Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diocletus

Illuminator
Diocletus
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
3,969
Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from Part 12.
For further reference, see also Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: Agatha

Planigale said:
Stefanoni has got herself into a bit of a double bind. If the quantity was above 100 pg then she had sufficient to run replicates, but she said the amount was too low to run replicates so she obviously thought it was much lower, probably less than 1000 ng (a hundred fold difference). 100 pg would not be LCNDNA, but everyone agreed it was, even Stefanoni never objected to this, so she obviously thought the amount was below 10 pg.
Click to expand...

I think your measures are off, but this is a good point: Stefanoni believed that she didn't have enough DNA in 36b to run replicates. But, since the minimum amount that could be detected in the QF is 3ng in the 50 uL sample, there is no way that the QF could provide her with enough data to determine whether she could split a sample (i.e., a 50 uL sample could have had 2ng of DNA in it (plenty to allow a non-LCN split), and yet this would still report as "too low").

Moreover, I see no evidence that Stefanoni ever replicated ANY amplifications, and there are some amplifications that are clearly from LCN samples. She just never did it, it was not her protocol. So, all of this stuff about splitting samples and replications is just a great big Stefanoni lie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Samson said:
I know opinions differ, but my assessment as a relative newcomer is that their discussions will be part of an advanced sociological dissertation reasonably soon, one which I would enjoy reading.

The indomitable Mr Pink, who Machine wanted to ban pretty early in his career at PMF just said

"There would be no hand-wringing if they were simply minor errors. I admire Nencini for his no nonsense approach to the PR campaign antics. I don't know what happened with the written report. Maybe he had to piece together a bunch of incompatible details that were determined to be facts by his fellow judges. Let's just say they reached the right verdict, but they got there in a broken-down Yugo with two flat tires and smoke coming off the engine."

I hope that has you chuckling platonov....
Click to expand...

Pink is echoing what others are saying, that Nencini's motivations report is a stringing together of different reports by different authors. It's an explanation for why a point is sometimes developed early, but never completed - seemingly forgotten about.

It's strange, though, that one would still say Nencini reached the "right verdict", given that his reason for that verdict is mostly nonsensical.... including downright false info - like Raffaele's DNA being found on the blade of the kitchen knife.

Then there are other guilters - one of whom is taking Nencini to task for misreading the cell-tower info - that Amanda very well didn't leave Raffaele's to return the text to Lumumba about not going in tp work on Nov 1.

One wonders what it takes for the light to go on.....
 
Machiavelli said:
And if the defence wanted them, they would have asked them during the investigation and well before the end of the 2009 trial. And had the defence still wanted them after 2009, they would have submitted instances to the Supreme Court in order to have them and they would have asked them at the Hellmann appeal (which they did not do).
Click to expand...

Chris_Halkides said:
Machiavelli,

I was in contact with some of the scientists who was consulting with the defense. The defense made multiple requests; all were turned down. The Johnson and Hampikian letter, which was co-signed by seven other forensic scientists, specifically discussed the EDFs.
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
There is no "2009 trial." This is all one single trial, remember? But by all means, do let us know if you think there are separate trials, because then we will have a great big double jeopardy problem.

Anyway, they only need to ask for the information once, which they did . . . six years ago. And yet, it has never appeared (except to Novelli, who didn't ask for it until 2013).
Click to expand...


I have asked this before of Yummi - Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?

Italy has no support at the ECHR on this issue.

"The right to a fair hearing incorporates the principle of equality of arms.

This means that everyone who is a party to proceedings must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him/her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his/her opponent.A fair balance must be struck between the parties.

The right to a fair hearing also incorporates the right to adversarial proceedings, which means in principle the opportunity for parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed. In this context particular importance is to be attached to the appearance of the fair administration of justice.
In criminal cases, they overlap with some of the specific guarantees of Article 6 (3), but are not confined to those aspects of the proceedings. For example, the Court held in the case of Bönisch v Austria that when an expert witness appointed by the defence is not accorded the same facilities as one appointed by the prosecution or the court, there is a violation of Article 6 (1).
Further, the Commission held, in Jespers v. Belgium,that the equality of arms principle read together with Article 6 (3) b imposes an obligation on prosecuting and investigating authorities to disclose any material in their possession, or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself] or in obtaining a reduction in sentence. This principle extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness. In Foucher v. France the Court held that where a defendant who wished to represent himself was denied access by the prosecutor to the case file and not permitted copies of documents contained in it and thereby was unable to prepare an adequate defence, this was a violation of the principle of equal- ity of arms read together with Article 6 (3)."

http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRHAND/DG2-EN-HRHAND-03(2006).pdf

pp 46/47

Remember, of course, that Italian law is meant to incorporate Convention law and must be applied in a convention compliant manner as per decisions 348 and 349 of the Constitutional court. So, why has it not been done? Why was there no discovery?
 
