a jacket to break the glass.

-

Thank's Dan for the info.

In all actuality, if the neighbors are close enough that it's possible that they could hear the glass break, it wouldn't matter if they really could or not, what really matters is what Raffaele and Amanda thought (or imagined) was possible if they broke the glass.

With neighbors as close as you describe, why in God's name would they take even the slightest chance of bringing attention to a house with a dead body in it by breaking a window?

d

-