Wannaknow said:
Y and I resemble, at least a litte bit, a part of trace H, that is right. Still, it is strange that H, at least in my view, ist much clearer than Y and Y is much clearer than I.

Greetings
Click to expand...


This may take a little experimentation to confirm; but my current theory is that the sharpness of tract Y is due to this being only a light contact with the floor when Rudy realizes that the front door is locked and then backs up and turns around. The prints at I and H are where he first stops at the table to perhaps grab his gloves (which were removed to use the bathroom earlier) and then to contemplate how he is going to get out of the cottage.

An alternate theory for the diffusion of the other prints is that other people were subsequently in that cottage and walking through that area including Amanda who came back home to shower and grab the mop, Raffaele who came back with Amanda to check out the things Amanda saw that freaked her out, the postal police who were pacing back and forth for half an hour while Amanda and Raffaele ducked out to call the real police, Filomena with all her boys, the medical response team, and there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper story about it.
 
Just a theory

Dan O. said:
This may take a little experimentation to confirm; but my current theory is that the sharpness of tract Y is due to this being only a light contact with the floor when Rudy realizes that the front door is locked and then backs up and turns around. The prints at I and H are where he first stops at the table to perhaps grab his gloves (which were removed to use the bathroom earlier) and then to contemplate how he is going to get out of the cottage.

An alternate theory for the diffusion of the other prints is that other people were subsequently in that cottage and walking through that area including Amanda who came back home to shower and grab the mop, Raffaele who came back with Amanda to check out the things Amanda saw that freaked her out, the postal police who were pacing back and forth for half an hour while Amanda and Raffaele ducked out to call the real police, Filomena with all her boys, the medical response team, and there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper story about it.
Click to expand...

I know it is nit picking but those of us who argue creation vs evolution have a problem with using the word theory in that respect. Theory means something well supported by evidence. . . .Gravity and evolution are theories for example. Might be better to use the word hypothesis.
 
Kauffer said:
I have asked this before of Yummi - Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?

Italy has no support at the ECHR on this issue.

"The right to a fair hearing incorporates the principle of equality of arms.

This means that everyone who is a party to proceedings must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him/her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his/her opponent.A fair balance must be struck between the parties.

The right to a fair hearing also incorporates the right to adversarial proceedings, which means in principle the opportunity for parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed. In this context particular importance is to be attached to the appearance of the fair administration of justice.
In criminal cases, they overlap with some of the specific guarantees of Article 6 (3), but are not confined to those aspects of the proceedings. For example, the Court held in the case of Bönisch v Austria that when an expert witness appointed by the defence is not accorded the same facilities as one appointed by the prosecution or the court, there is a violation of Article 6 (1).
Further, the Commission held, in Jespers v. Belgium,that the equality of arms principle read together with Article 6 (3) b imposes an obligation on prosecuting and investigating authorities to disclose any material in their possession, or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself] or in obtaining a reduction in sentence. This principle extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness. In Foucher v. France the Court held that where a defendant who wished to represent himself was denied access by the prosecutor to the case file and not permitted copies of documents contained in it and thereby was unable to prepare an adequate defence, this was a violation of the principle of equal- ity of arms read together with Article 6 (3)."

http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRHAND/DG2-EN-HRHAND-03(2006).pdf

pp 46/47

Remember, of course, that Italian law is meant to incorporate Convention law and must be applied in a convention compliant manner as per decisions 348 and 349 of the Constitutional court. So, why has it not been done? Why was there no discovery?
Click to expand...

Same reason they couldn't have a lawyer until it was too late to avoid pretrial incarceration: it's much easier for the prosecution to "win" when the other guy can't have lawyers and exculpatory information and stuff like that.
 
Dan O. said:
This may take a little experimentation to confirm; but my current theory is that the sharpness of tract Y is due to this being only a light contact with the floor when Rudy realizes that the front door is locked and then backs up and turns around. The prints at I and H are where he first stops at the table to perhaps grab his gloves (which were removed to use the bathroom earlier) and then to contemplate how he is going to get out of the cottage.

An alternate theory for the diffusion of the other prints is that other people were subsequently in that cottage and walking through that area including Amanda who came back home to shower and grab the mop, Raffaele who came back with Amanda to check out the things Amanda saw that freaked her out, the postal police who were pacing back and forth for half an hour while Amanda and Raffaele ducked out to call the real police, Filomena with all her boys, the medical response team, and there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper story about it.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's already on record that the "crack" police team, in all their glory, didn't even notice the presence of any bloody shoe prints in the hallway or kitchen area until a good few hours after processing of the scene had started.

Which also must mean that it never even occurred to them to identify a "clean" passageway in and out of the scene in order to preserve all possible physical evidence. You know, the sort of stuff that's basic protocol in this sort of work. Indeed, the video and the various photographs from the afternoon of 2nd November show very clearly that they were tramping around with gay abandon anywhere they chose in the hallway and kitchen area. Oh and having cigarette/phone breaks on the grass below Filomena's window.......
 
Diocletus said:
Same reason they couldn't have a lawyer until it was too late to avoid pretrial incarceration: it's much easier for the prosecution to "win" when the other guy can't have lawyers and exculpatory information and stuff like that.
Click to expand...


And remember, if the prosecution say someone did it, then that's usually good enough for the court in Italy, since why on Earth would the prosecution say that if it wasn't true?!

(By contrast, the defence lawyers are slippery eels whose sole interest is to get the defendant off at any cost - therefore everything they say should be treated with extreme caution on account of their obvious blind bias.....)
 
Kauffer said:
I have asked this before of Yummi - Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?

Italy has no support at the ECHR on this issue.

"The right to a fair hearing incorporates the principle of equality of arms.

This means that everyone who is a party to proceedings must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him/her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his/her opponent.A fair balance must be struck between the parties.

The right to a fair hearing also incorporates the right to adversarial proceedings, which means in principle the opportunity for parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed. In this context particular importance is to be attached to the appearance of the fair administration of justice.
In criminal cases, they overlap with some of the specific guarantees of Article 6 (3), but are not confined to those aspects of the proceedings. For example, the Court held in the case of Bönisch v Austria that when an expert witness appointed by the defence is not accorded the same facilities as one appointed by the prosecution or the court, there is a violation of Article 6 (1).
Further, the Commission held, in Jespers v. Belgium,that the equality of arms principle read together with Article 6 (3) b imposes an obligation on prosecuting and investigating authorities to disclose any material in their possession, or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself] or in obtaining a reduction in sentence. This principle extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness. In Foucher v. France the Court held that where a defendant who wished to represent himself was denied access by the prosecutor to the case file and not permitted copies of documents contained in it and thereby was unable to prepare an adequate defence, this was a violation of the principle of equal- ity of arms read together with Article 6 (3)."

http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRHAND/DG2-EN-HRHAND-03(2006).pdf

pp 46/47

Remember, of course, that Italian law is meant to incorporate Convention law and must be applied in a convention compliant manner as per decisions 348 and 349 of the Constitutional court. So, why has it not been done? Why was there no discovery?
Click to expand...

There is also the ECHR statements in:

NATUNEN v. FINLAND 21022/04 31/03/2009


42. More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (b) guarantees the accused “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence” and therefore implies that the substantive defence activity on his behalf may comprise everything which is “necessary” to prepare the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, § 53, Commission’s report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008). Furthermore, the facilities which should be enjoyed by everyone charged with a criminal offence include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings (see C.G.P. v. the Netherlands, (dec.), no. 29835/96, 15 January 1997, and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 84, 15 November 2007).

43. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence, which contains such particulars which could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced would constitute a refusal of facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see C.G.P., cited above). The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above).
 
Here is an extended version of the Sins of Stefanoni. Thanks to TomZ for contributions to the additions. DNA-ers, please check #10 for accuracy. Were both bra clasp and knife blade subjected to secret reruns?

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.

The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.

Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;

2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;

3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;

4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);

5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;

6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;

7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;

8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;

9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;

10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;

11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;

12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;

13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;

15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;

16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;

17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;

18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.
 
Diocletus said:
Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from Part 12.
For further reference, see also Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: Agatha



I think your measures are off, but this is a good point: Stefanoni believed that she didn't have enough DNA in 36b to run replicates. But, since the minimum amount that could be detected in the QF is 3ng in the 50 uL sample, there is no way that the QF could provide her with enough data to determine whether she could split a sample (i.e., a 50 uL sample could have had 2ng of DNA in it (plenty to allow a non-LCN split), and yet this would still report as "too low").

Moreover, I see no evidence that Stefanoni ever replicated ANY amplifications, and there are some amplifications that are clearly from LCN samples. She just never did it, it was not her protocol. So, all of this stuff about splitting samples and replications is just a great big Stefanoni lie.
Click to expand...

You are right, bit of a blonde moment. (I think being blondeist is still socially acceptable?)
 
Liters not Meters
Chris not my fault spell check does not believe in micrometers (what I typed is microlitre), irritatingly it corrected my correction because I had spotted it, went back and retyped litre.
 
Planigale said:
Liters not Meters
Chris not my fault spell check does not believe in micrometers (what I typed is microlitre), irritatingly it corrected my correction because I had spotted it, went back and retyped litre.
Click to expand...


*ahem* "Litres not metres", not "liters not meters" :D

(Given that you come from the right side of the pond :) )
 
Numbers said:
Here is an extended version of the Sins of Stefanoni. Thanks to TomZ for contributions to the additions. DNA-ers, please check #10 for accuracy. Were both bra clasp and knife blade subjected to secret reruns?

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.

The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.

Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;

2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;

3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;

4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);

5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;

6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;

7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;

8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;

9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;

10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;

11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;

12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;

13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;

15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;

16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;

17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;

18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.
Click to expand...

While sympathetic to your aims some of these are conjecture and you do the argument no good by exaggerating the issues.

E.g. you may think she is concealing evidence of testing the putative semen stain. We do not know if this was a semen stain and there is no evidence it was typed.

One real error and perhaps perjury is her claim that she used recognised international methodology in interpreting the alleles on the bra hooks, she either lied about this or was incompetent.

Another definite example of mis conduct was reporting blood stains from the steps as feline when typing showed the presence of unidentified human DNA. This should have been reported as mixed DNA at least.

I am not sure that she deliberately destroyed the bra hook (indeed i am not sure she did, I suspect DNA would still have been recoverable is anyone had wanted).

I do think that some results are concealed; Mach dismisses the bis notation but there is no doubt that flags a re run. As TomB and I have said, you do not delete mistakes in good lab practice. The first run should be logged and the reason why it was rerun documented. The results if any should be available for review. (it may be as simple as she just dropped the first plate on the floor, or forgot to add a reagent, or (and we have all done this when micropippetting plates) - lost count!
 
Planigale said:
While sympathetic to your aims some of these are conjecture and you do the argument no good by exaggerating the issues.

E.g. you may think she is concealing evidence of testing the putative semen stain. We do not know if this was a semen stain and there is no evidence it was typed.

One real error and perhaps perjury is her claim that she used recognised international methodology in interpreting the alleles on the bra hooks, she either lied about this or was incompetent.

Another definite example of mis conduct was reporting blood stains from the steps as feline when typing showed the presence of unidentified human DNA. This should have been reported as mixed DNA at least.

I am not sure that she deliberately destroyed the bra hook (indeed i am not sure she did, I suspect DNA would still have been recoverable is anyone had wanted).
I do think that some results are concealed; Mach dismisses the bis notation but there is no doubt that flags a re run. As TomB and I have said, you do not delete mistakes in good lab practice. The first run should be logged and the reason why it was rerun documented. The results if any should be available for review. (it may be as simple as she just dropped the first plate on the floor, or forgot to add a reagent, or (and we have all done this when micropippetting plates) - lost count!
Click to expand...

{Highlighting added to quote.}

1. I did not intend any exaggeration of the issues.

2. Note that I wrote "putative semen stain." It was clearly identified by a defense consultant as a possible semen stain. The location of this stain on a pillow found underneath the victim of a murder and apparent sexual assault, near the hips of the victim, demands, IMO, that certain tests be done on that stain. First, to determine what it is (from ejaculate or not); second, if it contains semen, to conduct DNA profiling. The relationship of the putative semen stains to the murder is critical and is established by a partial shoe print of a ringed sole apparently made in some putative semen stain. ["Putative" may be defined as "alleged".] {Italics added here.}

3. The bra clasps were said to be rusty by Conti and Vecchiotti in their report, and they claimed it would not be possible to identify the DNA based on that condition. It is well-known that storage of DNA specimens in a moist environment at room temperature tends to degrade the DNA. This manner of storage was either deliberate or incredible incompetence. In fact, the original storage of the bra clasp was different, in a plastic bag, IIRC. The storage container it was found in by Conti and Vecchiotti was a capped test tube with a small amount of liquid (possibly extraction fluid) in it.

4. There are, as the list shows, many other issues. The practices of Stefanoni's lab were not consistent with good laboratory practices as implemented by scientific labs generally, and were far away from anything that would acceptable or in accordance with international protocols for a forensic lab. The standards of observance of protocol, quality control, and quality assurance for a forensic lab must be very high because the lab results are used in criminal trials.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
{Highlighting added to quote.}

1. I did not intend any exaggeration of the issues.

2. Note that I wrote "putative semen stain." It was clearly identified by a defense consultant as a possible semen stain. The location of this stain on a pillow found underneath the victim of a murder and apparent sexual assault, near the hips of the victim, demands, IMO, that certain tests be done on that stain. First, to determine what it is (from ejaculate or not); second, if it contains semen, to conduct DNA profiling. The relationship of the putative semen stains to the murder is critical and is established by a partial shoe print of a ringed sole apparently made in some putative semen stain. ["Putative" may be defined as "alleged".] {Italics added here.}

3. The bra clasps were said to be rusty by Conti and Vecchiotti in their report, and they claimed it would not be possible to identify the DNA based on that condition. It is well-known that storage of DNA specimens in a moist environment at room temperature tends to degrade the DNA. This manner of storage was either deliberate or incredible incompetence. In fact, the original storage of the bra clasp was different, in a plastic bag, IIRC. The storage container it was found in by Conti and Vecchiotti was a capped test tube with a small amount of liquid (possibly extraction fluid) in it.

4. There are, as the list shows, many other issues. The practices of Stefanoni's lab were not consistent with good laboratory practices as implemented by scientific labs generally, and were far away from anything that would acceptable or in accordance with international protocols for a forensic lab. The standards of observance of protocol, quality control, and quality assurance for a forensic lab must be very high because the lab results are used in criminal trials.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear others opinions. I would like to see definite 'errors' and probable 'errors' separated out. My feeling is mixing definite with less definite gives the opportunity to dismiss the list by dealing with the less certain points.
 
Planigale said:
I would be interested to hear others opinions. I would like to see definite 'errors' and probable 'errors' separated out. My feeling is mixing definite with less definite gives the opportunity to dismiss the list by dealing with the less certain points.
Click to expand...

In some instances, such as the apparent destruction or degradation of the DNA on the bra clasp, I would certainly consider indicating an uncertainty whether the action was deliberate or merely the result of gross incompetence.

But the point of the list is not to "indict" Stefanoni. It is to demonstrate why the DNA evidence allegedly against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito is unreliable. And furthermore, the Italian courts, with the exception of the Hellmann court, did not allow an exploration of the reliability (or lack thereof) of the DNA evidence.

It is the use of unreliable evidence to convict, without a fair chance for the defense to challenge it, and to obtain and review all the evidence that is potentially exculpatory, that makes the trials, as conducted by the Massei and Nencini courts and as reviewed by the CSC after the Hellmann acquittal, unfair according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law.

The audience for this list is not the guilters, who are private citizens and expert in neither law nor forensic technologies such as DNA profiling.

A responsible agency would deal with all the issues, and the presence of potentially "less probable" deviations from international protocols does not invalidate the presence of "highly probable" deviations from international protocols.

If you find any statements in the list that are less probable as deviations from standard international forensic protocols than others, I would welcome your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Another American law scholar weighs in.

Quote:

“While I was in Italy, I was working on a comparative law course book. One of the angles I was working on was comparing criminal procedures in Europe, the United States and China. So this case and all the attention it was getting really grabbed my interest,” Head said.

and

The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

Link: http://today.ku.edu/2015/01/28/law-...knox-trial-showed-lack-understanding-problems

Once more a "fine" legal mind sees plenty of trees but can't see that wood. Astounding for someone who claims the case "really grabbed my interest".
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Another American law scholar weighs in.

Quote:

“While I was in Italy, I was working on a comparative law course book. One of the angles I was working on was comparing criminal procedures in Europe, the United States and China. So this case and all the attention it was getting really grabbed my interest,” Head said.

and

The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

Link: http://today.ku.edu/2015/01/28/law-...knox-trial-showed-lack-understanding-problems

Once more a "fine" legal mind sees plenty of trees but can't see that wood. Astounding for someone who claims the case "really grabbed my interest".
Click to expand...

Apparently an apologist for unfairness. Almost the same as an appeaser.
 
Samson said:
Another American law scholar weighs in.

Quote:

“While I was in Italy, I was working on a comparative law course book. One of the angles I was working on was comparing criminal procedures in Europe, the United States and China. So this case and all the attention it was getting really grabbed my interest,” Head said.

and

The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

Link: http://today.ku.edu/2015/01/28/law-...knox-trial-showed-lack-understanding-problems

Once more a "fine" legal mind sees plenty of trees but can't see that wood. Astounding for someone who claims the case "really grabbed my interest".
Click to expand...

I have found some really "smart" people, especially some in academia (not you Chris H) tend to focus on just one aspect of a subject that they find interesting, and totally ignore the larger issues. Not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

I don't know Mr. Head, and he may be a great guy and smart, but I just wanted to weigh in that just because one has an advanced degree does not mean they are that smart or see things in the most logical fashion. As an example, most of the US Congress are lawyers! ;)
 
Planigale said:
I would be interested to hear others opinions. I would like to see definite 'errors' and probable 'errors' separated out. My feeling is mixing definite with less definite gives the opportunity to dismiss the list by dealing with the less certain points.
Click to expand...

I should point out that the title of the list,
The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni,
is a working title only and intended for entertainment.

However, if there is a movie made about the forensic work in this case, I would submit that could be a title for it. Or perhaps, to leave out any person's name, The Keystone Cops of Italy.
 
Numbers said:
In some instances, such as the apparent destruction or degradation of the DNA on the bra clasp, I would certainly consider indicating an uncertainty whether the action was deliberate or merely the result of gross incompetence.

But the point of the list is not to "indict" Stefanoni. It is to demonstrate why the DNA evidence allegedly against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito is unreliable. And furthermore, the Italian courts, with the exception of the Hellmann court, did not allow an exploration of the reliability (or lack thereof) of the DNA evidence.

It is the use of unreliable evidence to convict, without a fair chance for the defense to challenge it, and to obtain and review all the evidence that is potentially exculpatory, that makes the trials, as conducted by the Massei and Nencini courts and as reviewed by the CSC after the Hellmann acquittal, unfair according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law.

The audience for this list is not the guilters, who are private citizens and expert in neither law nor forensic technologies such as DNA profiling.

A responsible agency would deal with all the issues, and the presence of potentially "less probable" deviations from international protocols does not invalidate the presence of "highly probable" deviations from international protocols.

If you find any statements in the list that are less probable as deviations from standard international forensic protocols than others, I would welcome your opinion.
Click to expand...

Ok that makes more sense, whether deliberate or accidental, poor processing of the scene, poor laboratory practice and crappy analysis is worth pointing out.
 
The Mayor of 'Cartwheel land'

platonov said:
Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from Part 12.
For further reference, see also Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: Agatha



Et tu, Agatha? :)

How could you have forgotten the original:
Amanda Knox guilty – all because of a cartwheel.
Click to expand...

Amanda writes in 'Waiting to be heard' that there was no cartwheel performed by her. Just a split, and performed at the seemingly leering suggestion of an older male policeman.

The police who say she did a cartwheel are of divided opinion. One, I think Ficarra, claimed she also did a back walkover or a back handspring?

So, assuming you believe there is something called the truth, exactly which version do you believe is actually true?

Amanda, who has never lied, and has a reputation for honesty from people who actually know her?

Or the Italian police, who have been caught repeatedly in lies throughout this and other cases, so much so that it is difficult to believe anything they say.

I already know your response, although I don't know how you will get there, much like Mr Pink's assessment of Nencini's motivation report, you will meander to your pre-set destination whilst driving your own little Yugo through your own little Cartwheel land.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Another American law scholar weighs in.

Quote:

“While I was in Italy, I was working on a comparative law course book. One of the angles I was working on was comparing criminal procedures in Europe, the United States and China. So this case and all the attention it was getting really grabbed my interest,” Head said.

and

The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

Link: http://today.ku.edu/2015/01/28/law-...knox-trial-showed-lack-understanding-problems

Once more a "fine" legal mind sees plenty of trees but can't see that wood. Astounding for someone who claims the case "really grabbed my interest".
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that the ECHR seems to make sense to Americans and in fact I wish some of their ideas (such as confessions without a defense lawyer present inadmissible) would be adopted in the US.
 
Samson said:
Another American law scholar weighs in.

Quote:

“While I was in Italy, I was working on a comparative law course book. One of the angles I was working on was comparing criminal procedures in Europe, the United States and China. So this case and all the attention it was getting really grabbed my interest,” Head said.

and

The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

Link: http://today.ku.edu/2015/01/28/law-...knox-trial-showed-lack-understanding-problems

Once more a "fine" legal mind sees plenty of trees but can't see that wood. Astounding for someone who claims the case "really grabbed my interest".
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Samson, here's an extended quote below.

Seems like the professor Head recognizes the trial was "flawed" and "troubling", but then somehow manages to retreat into an obtuse fog of academic solipsism. The professor is able to see "flaws" in the process, but seems untroubled by the lack of evidence and open malfeasance in the manufacture of false evidence and bogus witnesses, and suppressed exculpatory evidence. The professor fails to see corruption, where it plainly is apparent. This is not Italian justice as it is by law, but how it was corrupted in practice. All I can say on Prof Head's behalf is, thank god for tenure -

... The original verdict was widely seen as flawed, especially in the United States. The first problem with most of the criticism, Head argues, was translational in character, in the sense that many observers are not able to “translate” their own expectations of criminal procedure into a foreign cultural setting.

The complaint was often made, for instance, that the jury in the Amanda Knox trial was not sequestered. What people failed to understand was that Italian juries are rarely sequestered as they are in the States. And instead of 12 jurors of the defendant’s peers, the Italian system employs three judges and six “lay assessors of facts,” Head said. The latter are allowed to consult with the former for a number of reasons, including offsetting any potential prejudice they may have from exposure to the media.
Another fundamental difference is that in European systems, the societal expectation if someone is found guilty is to decide what the criminal justice system can do to mend the tear in the fabric of society and reintegrate the person back into that society. That concept is all but forgotten in America, Head said. Those differences failed to translate to an understandable reality for most American critics, he added.

Those complications contribute to a second problem, transplantational misunderstandings. While it is true that Italian, European and many other justice systems around the world have been “Americanized” to a certain extent over the last three decades, it is difficult to pick and choose which aspects of a legal system to “transplant” or impart into another. A prime example of that problem was an aggressive prosecutor in the first trial who was similar to what one would see in American courts. “The rest of the system was not ready for that sort of aggressiveness,” Head said. “And many thought the other side — that is, the Amanda Knox side of the trial — was not ready for that, especially without an equally aggressive defense.”

Those problems and misunderstandings, when coupled with a changing society, can pose significant and unprecedented challenges for legal systems, such as the Italian criminal justice system. Growing immigration and multinationalism can stand at odds with nationalist and traditional understandings, Head said. While the tradition may be to re-integrate someone into society after committing a crime, people from other parts of the world may not want to be re-integrated.

“That, I think, throws questions on the tried and true system of criminal procedure and what the process will be 10, 20 years from now when things seem to be changing so quickly,” Head said.

On top of all that, the intense media scrutiny in multiple countries placed a strain on the legal system as well, he added. This also made the trial troubling
Head’s article was published in a “Festschrift,” or special journal published in celebration of the 70th birthday of Feridun Yenisey, a world-renowned legal scholar from Turkey. Yenisey, who has a long association with the KU School of Law, is well-known for his expertise in criminal procedure and in Turkey’s campaign for legal reform. This made an examination of a fascinating criminal procedure case especially appropriate, Head said.

Knox and Sollecito are still in the midst of legal battles concerning the case. Their murder conviction was reinstated, and they are awaiting a final ruling, which is expected as early as next month. In the meantime, Knox lives in Seattle and is working as a writer.

Cases such as the Knox trial are a poignant example of the value of comparative law and even more so the value of cross-cultural understanding.

“I think we simply miss a lot because we don’t pay close enough attention to the underlying cultural differences between legal systems and especially nations,” Head said. “Unfortunately, our response is often inadequate because of that....”
Click to expand...
 
The Mayor of Perugia actually

carbonjam72 said:
Amanda writes in 'Waiting to be heard' that there was no cartwheel performed by her. Just a split, and performed at the seemingly leering suggestion of an older male policeman.

The police who say she did a cartwheel are of divided opinion. One, I think Ficarra, claimed she also did a back walkover or a back handspring?

So, assuming you believe there is something called the truth, exactly which version do you believe is actually true?

Amanda, who has never lied, and has a reputation for honesty from people who actually know her?

Or the Italian police, who have been caught repeatedly in lies throughout this and other cases, so much so that it is difficult to believe anything they say.

I already know your response, although I don't know how you will get there, much like Mr Pink's assessment of Nencini's motivation report, you will meander to your pre-set destination whilst driving your own little Yugo through your own little Cartwheel land.
Click to expand...


Wow. :):)
It appears I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity. Yet again :blush:

The point being that the original thread was not listed in Agatha’s info box.
It’s not a big deal but you must be aware of my principled approach to Historical Revisionism - even at the cost of disagreeing with the mods.

ps Did it ever occur to you that maybe I’m the ‘Mayor of Perugia’ and Mach is just running interference?

ETA Double Wow
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
Another fundamental difference is that in European systems, the societal expectation if someone is found guilty is to decide what the criminal justice system can do to mend the tear in the fabric of society and reintegrate the person back into that society. That concept is all but forgotten in America, Head said. Those differences failed to translate to an understandable reality for most American critics, he added.
Click to expand...

Few Americans who argue for Amanda's innocence are against that and many (at least I) despair of the idea of "lock them up and throw away the key."
 
Desert Fox said:
The funny thing is that the ECHR seems to make sense to Americans and in fact I wish some of their ideas (such as confessions without a defense lawyer present inadmissible) would be adopted in the US.
Click to expand...

There are the Miranda rights or warning. Of course, the question can come up of whether this warning was effectively given and understood.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
.
.
.
I am not sure that she deliberately destroyed the bra hook (indeed i am not sure she did, I suspect DNA would still have been recoverable is anyone had wanted).
.
.
.
Click to expand...


Does it matter whether the bra hook was destroyed on purpose or by incompetence?
 
On Miranda Warnings

one problem we have is it that to people (Laymen, judges, and lawyers), it is just unthinkable that somebody might confess to a crime that they did not commit. Evidence though indicates that this is not the case. Most people, if pushed hard enough, will confess to crimes which they did not do.

Miranda warnings do not seem to protect against this. I don't know if people don't really think about the warnings or not.

A second problem is that even if one does not confess, it is almost impossible to be consistent with a story. Our memories are too prone to bias for this.

Having a defense lawyer present is one of the ways which one might be partially protected in such sitautions
 
Numbers said:
There are the Miranda rights or warning. Of course, the question can come up of whether this warning was effectively given and understood.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
Click to expand...


In the UK, it's customary to give the caution statement at the same time as the announce of the arrest: "I am arresting you on suspicion of XYZ. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in court at a later date. You have the right to a lawyer".

It's very rare - i.e. only in exceptional circumstances - that the caution is not given at the point of arrest. It's also then repeated before each interview. And someone can also be interviewed under caution without being arrested, meaning that if they do say something incriminating it can also be used in court. If the police interview someone not under caution and they incriminate themselves, then such incrimination is almost always unusable in court: what normally would happen is that the person is immediately arrested, cautioned, and asked if they want to repeat the testimony under caution.

And of course that's what makes Knox's treatment all the more unlawful and wrong. After all, even if the police had truly had no suspicions of her at the time she first made the "confession/accusation" (of course we know they certainly DID have suspicions, but let's for a moment pretend they did not), and if Knox truly had "blurted out" her accusations against Lumumba and herself out of a clear blue sky (again, she clearly did not, but let's pretend), then the correct action would have been to stop, arrest Knox, caution her, give her access to a lawyer, and ask her if she wanted to repeat what she'd said to them.

In the civilised world, that's the protection that private individuals have come to expect and deserve from the state. There are many and various reasons why it's a Very Good Idea, and there are similarly many reasons why its omission/distortion can often result in unjust outcomes. Indeed, that's exactly why such laws related to mandatory cautions and safeguards for suspects exist in the first place......
 
Desert Fox said:
one problem we have is it that to people (Laymen, judges, and lawyers), it is just unthinkable that somebody might confess to a crime that they did not commit. Evidence though indicates that this is not the case. Most people, if pushed hard enough, will confess to crimes which they did not do.

Miranda warnings do not seem to protect against this. I don't know if people don't really think about the warnings or not.

A second problem is that even if one does not confess, it is almost impossible to be consistent with a story. Our memories are too prone to bias for this.

Having a defense lawyer present is one of the ways which one might be partially protected in such sitautions
Click to expand...



Indeed. IIRC, pretty much every known false confession on record was made outside the presence of a lawyer. And, ironically, it's not a stretch to suggest that the individuals in question felt they had no need to have a lawyer present, since they had done nothing wrong! Then, by the time they had been bamboozled and coerced by police interrogation techniques, they would probably have felt unable to suddenly request a lawyer - either because they felt that to do so would automatically indicate guilt, or because they thought that they had given up the chance to get a lawyer by not getting one from the start (the police are not obliged, after all, to keep repeating throughout an interrogation, that the suspect is still entitled to a lawyer at any time).
 
LondonJohn said:
Indeed. IIRC, pretty much every known false confession on record was made outside the presence of a lawyer. And, ironically, it's not a stretch to suggest that the individuals in question felt they had no need to have a lawyer present, since they had done nothing wrong! Then, by the time they had been bamboozled and coerced by police interrogation techniques, they would probably have felt unable to suddenly request a lawyer - either because they felt that to do so would automatically indicate guilt, or because they thought that they had given up the chance to get a lawyer by not getting one from the start (the police are not obliged, after all, to keep repeating throughout an interrogation, that the suspect is still entitled to a lawyer at any time).
Click to expand...

I have seen several cases where they continue interrogating a suspect after the suspect either says that they want a lawyer and/or say that they do not want to talk. In such cases, the confessions get thrown out. That is why as well that all police questioning needs to be recorded. Recorders are getting so small that there is no excuse anymore. Actually that was already the case in 2007.
 
Kauffer said:
Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?
Click to expand...

JREF2010 said:
I wonder if the Judges are asking this now, as they review the case files.
Click to expand...

Probably not. As Machiavelli reminds us, in Italy people giving evidence are not on trial. Especially police, they are simply giving the facts and no one has the right to ask how they came to the conclusions they did.
 
when silence is not golden

LondonJohn or anglolawyer,

Would one of you clarify one thing for me? In Britain can the police ever say that if you are silent, that your silence can be used against you in some sense? I seem to recall this from some conversation or another.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
LondonJohn or anglolawyer,

Would one of you clarify one thing for me? In Britain can the police ever say that if you are silent, that your silence can be used against you in some sense? I seem to recall this from some conversation or another.
Click to expand...

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/california-v-richard-tom/

I don't know about the reputation of this website, but....

The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a suspect’s silence can be used as evidence of guilt during trial.

The 4-3 decision reversed an appellate court’s ruling and reinstated a man’s felony conviction for a 2007 vehicular manslaughter case. That case involved a motorist named Richard Tom, who broadsided another vehicle while speeding in Redwood City.

Following the collision, Mr. Tom chose to remain silent when confronted by police. While “the right to remain silent” is traced back to the Fifth Amendment and has received longstanding legal acceptance, courts have recently moved to curtail that right by claiming that a suspect must verbally invoke a condition of silence for the legal protection to apply, prior to the reading of the Miranda warning.​
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom