Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:24 pm

None of this is new but I just wanted to have it all in one place on the forum for easy access in case anyone is interested. One of these things was enough to cancel the trial and for her to loose her job. All 5 and she should have been investigated and charged and every case she ever worked on re-examined and the people she helped convict given new trials.

The 5 lies and omissions of lab technician Patrizia Stefanoni.

1. Brady Violation: Stefanoni withheld the negative TMB results on the luminol prints and blobs. She never testified she did the tests or recorded them in her RTIGF Report.

PDF pages 223-229, original 218-224 http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Polizia-Scientifica-RTIGF-Report.pdf

2. Perjury: Stefanoni testified the Kercher DNA on the knife was in the order of a few hundred picograms.

Oct 4, 2008 - page 178 http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Patrizia-Stefanoni-Testimony-October-4-2008.pdf

Question – But in your opinion was it in the order of a few nanograms or almost [at the level of] picograms?
Answer –Yes, it was in the order of a few hundred picograms, yes, for the total quantity.


3. Perjury: Stefanoni says the knife sample was quantified with Real Time PCR

It wasn't. She used the Qubit Fluorometer and it failed to register

Oct 4, 2008 - page 178 http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Patrizia-Stefanoni-Testimony-October-4-2008.pdf

Question: After which you passed to the quantification phase?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Quantification which you did with Real Time, I imagine?
Answer: Indeed yes


4. Stefanoni falsified her RTIGF Report #1

page 77 records samples B as being assessed with Real Time PCR. It wasn't.

Image

5. Stefanoni falsified her RTIGF Report #2

Her labwork shows the opposite of what she claims.

RTIGF page 78 original (81 PDF) – “the samples testing positive to quantification (samples A and B) were subjected to amplification and subsequent capillary electrophoresis…”.

Image
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:42 pm

6. Evidence Destruction: The bra clasp was destroyed making re-testing impossible.

Image
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby sept79 » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:29 pm

Maybe #7 is her failure to deliver the EDFs to the defense ?
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:07 pm

Image
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:12 pm

Image
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:19 pm

Above are two posts with a timeline table (in two parts) summarizing some of the issues with the DNA testing and showing some of the major contemporaneous case events.

The contamination and malfunction issues are highlighted by color bands in the table. A symptom of the malfunction was the high intercept values (I'cpt) shown in bold; these high values would have the effect of giving a falsely high DNA quantity reading in a sample. The contamination levels are similar in amount to the LCN level of DNA allegedly observed on the kitchen knife blade.

Note that malfunctions in DNA quantification "conveniently" occur immediately before the critical tests on the knife and the bra clasp.

Why would any reasonable person accept DNA profile results from a lab that experienced contamination, but the lab tech running the lab, "Doctor" Stefanoni, denied in court testimony that anyone had ever mentioned there was contamination in her lab.

Furthermore, she tested LCN-level DNA samples without having a lab suitable for LCN testing and without using a validated LCN-level DNA profile method. It's a strict requirement in responsible forensic labs to validate methods before using them for a case. And neither her DNA collection methods nor her LCN test methods met internationally accepted standards.

Her lab also experienced strange malfunctions of equipment during quantification, which would tend to make the DNA quantities reported seem falsely larger than they really were. Then she switched to a Qubit device to quantify the DNA, and arbitrarily (or fraudulently) tested a "too low" (meaning - possibly no DNA present in the sample) DNA sample to obtain, allegedly, Meredith Kercher's DNA profile on the blade of a randomly chosen food knife from the drawer of Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen. A knife that did not fit the wounds on Ms. Kercher's body and had no blood on it, but did have starch grains left on the blade from preparing food.

For the bra clasp, Stefanoni misreported the number of males whose DNA were allegedly detected on the clasp. There were as many as three additional male DNA profiles detected besides the one which belonged to a group of Italian men including Raffaele Sollecito.

And Stefanoni did not provide the defense with the Electronic Data Files from her DNA profiling, which would be the best evidence of the results, and show, for example, any DNA contamination that might otherwise be minimized by the manipulation of the paper e-grams.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:38 pm

The Seventeen Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice in Stefanoni's lab, treatment of evidence, and in her court testimony. These are violations of Convention Article 6 by Italy: failure to provide facilities to defense, and failure to provide equality of arms.

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni's failed - indeed, refused - to turn over a copy of the EDFs to the defense;
2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory finding;
3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp;
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;
9. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (based on test numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results;
10. 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.
11. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;
12. 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;
13. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;
14. 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;
15. 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;
16. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) to the defense, such records are ordinarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;
17. 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).
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:23 pm

Here's an expanded list of the Sins of Stefanoni. Thanks to TomZ for contributions to the additional material.

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.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:08 am

The failure to disclose the background and qualifications of the people running and supervising the tests and writing the reports is no different from the failure to disclose the methodology of the testing or the system, if any, of quality control/assurance and contamination recording/response. The police DNA lab in US terms is not compliant with standards and its results can be challenged on that basis.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:19 am

Quick question: Can Amanda and Raffaele (and their lawyers) sue her for this? And was losing her job the only consequence?
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:25 am

Niteangel wrote:Quick question: Can Amanda and Raffaele (and their lawyers) sue her for this? And was losing her job the only consequence?

Is there what amounts to prosecutorial immunity in Italy?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby roteoctober » Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:06 am

Prosecutors can only be charged if they deliberately falsify something of relevance ("dolo grave").
Stefanoni was not and is not a prosecutor, but Hellmann's surrender to her refusal to deliver the EDF may tell you something.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:08 pm

roteoctober wrote:Prosecutors can only be charged if they deliberately falsify something of relevance ("dolo grave").
Stefanoni was not and is not a prosecutor, but Hellmann's surrender to her refusal to deliver the EDF may tell you something.

Could Hellmann have been charged with defamation? Remember Stefanoni's letter to Micheli?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby roteoctober » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:02 am

No, I don't understand what you are talking about. However I don't see how a request for EDF files in the context of a trial could have been considered defamation.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:17 am

roteoctober wrote:Prosecutors can only be charged if they deliberately falsify something of relevance ("dolo grave").
Stefanoni was not and is not a prosecutor, but Hellmann's surrender to her refusal to deliver the EDF may tell you something.


Thank you for the replies Bill and roteoctober.

Sorry I didn't understand the beginning of your sentence, you say "Stefanoni was not" ... she was not what? And then you add "and is not a prosecutor" (that part is obvious, she is not a prosecutor). Are you saying that only prosecutors can be charged? And isn't there strong suspicions that she did indeed "falsify something of relevance"? And shouldn't this be illegal? Sorry I'm a little confused lol

Also about your last comment, I think it has to do with the reply from Stefanoni, she does make it seem as if asking for (or rather forcing her to provide it) this data would be the equivalent of accusing of having falsified documents. (I can't find this reply on amandaknoxcase.com, it was her 2nd or 3rd refusal to provide the data/document, and it was somewhere on murderofmeredithkercher)
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:54 am

I found the reply I was referring to, it was actually in her reply to Micheli. Here is a paragraph from her letter to Micheli:

No other information, especially of a computerized nature, such as the log files requested by Professor V. Pascali, is necessary, to a genetic scientist, for the interpretation of analytical data, unless one hypothesizes falsification of the data presented.

I guess it might have been her way to threaten them with defamation. And instead of forcing her to provide this data, they both backed off.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby roteoctober » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:34 am

Ok, maybe in English it sounds redundant, but what I meant is that substantial immunity (except for cases of "dolo o colpa grave", that is deliberate falsification of something important) applies only to prosecutors and Stefanoni isn't a prosecutor, hence she has no formal immunity.

What she wrote to Micheli can be considered as a warning that she would have considered such requests as defamation etc. but it does not mean that a judge would have considered them defamation.

The real point is that judges prefer not to clash head-on with police and while Hellmann could have formally ordered Stefanoni do surrender the EDF to Conti and Vecchiotti through an Ordinanza (a Court Order), he most probably preferred not to increase the confrontation with the Scientific Police as an institution.

The Conti-Vecchiotti report caused a rift between the Scientific Police as an insttution and the Court presided by Hellmann. Hellmann just did not want to push further that rift.

We have heard from his own words how he was treated after the 2011 acquittal ... and that even without forcing the delivery of the EDF files.

What is sure is that there is too much fear of questioning the police and the prosecution in Italy.

And with some reason.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:50 am

roteoctober wrote:No, I don't understand what you are talking about. However I don't see how a request for EDF files in the context of a trial could have been considered defamation.

Did not the letter to Micheli's court insinuate that the reason why Stefanoni did not want to release the EDF's, was that this was tantamount to accusing her of misconduct? Did not the court agree by, in effect, saying "charge her with a crime, or quit asking"??

Even though he is A.W.O.L. these days, this was essentially Machiavelli's argument on JREF/ISF. He said it was no good to simply complain that Stefanoni had not released the EDFs, he said that if someone felt that strongly, they should be testing that in court, only in terms of a lawsuit against her.

The universal response Machiavelli got was: look, it is mandatary to release them as part of full disclosure.

He'd reply with: well, why then did not court force her to do it? (The Hellmann court directed her to do it, but refuse to issue sanctions when she still refused, IIRC.)

The whole background drama about the EDF's is tantamount to "proof" that something corrupt was going on behind the scenes.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby roteoctober » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:26 pm

I don't remember if Micheli really said "charge her with a crime or quit asking" or words to that effect, but that's entirely possible, I simply don't remember.

If people are thin-skinned and look at everyone questioning their job as someone slandering them, sincerely that's more a matter of personality than of law.

And it is absolutely absurd that to obtain data necessary to verify the correctness of a scientific procedure one has to start a lawsuit.

On the other hand it is possible that such tactics may be employed to deter, hoping that no one will dare to go that far.

Essentially a bluff.

However if that really was such a tactic it may have backfired, because it may even have led others, and ultimately even the SC judges who acquitted Knox and Sollecito, to surmise that there could have been something not perfectly "clear" in those files, and, worse yet, that they could have been at the center of the debate in the context of a heated extradition fight.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:19 pm

roteoctober wrote:I don't remember if Micheli really said "charge her with a crime or quit asking" or words to that effect, but that's entirely possible, I simply don't remember.

If people are thin-skinned and look at everyone questioning their job as someone slandering them, sincerely that's more a matter of personality than of law.

And it is absolutely absurd that to obtain data necessary to verify the correctness of a scientific procedure one has to start a lawsuit.

On the other hand it is possible that such tactics may be employed to deter, hoping that no one will dare to go that far.

Essentially a bluff.

However if that really was such a tactic it may have backfired, because it may even have led others, and ultimately even the SC judges who acquitted Knox and Sollecito, to surmise that there could have been something not perfectly "clear" in those files, and, worse yet, that they could have been at the center of the debate in the context of a heated extradition fight.

I really do not know the answer to what Micheli really said. Yet, it is a fair inference. Stefanoni wrote to the judge complaining about the request for full disclosure.... "What do they think I am, a criminal or something?" Micheli's action spoke more volumes than any words. It was becoming increasingly fruitless for the defence to...... well, ask for the tools to mount a defence - in this case the EDFs.

It may be a matter of personality for Stefanoni - being thin-skinned - but for the court (the judge) full disclosure is at stake, not someone's feelings. Micheli is not a priest, but a judge, for pete's sake!

And, yes, once the Section 5 of ISC put two and two together - it was clear that convicting AK and RS on, essentially, no evidence (or exceedingly tainted evidence) threatened to blow the lid off of a few reputations in Italy.

It's bad enough for those reputations in finding AK and RS innocent.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:51 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
roteoctober wrote:I don't remember if Micheli really said "charge her with a crime or quit asking" or words to that effect, but that's entirely possible, I simply don't remember.

If people are thin-skinned and look at everyone questioning their job as someone slandering them, sincerely that's more a matter of personality than of law.

And it is absolutely absurd that to obtain data necessary to verify the correctness of a scientific procedure one has to start a lawsuit.

On the other hand it is possible that such tactics may be employed to deter, hoping that no one will dare to go that far.

Essentially a bluff.

However if that really was such a tactic it may have backfired, because it may even have led others, and ultimately even the SC judges who acquitted Knox and Sollecito, to surmise that there could have been something not perfectly "clear" in those files, and, worse yet, that they could have been at the center of the debate in the context of a heated extradition fight.

I really do not know the answer to what Micheli really said. Yet, it is a fair inference. Stefanoni wrote to the judge complaining about the request for full disclosure.... "What do they think I am, a criminal or something?" Micheli's action spoke more volumes than any words. It was becoming increasingly fruitless for the defence to...... well, ask for the tools to mount a defence - in this case the EDFs.

It may be a matter of personality for Stefanoni - being thin-skinned - but for the court (the judge) full disclosure is at stake, not someone's feelings. Micheli is not a priest, but a judge, for pete's sake!

And, yes, once the Section 5 of ISC put two and two together - it was clear that convicting AK and RS on, essentially, no evidence (or exceedingly tainted evidence) threatened to blow the lid off of a few reputations in Italy.

It's bad enough for those reputations in finding AK and RS innocent.


Thanks roteoctober, now it makes sense, i.e. substantial immunity to prosecutors, but not experts, etc.

About the request for full disclosure and her refusal, as absurd as it may have been, it is still exactly what happened. She refused, and they backed off. And I am convinced that they probably wouldn't have found any irregularities in the tests from the first DNA collection, while they would have found many in the tests for the bra clasp and knife. Too bad the Judges decided to let it go, just like they decided not to test the stain on the pillow that was under Meredith's body.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:10 pm

IMO, the stain was tested but not introduced into the case files! Would any investigator or forensic expert be so stupid not to test such obvious evidence? The only open question is, why was the result not introduced in the case files?
And if against all reason the stain was not tested, who gave the order not to test test it and why? What would he expect the stain would reveal or not reveal? This was certainly not a decision by Stefanoni!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:15 pm

pmop57 wrote:IMO, the stain was tested but not introduced into the case files! Would any investigator or forensic expert be so stupid not to test such obvious evidence? The only open question is, why was the result not introduced in the case files?
And if against all reason the stain was not tested, who gave the order not to test test it and why? What would he expect the stain would reveal or not reveal? This was certainly not a decision by Stefanoni!

What's worse than the question of whether or not is was tested....

..... are the excuses judges like Massei and Nencini gave for letting it happen on their watch. Massei, especially, should have chastised Stefanoni on that alone - not testing the presumed semen stain. Instead, Massei invented, out of thin air, a rationale for not needing to test it.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:16 pm

pmop57 wrote:IMO, the stain was tested but not introduced into the case files! Would any investigator or forensic expert be so stupid not to test such obvious evidence? The only open question is, why was the result not introduced in the case files?
And if against all reason the stain was not tested, who gave the order not to test test it and why? What would he expect the stain would reveal or not reveal? This was certainly not a decision by Stefanoni!


This is very possible. The 2nd option is also possible tho, because if it was Guede's I don't see any reason to conceal the result (unless maybe to cast doubt about Raffaele), if it was Giacomo's I don't see any reason to conceal this either (except again to cast doubt about Raffaele's participation in the murder and sexual assault), and if it was Raffaele's obviously they wouldn't have concealed the result.

The reasons they gave for refusing to test the stain are also pretty ridiculous. They mentioned the possibility that it was Giacomo's, and they didn't want to incriminate an innocent man (or something like that). But then why would it have been on a pillow that was under Meredith's body, even if one assumed the pillow had been placed there afterwards? (I don't believe that for one minute tho, it is certainly Guede who placed it there), I mean the person who would have placed it there afterwards to incriminate someone else would also have had to know that it was indeed sperm to begin with, and then placed the pillow "strategically" (since the stain was right between Meredith's legs). And they also mentioned that since DNA cannot be dated, it would be impossible to determine when the sperm/stain got there, which is also pretty ridiculous, considering they certainly didn't care about that when they pretended that Amanda's DNA in the bathroom was incriminating, and if it is Guede's DNA its pretty obvious it was left there the day of the murder, either way you'd still want to know who's it was, and it is definitely strange not to test a stain thought to be sperm on a sexual assault and murder crime scene..
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby LondonSupporter » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:09 pm

It was smudged by Guede's shoe print so was certainly wet when he stepped on it. Therefore it could not have been Giacomo's. it was connected to the crime and was evidence left by someone who was in the room at the time.
"Life lived somehow for love is life never wasted." - Amanda Knox
User avatar
LondonSupporter
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:31 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:55 pm

LondonSupporter wrote:It was smudged by Guede's shoe print so was certainly wet when he stepped on it. Therefore it could not have been Giacomo's. it was connected to the crime and was evidence left by someone who was in the room at the time.


As I said I am very convinced that Guede did put this pillow under Meredith, and that if this stain is indeed sperm it is his. However, if I am not mistaken, he didn't step on it as you mentioned, you are referring to another shoe print that was discovered in a different area of the pillow, while studying the stain with the crimoscope.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:31 am

Niteangel wrote:
LondonSupporter wrote:It was smudged by Guede's shoe print so was certainly wet when he stepped on it. Therefore it could not have been Giacomo's. it was connected to the crime and was evidence left by someone who was in the room at the time.


As I said I am very convinced that Guede did put this pillow under Meredith, and that if this stain is indeed sperm it is his. However, if I am not mistaken, he didn't step on it as you mentioned, you are referring to another shoe print that was discovered in a different area of the pillow, while studying the stain with the crimoscope.


IMO the item was tested but it did not match Rudy Guede and it did not match RS just like the other male profiles on the bra-clasp and probably many other traces.

IMO they clearly operated on the premises that AK and RS had been the co-perpetrators of RG, they only focussed on biological material/traces they identified/manipulated as possibly belonging to AK and RS. The order was to suppress or obfuscate every evidence capable to contradict their pre-settings of guilt, we must prove both acted together with Rudy Guede. The entire investigation was guilt centered, guilt of AK and RS.

It cannot be contested that this was a crime including sexual violence against the victim, IMO if they did not test the supposed semen stain they definitely acted even more like criminals!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:45 am

pmop57 wrote:
Niteangel wrote:
LondonSupporter wrote:It was smudged by Guede's shoe print so was certainly wet when he stepped on it. Therefore it could not have been Giacomo's. it was connected to the crime and was evidence left by someone who was in the room at the time.


As I said I am very convinced that Guede did put this pillow under Meredith, and that if this stain is indeed sperm it is his. However, if I am not mistaken, he didn't step on it as you mentioned, you are referring to another shoe print that was discovered in a different area of the pillow, while studying the stain with the crimoscope.


IMO the item was tested but it did not match Rudy Guede and it did not match RS just like the other male profiles on the bra-clasp and probably many other traces.

IMO they clearly operated on the premises that AK and RS had been the co-perpetrators of RG, they only focussed on biological material/traces they identified/manipulated as possibly belonging to AK and RS. The order was to suppress or obfuscate every evidence capable to contradict their pre-settings of guilt, we must prove both acted together with Rudy Guede. The entire investigation was guilt centered, guilt of AK and RS.

It cannot be contested that this was a crime including sexual violence against the victim, IMO if they did not test the supposed semen stain they definitely acted even more like criminals!


{Highlighting added to quote.}

pmop,

I am surprised by your opinion that the presumed semen stain would have been found not to match Guede. Since Guede's shoe, or a match to it, smeared part of the stain, it would seem deposition of the stain was contemporaneous with the crime against Meredith by Guede. There was no other reliable indication of anyone besides Meredith and Guede in the murder room. Certainly the stain is not attributable to Raffaele or the prosecution would have used that information. It probably is not attributable to Giacomo, Meredith's boyfriend, if it is true (as I have read somewhere) that that they only had sex in the downstairs flat.

My suspicion or opinion is that the presumed semen stain was tested and found to have Guede's DNA profile. This information was suppressed because it was not needed at the fast-track trial of Guede to convict him, and would have cast doubt regarding the prosecution's false allegations against Amanda and Raffaele. Thus, information about the DNA identity of the stain was also suppressed at the trials of Amanda and Raffaele to support the false allegations against them.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby analemma » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:55 am

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Niteangel wrote:
LondonSupporter wrote:It was smudged by Guede's shoe print so was certainly wet when he stepped on it. Therefore it could not have been Giacomo's. it was connected to the crime and was evidence left by someone who was in the room at the time.


As I said I am very convinced that Guede did put this pillow under Meredith, and that if this stain is indeed sperm it is his. However, if I am not mistaken, he didn't step on it as you mentioned, you are referring to another shoe print that was discovered in a different area of the pillow, while studying the stain with the crimoscope.


IMO the item was tested but it did not match Rudy Guede and it did not match RS just like the other male profiles on the bra-clasp and probably many other traces.

IMO they clearly operated on the premises that AK and RS had been the co-perpetrators of RG, they only focussed on biological material/traces they identified/manipulated as possibly belonging to AK and RS. The order was to suppress or obfuscate every evidence capable to contradict their pre-settings of guilt, we must prove both acted together with Rudy Guede. The entire investigation was guilt centered, guilt of AK and RS.

It cannot be contested that this was a crime including sexual violence against the victim, IMO if they did not test the supposed semen stain they definitely acted even more like criminals!


{Highlighting added to quote.}

pmop,

I am surprised by your opinion that the presumed semen stain would have been found not to match Guede. Since Guede's shoe, or a match to it, smeared part of the stain, it would seem deposition of the stain was contemporaneous with the crime against Meredith by Guede. There was no other reliable indication of anyone besides Meredith and Guede in the murder room. Certainly the stain is not attributable to Raffaele or the prosecution would have used that information. It probably is not attributable to Giacomo, Meredith's boyfriend, if it is true (as I have read somewhere) that that they only had sex in the downstairs flat.

My suspicion or opinion is that the presumed semen stain was tested and found to have Guede's DNA profile. This information was suppressed because it was not needed at the fast-track trial of Guede to convict him, and would have cast doubt regarding the prosecution's false allegations against Amanda and Raffaele. Thus, information about the DNA identity of the stain was also suppressed at the trials of Amanda and Raffaele to support the false allegations against them.

pmop57,
I must agree with numbers questioning of your statement that the "semen stain would have been found not to match Guede" and his opinion that testing was suppressed because they wanted to protect Guede and convict RS and AK.
Who do you think the stain belonged to?
PS: Even though I am puzzled by your statement here, I have the greatest respect for your many contributrions and clear and insightful reasoning on many aspects of this case.
analemma
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:41 am

We know that Guede was always adapting his own version about what happened along the informations the investigation (investigators) procured/published (the strategy was always to accept what could not be denied anymore).
He had 'fixed' his final version about what had happened during his interrogation by Mignini, Napoleoni and Finzi or Profazio in presence of his lawyers in Capanne prison.
During this interrogation he admitted to sexual attouchments with the victim (in the living/kitchen area of the upper flat).
He knew that that they could/would/had found biological material of his on and in the dead body of the victim.
Wouldn't it have been reasonable (or could it not have been expected) for him and/or his lawyers to also have had knowledge about the discovery of the alleged semen stain. Why did he not introduce this item into his story about what had happened?
Why did he refrain from mentioning this stain belonging to him, why would he and/or his lawyers expect this item not to be analysed?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:29 am

pmop57 wrote:We know that Guede was always adapting his own version about what happened along the informations the investigation (investigators) procured/published (the strategy was always to accept what could not be denied anymore).
He had 'fixed' his final version about what had happened during his interrogation by Mignini, Napoleoni and Finzi or Profazio in presence of his lawyers in Capanne prison.
During this interrogation he admitted to sexual attouchments with the victim (in the living/kitchen area of the upper flat).
He knew that that they could/would/had found biological material of his on and in the dead body of the victim.
Wouldn't it have been reasonable (or could it not have been expected) for him and/or his lawyers to also have had knowledge about the discovery of the alleged semen stain. Why did he not introduce this item into his story about what had happened?
Why did he refrain from mentioning this stain belonging to him, why would he and/or his lawyers expect this item not to be analysed?


But didn't Maresca and the prosecution resist the defense's (Sollecito's) request for the stain to be analyzed, and resist on very dubious grounds? Could Guede not have realized that the presumed semen stain was detectable under special lighting? Perhaps it was not that visible under room lighting, which may have been relatively dim in the cottage. And Guede may not have been aware of forensic techniques.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:26 pm

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:We know that Guede was always adapting his own version about what happened along the informations the investigation (investigators) procured/published (the strategy was always to accept what could not be denied anymore).
He had 'fixed' his final version about what had happened during his interrogation by Mignini, Napoleoni and Finzi or Profazio in presence of his lawyers in Capanne prison.
During this interrogation he admitted to sexual attouchments with the victim (in the living/kitchen area of the upper flat).
He knew that that they could/would/had found biological material of his on and in the dead body of the victim.
Wouldn't it have been reasonable (or could it not have been expected) for him and/or his lawyers to also have had knowledge about the discovery of the alleged semen stain. Why did he not introduce this item into his story about what had happened?
Why did he refrain from mentioning this stain belonging to him, why would he and/or his lawyers expect this item not to be analysed?


But didn't Maresca and the prosecution resist the defense's (Sollecito's) request for the stain to be analyzed, and resist on very dubious grounds? Could Guede not have realized that the presumed semen stain was detectable under special lighting? Perhaps it was not that visible under room lighting, which may have been relatively dim in the cottage. And Guede may not have been aware of forensic techniques.


Definitely, the Prosecution and Maresca resisted, but not necessarily for the same reasons. Maresca's strategy, if there was one at all, was to follow the case as presented by the Prosecution. As a Civil Party lawyer he was probably mainly operating assuring the financial interests of his clients.

After all Rudy Guede should have been aware whether he left semen stains somewhere or not. He was at least aware that forensics could detec his traces on and in the body of the victim. And there had been his lawyers!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Niteangel » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:59 pm

pmop57 wrote:We know that Guede was always adapting his own version about what happened along the informations the investigation (investigators) procured/published (the strategy was always to accept what could not be denied anymore).
He had 'fixed' his final version about what had happened during his interrogation by Mignini, Napoleoni and Finzi or Profazio in presence of his lawyers in Capanne prison.
During this interrogation he admitted to sexual attouchments with the victim (in the living/kitchen area of the upper flat).
He knew that that they could/would/had found biological material of his on and in the dead body of the victim.
Wouldn't it have been reasonable (or could it not have been expected) for him and/or his lawyers to also have had knowledge about the discovery of the alleged semen stain. Why did he not introduce this item into his story about what had happened?
Why did he refrain from mentioning this stain belonging to him, why would he and/or his lawyers expect this item not to be analysed?



The answer to this is pretty simple: because it was impossible to include this item into his story, as it was found on a pillow under Meredith's body, and directly in front of her genital area, which makes it pretty obvious that it was "left" there during the assault and murder, and not during an innocent sexual encounter. He could pretend touching Meredith with her consent before the assault, but he definitely couldn't pretend that this stain was left there "innocently" and before the assault and murder.

About his lawyers "not expecting this stain to be tested": He also mentions that they didn't have intercourse because they didn't have condoms. My guess is that he assumed that because he didn't actually ejaculate in her vagina (which is what he is referring to, i.e. complete sexual intercourse), there was no evidence that he raped her, and that possibly the stain would go unnoticed (assuming he even remembered/knew that he left that stain on the pillow and not on the floor). He probably didn't even tell his lawyers about this stain (p.s. Prof Vinci's study about the stain is from May 2009, and I can't remember whether anyone else had noticed, or mentioned, this stain before him).
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:54 pm

pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:We know that Guede was always adapting his own version about what happened along the informations the investigation (investigators) procured/published (the strategy was always to accept what could not be denied anymore).
He had 'fixed' his final version about what had happened during his interrogation by Mignini, Napoleoni and Finzi or Profazio in presence of his lawyers in Capanne prison.
During this interrogation he admitted to sexual attouchments with the victim (in the living/kitchen area of the upper flat).
He knew that that they could/would/had found biological material of his on and in the dead body of the victim.
Wouldn't it have been reasonable (or could it not have been expected) for him and/or his lawyers to also have had knowledge about the discovery of the alleged semen stain. Why did he not introduce this item into his story about what had happened?
Why did he refrain from mentioning this stain belonging to him, why would he and/or his lawyers expect this item not to be analysed?


But didn't Maresca and the prosecution resist the defense's (Sollecito's) request for the stain to be analyzed, and resist on very dubious grounds? Could Guede not have realized that the presumed semen stain was detectable under special lighting? Perhaps it was not that visible under room lighting, which may have been relatively dim in the cottage. And Guede may not have been aware of forensic techniques.


Definitely, the Prosecution and Maresca resisted, but not necessarily for the same reasons. Maresca's strategy, if there was one at all, was to follow the case as presented by the Prosecution. As a Civil Party lawyer he was probably mainly operating assuring the financial interests of his clients.

After all Rudy Guede should have been aware whether he left semen stains somewhere or not. He was at least aware that forensics could detec his traces on and in the body of the victim. And there had been his lawyers!


Were Guede's lawyers "officially" told about the supposed semen stain? Was it introduced as evidence in his fast-track trial? It may be that early on, the prosecution and Guede, and perhaps even his lawyers, suppressed (or his lawyers were not informed of) any information about the stain. It would be incriminating for Guede to have left the semen stain unless one assumes the murderer for some reason moved the pillow under Meredith. And it would be a big and not credible coincidence if Guede happened to "innocently" leave a semen stain on a pillow in a location near the victim's genitals that the murderer (supposedly someone else) then positioned to (in all probability) aid in a sexual assault on Meredith.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:08 pm

I cannot remember that it was mentionned in the Micheli report. So it is not clear for me whether it was introduced at all as a request by the defence into the pre-trial proceeding. As far as I understood RS's lawyers mainly feared that the result if asking the testing of the item could be manipulated. I think they asked the first time for introduction/testing at the end of the Massai trial.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:12 pm

pmop57 wrote:I cannot remember that it was mentionned in the Micheli report. So it is not clear for me whether it was introduced at all as a request by the defence into the pre-trial proceeding. As far as I understood RS's lawyers mainly feared that the result if asking the testing of the item could be manipulated. I think they asked the first time for introduction/testing at the end of the Massai trial.


pmop,

I think if there were a mention of the purported semen stain in the Micheli report it would be memorable. And it would be significant if the DNA profile were someone other than Rudy Guede, since that could suggest an accomplice for Guede. The prosecution suppressing the testing or the identification of the DNA profile therefore suggests to me that: 1) the source was not Raffaele Sollicito and 2) the source was Guede or an unnamed accomplice. Since only Guede seems to have left any other traces related to the murder, including a partial shoe print in the purported semen stain, IMO Guede is the source of the stain. Revealing this information about Guede and the stain would have IMO essentially destroyed the credibility of the prosecution's case against Raffaele and thus the case against Amanda. And IMO the whole emphasis of the prosecution was not finding justice for Meredith but persecuting Amanda.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:22 am

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I cannot remember that it was mentionned in the Micheli report. So it is not clear for me whether it was introduced at all as a request by the defence into the pre-trial proceeding. As far as I understood RS's lawyers mainly feared that the result if asking the testing of the item could be manipulated. I think they asked the first time for introduction/testing at the end of the Massai trial.


pmop,

I think if there were a mention of the purported semen stain in the Micheli report it would be memorable. And it would be significant if the DNA profile were someone other than Rudy Guede, since that could suggest an accomplice for Guede. The prosecution suppressing the testing or the identification of the DNA profile therefore suggests to me that: 1) the source was not Raffaele Sollicito and 2) the source was Guede or an unnamed accomplice. Since only Guede seems to have left any other traces related to the murder, including a partial shoe print in the purported semen stain, IMO Guede is the source of the stain. Revealing this information about Guede and the stain would have IMO essentially destroyed the credibility of the prosecution's case against Raffaele and thus the case against Amanda. And IMO the whole emphasis of the prosecution was not finding justice for Meredith but persecuting Amanda.


I agree with you (I probably put to much force on the wording "IMO"). My central point was always that Guede acted alone because all the traces pointed to him (and only to him) and because nobody else appeared in the official documents and the forensic reports (but there have been other profiles of which the owner had not been identified).
But my reading of the case documents and the resulting distrust in whatever the investigators and the prosecution presented and produced (or did not present or produce) in this case do not respond sufficiently to cover all questions,
therefore I think there is still the possibility (even if very low) that Guede was acting with somebody else (not necessarily envolved directly in the killing).
Another point is that having looked at the downstairs documentation I don't believe that all the bloody traces found are compatible with a cat bleeding, certainly not with a cat's ear bleeding. There might have been some such traces but certainly not all.

Concerning the not testing of the stain (or not introducing the testing if done into the Court documents) is for me a blatant failure and misconduct of the responsable Prosecutor in charge of the case. It is obvious that the not testing/producing of the semen stain was an 'intentional' disadvantaging of the defendant's rights to a fair trial and a violation of the Italian law clearly stipulating that the Prosecutor in charge of a case has to investigate all evidence, whether incriminating or disculbabilising of the defendant (this being a central point). It was also a clear violation of the Eurpean Human Rights Convention stipulating that the 'equality of arms' during a judicial procedure is a fundamental right of the defendants accused of a crime.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:43 am

pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I cannot remember that it was mentionned in the Micheli report. So it is not clear for me whether it was introduced at all as a request by the defence into the pre-trial proceeding. As far as I understood RS's lawyers mainly feared that the result if asking the testing of the item could be manipulated. I think they asked the first time for introduction/testing at the end of the Massai trial.


pmop,

I think if there were a mention of the purported semen stain in the Micheli report it would be memorable. And it would be significant if the DNA profile were someone other than Rudy Guede, since that could suggest an accomplice for Guede. The prosecution suppressing the testing or the identification of the DNA profile therefore suggests to me that: 1) the source was not Raffaele Sollicito and 2) the source was Guede or an unnamed accomplice. Since only Guede seems to have left any other traces related to the murder, including a partial shoe print in the purported semen stain, IMO Guede is the source of the stain. Revealing this information about Guede and the stain would have IMO essentially destroyed the credibility of the prosecution's case against Raffaele and thus the case against Amanda. And IMO the whole emphasis of the prosecution was not finding justice for Meredith but persecuting Amanda.


I agree with you (I probably put to much force on the wording "IMO"). My central point was always that Guede acted alone because all the traces pointed to him (and only to him) and because nobody else appeared in the official documents and the forensic reports (but there have been other profiles of which the owner had not been identified).
But my reading of the case documents and the resulting distrust in whatever the investigators and the prosecution presented and produced (or did not present or produce) in this case do not respond sufficiently to cover all questions,
therefore I think there is still the possibility (even if very low) that Guede was acting with somebody else (not necessarily envolved directly in the killing).
Another point is that having looked at the downstairs documentation I don't believe that all the bloody traces found are compatible with a cat bleeding, certainly not with a cat's ear bleeding. There might have been some such traces but certainly not all.

Concerning the not testing of the stain (or not introducing the testing if done into the Court documents) is for me a blatant failure and misconduct of the responsable Prosecutor in charge of the case. It is obvious that the not testing/producing of the semen stain was an 'intentional' disadvantaging of the defendant's rights to a fair trial and a violation of the Italian law clearly stipulating that the Prosecutor in charge of a case has to investigate all evidence, whether incriminating or disculbabilising of the defendant (this being a central point). It was also a clear violation of the Eurpean Human Rights Convention stipulating that the 'equality of arms' during a judicial procedure is a fundamental right of the defendants accused of a crime.


Yes, we are in agreement about these violations of the Convention by the prosecution and the Italian courts, in particular regarding failure to disclose the relevant information about the purported semen stain on the pillow and the blood and other evidence downstairs. Some images of the downstairs bloodstains suggest that a bloody knife with a bloody handle rested on a bed. Drops of blood from a cat's ear would not have produced such approximately rectangular stains.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby MustBeQuantum » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:30 am

Sorry, I left a note at the "Anatomy" thread about the cat's blood nonsense. Even with serious injuries, cats lap up their blood almost immediately.
MustBeQuantum
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:57 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:53 am

MustBeQuantum wrote:Sorry, I left a note at the "Anatomy" thread about the cat's blood nonsense. Even with serious injuries, cats lap up their blood almost immediately.


Yes, cats are careful to not leave signs, and when injured will tend to hide in a sheltered place. And it is crazy to believe that blood drops from a cat could form lines or nearly rectangular stains. It is more probable that these stains are evidence of a bloody knife placed on a bed.

Most likely DNA profiling of these stains would show profiles of Meredith Kercher and/or Rudy Guede (since he had apparently cut his hand with the knife during the attack).
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Thor Klamet » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:23 am

I wonder if anyone would like to speculate on what prevented Stefanoni from actually putting some of Meredith's blood into the sample from the knife. That way she'd get a positive test for blood and for human residue and for DNA quantification. They she could amplify and get a clear match.

Instead she got a negative test for blood, for human residue, and for DNA quantification and then amplified a negative sample whose biological nature had not been established, got a classic contamination result and then called it "evidence."

Why didn't she simply frame Knox? I know any answer would be speculative but I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas. Was it too easy to get caught actually adding blood to a sample? Was it simply safer to make convenient mistakes and ignore science and so forth as she did? It's amazing really because here you have a group of people very committed to convicting a person they must know is innocent and yet they were not willing to frame her; instead they did absurd, transparent things that look ridiculous even to a casual observer.

Also I have an addendum to number 14 on the list:

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method which consisted of the following:
a) PCR amplification of a sample whose biological nature had not been established, and
b) PCR amplification of a sample without DNA quantification.
Thor Klamet
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:13 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby arbmahla » Wed May 06, 2015 8:30 pm

"Why didn't she simply frame Knox?"

It is the same reason that Mignini knew that Knox was telling the truth when she said Lumumba was with her at the house on the night of the murder. It is classic confirmation bias. You begin with a conclusion based on your psychological observations and then you find the evidence to support your conclusion. Stefanoni could rationalize away the evidence for Knox's innocence and focus on whatever pointed to her guilt even if it went against science. They don't even accept the possibility of DNA transfer. If you don't believe in it then what's the point of having safeguards against contamination. After all DNA can't fly. I think they wore gloves to keep their hands clean.
arbmahla
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:24 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby roteoctober » Fri May 08, 2015 5:56 am

Thor Klamet wrote:Why didn't she simply frame Knox? I know any answer would be speculative but I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas


Speaking from a purely theoretical point of view and just to address a case study, without any pretense of representing real events, one could answer with a word: timing.

The results of the tests on the knife were made public when Guede was still at large and moreover abroad.

So what would have happened if, after the official announcement of the finding of conspicuous amounts of the victim's DNA on the blade and perhaps even of her blood, making of that knife the sure murder weapon, Guede had given himself up to the German police and confessed he was the only perpetrator and also told them where he had thrown the knife he had used?

Instead, with a very feeble LCN trace and no blood there would always have been a "plausible denial" exit strategy, namely contamination ... Ironic, isn't it?

Again, this is just a theoretical answer to a theoretical question.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Fri May 08, 2015 9:36 am

Another just as theoretical hypotheses is based on the alleged statements of a retired Italian Judge saying that the activities of the Forensic Police have become reduced/limited to deliver the results expected to fit the case(s) of the Prosecution. But I could never verify if these allegatons correspond to the facts and/or any reality.

Interesting is looking at the video from the Police themselves filming the finding and collection of the famous bra-clasp miraculously producing the DNA of RS. (Ein Schelm ist wer sich Böses dabei denkt!)
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby kermit the frog » Fri May 08, 2015 3:20 pm

pmop57 wrote:Another just as theoretical hypotheses is based on the alleged statements of a retired Italian Judge saying that the activities of the Forensic Police have become reduced/limited to deliver the results expected to fit the case(s) of the Prosecution. But I could never verify if these allegatons correspond to the facts and/or any reality.

Though it wouldn't be too hard to believe that this has become common practice in several "circles"?
The recent FBI/hair analysis is not the first case but quite a good demonstration of how incompetence, confirmation bias and a collective desire to perform a successful prosecution can form a complex system of - lets say "incriminatory science" - in which many member "scientists" might think to do just their job as they have been told to.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Sat May 09, 2015 4:06 am

In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun May 10, 2015 9:52 am

pmop57 wrote:In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.


To whom would Stefanoni be obligated to show her reports and results? Legally, according to the CPP mandating that the PM was in charge of the investigation, to Mignini. But would she have been obligated to show them to anyone else, such as VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio? Or other Perugian police? The point being, how wide was the "conspiracy" of police in detail, were there some who as team members went along without knowing the full details of guilt of Rudy Guede and the innocence (or lack of evidence against) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba).
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Sun May 10, 2015 10:23 am

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.


To whom would Stefanoni be obligated to show her reports and results? Legally, according to the CPP mandating that the PM was in charge of the investigation, to Mignini. But would she have been obligated to show them to anyone else, such as VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio? Or other Perugian police? The point being, how wide was the "conspiracy" of police in detail, were there some who as team members went along without knowing the full details of guilt of Rudy Guede and the innocence (or lack of evidence against) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba).


I think all should be automatically delivered to the Prosecution and equally to the Defence lawyers (the defendants).

I do not see any other way how to assure thd respecting of the principle of 'equality of arms'.The level of information should be the same for all the parties.

The Forensic Police should be directly responsible and reliable for this to assure the transfert of all the information. I do not see an interest to transmit all the details to the Police but those they need to properly do their jobs.

The entire investigation of this case was a total desaster without a shred of credibility left into the law enforcement, from the Police officers to the Prosecutors to the Judges. All and everything finally smelled a monstrous fraud, monstrous corruption or a mixture of both but there is still no final proof for such assertions. In the interest of the Judiciary itself there should be an in the depth investigation but generally independently working administration don't show much interest in such investigations.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun May 10, 2015 10:32 am

pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.


To whom would Stefanoni be obligated to show her reports and results? Legally, according to the CPP mandating that the PM was in charge of the investigation, to Mignini. But would she have been obligated to show them to anyone else, such as VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio? Or other Perugian police? The point being, how wide was the "conspiracy" of police in detail, were there some who as team members went along without knowing the full details of guilt of Rudy Guede and the innocence (or lack of evidence against) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba).


I think all should be automatically delivered to the Prosecution and equally to the Defence lawyers (the defendants).

I do not see any other way how to assure thd respecting of the principle of 'equality of arms'.The level of information should be the same for all the parties.

The Forensic Police should be directly responsible and reliable for this to assure the transfert of all the information. I do not see an interest to transmit all the details to the Police but those they need to properly do their jobs.

The entire investigation of this case was a total desaster without a shred of credibility left into the law enforcement, from the Police officers to the Prosecutors to the Judges. All and everything finally smelled a monstrous fraud, monstrous corruption or a mixture of both but there is still no final proof for such assertions. In the interest of the Judiciary itself there should be an in the depth investigation but generally independently working administration don't show much interest in such investigations.


pmop,

You are absolutely correct in terms of the Convention and Italian law. I should have specified, to whom among the police would she be obligated under police and prosecution procedures (which for this case obviously did not follow the law).
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Sun May 10, 2015 10:42 am

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.


To whom would Stefanoni be obligated to show her reports and results? Legally, according to the CPP mandating that the PM was in charge of the investigation, to Mignini. But would she have been obligated to show them to anyone else, such as VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio? Or other Perugian police? The point being, how wide was the "conspiracy" of police in detail, were there some who as team members went along without knowing the full details of guilt of Rudy Guede and the innocence (or lack of evidence against) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba).


I think all should be automatically delivered to the Prosecution and equally to the Defence lawyers (the defendants).

I do not see any other way how to assure thd respecting of the principle of 'equality of arms'.The level of information should be the same for all the parties.

The Forensic Police should be directly responsible and reliable for this to assure the transfert of all the information. I do not see an interest to transmit all the details to the Police but those they need to properly do their jobs.

The entire investigation of this case was a total desaster without a shred of credibility left into the law enforcement, from the Police officers to the Prosecutors to the Judges. All and everything finally smelled a monstrous fraud, monstrous corruption or a mixture of both but there is still no final proof for such assertions. In the interest of the Judiciary itself there should be an in the depth investigation but generally independently working administration don't show much interest in such investigations.


pmop,

You are absolutely correct in terms of the Convention and Italian law. I should have specified, to whom among the police would she be obligated under police and prosecution procedures (which for this case obviously did not follow the law).


The Forensic report should have transmitted to Monica Napoleoni, at least everything that might point to a potential probable perpetrator. Monica Napleoni was the lead and the responsible Police officer of the investigation after Mignini. Up to Monica Napoleoni to decide with whom to share the information in her team.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun May 10, 2015 12:42 pm

pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:In cases where the publishing of all the evidence collected does not put in danger the bases of a State itself or being an immediate thread to parts or large parts of the population all the evidence should be disclosed and made inconditionally available to the Defence without any exception and without the need to be specifically named or requested.

As soon as scientifics (and even other investigators) try to hide or obfuscate parts of their work (evidence) there should immediately be red flags, proper scientific work has not to fear scrutinity, total transparency of the scientific process in an investigation should be the rule and not the exception. The judicial procedures should be fixed accordingly. Such procedures could only be beneficial for all involved parties.


To whom would Stefanoni be obligated to show her reports and results? Legally, according to the CPP mandating that the PM was in charge of the investigation, to Mignini. But would she have been obligated to show them to anyone else, such as VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio? Or other Perugian police? The point being, how wide was the "conspiracy" of police in detail, were there some who as team members went along without knowing the full details of guilt of Rudy Guede and the innocence (or lack of evidence against) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba).


I think all should be automatically delivered to the Prosecution and equally to the Defence lawyers (the defendants).

I do not see any other way how to assure thd respecting of the principle of 'equality of arms'.The level of information should be the same for all the parties.

The Forensic Police should be directly responsible and reliable for this to assure the transfert of all the information. I do not see an interest to transmit all the details to the Police but those they need to properly do their jobs.

The entire investigation of this case was a total desaster without a shred of credibility left into the law enforcement, from the Police officers to the Prosecutors to the Judges. All and everything finally smelled a monstrous fraud, monstrous corruption or a mixture of both but there is still no final proof for such assertions. In the interest of the Judiciary itself there should be an in the depth investigation but generally independently working administration don't show much interest in such investigations.


pmop,

You are absolutely correct in terms of the Convention and Italian law. I should have specified, to whom among the police would she be obligated under police and prosecution procedures (which for this case obviously did not follow the law).


The Forensic report should have transmitted to Monica Napoleoni, at least everything that might point to a potential probable perpetrator. Monica Napleoni was the lead and the responsible Police officer of the investigation after Mignini. Up to Monica Napoleoni to decide with whom to share the information in her team.


pmop,
Thanks! So Napoleoni would decide whether or not to share the forensic results with Giobbi and Profazio, or would she be obligated to provide a summary at least to Profazio, her boss?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Sun May 10, 2015 1:32 pm

Numbers
That's a question of organisation and how much the Director of the Police (Profazio) wants himself to get informed or involved in a specific case, in this case probably yes because there had been political pressure from Rome.

If you work in a coherent team I would say that Giobbi would or had to be informed.

But here it might have been different. Giobbi was not part of the Perugia team, was he really included and accepted by the locals or was he more considered as an intruder? IMO there is no certainty that Giobbi was fully included or informed, he was a foreigner in Perugia.

I still ask myself today if Giobbi was really totally convinced about what happened in Perugia? Haven't his statements not been excessively stupid?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Sun May 10, 2015 3:16 pm

pmop57 wrote:Numbers
That's a question of organisation and how much the Director of the Police (Profazio) wants himself to get informed or involved in a specific case, in this case probably yes because there had been political pressure from Rome.

If you work in a coherent team I would say that Giobbi would or had to be informed.

But here it might have been different. Giobbi was not part of the Perugia team, was he really included and accepted by the locals or was he more considered as an intruder? IMO there is no certainty that Giobbi was fully included or informed, he was a foreigner in Perugia.

I still ask myself todayif Giobbi was really totally convinced about what happened in Perugia? Haven't his statements not been excessively stupid?

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Giobbi's statements, for example, about the "behavioral" signs that triggered his suspicions, seem strange or foolish, at least to me as a non-Italian and someone who would judge on objective standards such as well-accepted forensics. I suspect that in Italy, persons in official roles who commit some misconduct try to shelter themselves from blame and prosecution by playing the role of an incompetent. One cannot be tried and imprisoned for being incompetent, and in Italy, maybe one is not even dismissed from a job for that reason. In the US, incompetents risk being fired and official misconduct can be legally punished, so those officials who do commit misconduct try to justify it by, for example, blaming the actions of the victim. Or they may follow their misconduct with additional misconduct to provide themselves cover. Some cover-up may have been done in Italy in this case. I suspect that one reason the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele continued while that against Patrick was cancelled was that the police and prosecutor wanted to avoid responsibility for the criminal action of their Nov. 5/6 interrogation. For Lumumba, they had some leverage by, for example, keeping his pub closed for six months (as a crime scene!) after he was released, but they would not have similar leverage against Amanda or Raffaele.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Numbers » Mon May 11, 2015 9:00 am

From my post on ISF.

There seems to be confusion between "official misconduct" and "framed" and also between "false evidence" or "misleading evidence" and "planted evidence".

1. Knife blade DNA
The LCN claimed associated with the knife blade was not necessarily on the knife blade, and was not necessarily planted. It could have been a contamination event of the kind that would be likely to occur in a lab that was not well-maintained with respect to freedom from contamination. In this hypothesis, many other samples would have been shown to contain low levels (LCN levels) of Meredith Kercher's DNA, had the EDFs been made available. In this hypothesis, the electropherograms shown for samples tested and made available to the defense were scaled to either not show or, in the case of the knife blade, to show this lab contamination. This would be the reason that EDFs of controls, including negative controls, were not provided.

The quantification results actually provided by Stefanoni did show DNA contamination of at least one control, but there were no profiles provided for the controls. In an honest and forthcoming forensic DNA lab, the EDFs (which show all DNA profile raw data detected) of all samples and controls would be provided. There is likely to be a reason they were not in this case. Based on sample numbering, there may have been a secret retest of the knife, with no information provided on the original results.

2. Bra clasp DNA
For the bra clasp, based on sample numbering, there may have been a secret retest, with no information provided on the original test. The DNA on the bra clasp (if any was indeed present) was destroyed by storage at room temperature of the clasp in a sealed tube containing extraction fluid. Persons with minimal training in the field of DNA technology would recognize this storage method as one leading to the degradation (break-down) of the DNA. (An analogy would be the thorough shredding of a document, separating each letter of each word of each sentence, resulting in a random collection of letters which could not be reassembled into the original text.)

One possible motivation for this destruction of the DNA on the clasp would be that the results presented in the electropherogram provided to the court and the defense did not represent what a fairly-obtained one would show. That is, suppose that the bra clasp only had Kercher's DNA on it, and that somehow the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito, and perhaps inadvertently that of several other males, was added to the sample in the lab. (This could have been a contamination event or an intentional fraud.) The lab technician responsible fo this hypothetical "mix-up" would not want a retest done, which might be incriminating to the technician and cast doubt on the validity of the (alleged) evidence as presented by the lab.

ETA: For the bra clasp, it could have been that there was a DNA contamination event before the clasp reached the lab, but the technician was not confident that a retest would support the "official" lab finding. This could be, for example, if one hook but not the other was contaminated with Sollecito's DNA, as a result of, for example, the (notoriously unprofessional and contrary to international standards) evidence collection technique.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Holmes » Mon May 11, 2015 10:06 am

Q: how do we know that Stefanoni didn’t mess with Guede’s rape samples as well?
Why do people believe her on that, but discard everything else that came out of her lab?
I’d like to know.
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby kermit the frog » Mon May 11, 2015 4:37 pm

You can never be sure even though I don't see any specific reason to believe that hypothesis? In any case it would be Guede's problem if he was wrongfully convicted of rape. I'm sure Guede's support forums will be happy to investigate all the relevant facts. :winks:
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby arbmahla » Mon May 11, 2015 5:54 pm

Holmes wrote:Q: how do we know that Stefanoni didn’t mess with Guede’s rape samples as well?
Why do people believe her on that, but discard everything else that came out of her lab?
I’d like to know.


I think that the answer to that is that Guede's lawyer doesn't want a new trial. This is because he knows the strength of the evidence against his client. When he proclaims Guede's innocence it is always in the context of a plea for clemency, not for a re-examination of the evidence. Furthermore, and this is more important, the semen stain found on the pillow between Meredith's legs was never brought up at Guede's trial. In fact it was the Knox-Sollecito lawyers that made the knowledge of the semen stain public in 2009. They wanted the stain tested but the prosecution suppressed the evidence. Obviously Guede's lawyer doesn't want the results of the test on the stain made public.
arbmahla
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:24 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Alex_K » Wed May 13, 2015 12:28 am

That palm print next to the corpse was identified as Guede's by someone else than Stefanoni. Photographs of his shoe prints in Meredith's bedroom are available for all to analyze.

Also, Guede's DNA was present in the apartment in large quantities, nowhere near LCN/low-template. Not so easy to falsify.
Alex_K
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby Holmes » Thu May 14, 2015 8:31 am

Thanks everybody.

I’m not a Rudy apologist. All the evidence, including Rudy’s own words point to him as the sole killer. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with the sexual assault DNA.
It wasn’t publicized until after Guede’s arrest. Everything else was leaked the moment they got it: toilet paper DNA, the palm print, you name it. How is that possible? Did they manage to keep such an important clue secret or was it fabricated?

Like most people Guede had a basic understanding of fingerprints and DNA evidence. He talks about it during his Skype convo with Benedetti:
I tried to help her, and if my prints are in the house, it's obvious because I touched everything, Giacomo.
And:
And so it's all crap according to me that they said they found my...sperm...male sperm. Then I, that... it's not mine because we didn't do anything.

He knows the basics. And that’s why I think the (purported) semen stain isn’t his. Because if he ejaculated he would know. He would resort to the age old explanation of all rapists: it was consensual. But he doesn’t.
He is smart enough to incorporate the juice bottle in his story, no matter how bizarre that part of his account might seem. He knows he has to explain possible prints and DNA on the bottle.
But he doesn’t do anything about the far more damning accusation of rape. Only when Mignini pressures him (March 2008 deposition) he comes up with this totally unbelievable fingering story.

I don’t buy it.
Lalli, the pathologist, didn’t buy the rape story either. Mignini kicked him off his defense team because he continued to say that there were no medical signs of rape whatsoever.
I think Stefanoni pulled another rabbit out of her dodgy hat. That doesn’t mean that Rudy is innocent. Just looking for cold hard facts here. (If anyone disagrees, please. I’d love to know where my analysis goes wrong.)
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby kermit the frog » Thu May 14, 2015 10:37 am

I'm not a case expert but I guess it was technically not possible to attribute the DNA traces to Guede prior to his arrest. Unless there is a DNA database available the investigator would need to profile a DNA sample taken from the suspect for matching a trace DNA against it.

A more interesting question seems to be why Guede denied the "male(!) sperm" was his but we can speculate a lot. If everything else points to him the easiest explanation would be that he doesn't know as much about DNA as we might assume. You wouldn't believe it but following several discussions about DNA forensics reveals that many people don't see a link between sperm and DNA forensic investigation. Don't ask me how this can be. :)

Of course you have all right to doubt this explanation since it mismatches the profile of the very well informed cautious and experienced liar. Guede was very successful in this BUT remember he always had assistance from the police and prosecution. Many traces disappeared, got actively destroyed or abnormally ignored. The missing burglar's traces for a start but in particular the denial to test (or publish) the sperm DNA profile is incomprehensible in itself but if logically linked with Guede's careless lies it fits an image. If Guede was identified as the burglar AND the rapist that is circumstantial evidence of him being the one (and only) killer. Thus both Guede AND Mignini had a common interest not to have these facts before the court.

It is obvious we are speculating, isn't it.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 14, 2015 12:31 pm

Holmes wrote:Thanks everybody.

I’m not a Rudy apologist. All the evidence, including Rudy’s own words point to him as the sole killer. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with the sexual assault DNA.
It wasn’t publicized until after Guede’s arrest. Everything else was leaked the moment they got it: toilet paper DNA, the palm print, you name it. How is that possible? Did they manage to keep such an important clue secret or was it fabricated?

Like most people Guede had a basic understanding of fingerprints and DNA evidence. He talks about it during his Skype convo with Benedetti:
I tried to help her, and if my prints are in the house, it's obvious because I touched everything, Giacomo.
And:
And so it's all crap according to me that they said they found my...sperm...male sperm. Then I, that... it's not mine because we didn't do anything.

He knows the basics. And that’s why I think the (purported) semen stain isn’t his. Because if he ejaculated he would know. He would resort to the age old explanation of all rapists: it was consensual. But he doesn’t.
He is smart enough to incorporate the juice bottle in his story, no matter how bizarre that part of his account might seem. He knows he has to explain possible prints and DNA on the bottle.
But he doesn’t do anything about the far more damning accusation of rape. Only when Mignini pressures him (March 2008 deposition) he comes up with this totally unbelievable fingering story.

I don’t buy it.
Lalli, the pathologist, didn’t buy the rape story either. Mignini kicked him off his defense team because he continued to say that there were no medical signs of rape whatsoever.
I think Stefanoni pulled another rabbit out of her dodgy hat. That doesn’t mean that Rudy is innocent. Just looking for cold hard facts here. (If anyone disagrees, please. I’d love to know where my analysis goes wrong.)


Rudy Guede has always contested having murdered and raped MK. His core defence strategy was always, "I had a date with MK, it was her who let me enter the cottage, an unknown intruder has killed MK". When the information came out that his DNA was found inside and on the body of the victim he had been adapting his version to the new facts and conceeded that he had consensual sexual attouchments with MK. It is certain that Rudy Guede always contested both, the murder and the rape. Part of his appeal against the Micheli ruling was clearly the 'denial' of having committed the crime of rape, the Appeal Court (Borsini-Bellardi) confirmed the fast-track ruling.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby arbmahla » Thu May 14, 2015 1:24 pm

pmop57-
Are you saying that Guede does want a retrial? According to Vogt, Italian senator Andrea Augello said that Guede was requesting a retrial based on the fact that he was convicted of being an accomplice to murder and since he now has no more convicted accomplices, his conviction is illogical. However Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, denied that Guede was requesting a retrial and said, “Those parliamentarians are not allowed to refer anything said by an inmate and I have asked for them to be censured. We are waiting to see the high court’s reasoning.” Vogt may not be a reliable source, but unless everything I know about the evidence against Guede is wrong, I would be very surprised if Guede actually did officially request a retrial.
arbmahla
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:24 am

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 14, 2015 1:48 pm

arbmahla wrote:pmop57-
Are you saying that Guede does want a retrial? According to Vogt, Italian senator Andrea Augello said that Guede was requesting a retrial based on the fact that he was convicted of being an accomplice to murder and since he now has no more convicted accomplices, his conviction is illogical. However Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, denied that Guede was requesting a retrial and said, “Those parliamentarians are not allowed to refer anything said by an inmate and I have asked for them to be censured. We are waiting to see the high court’s reasoning.” Vogt may not be a reliable source, but unless everything I know about the evidence against Guede is wrong, I would be very surprised if Guede actually did officially request a retrial.

I have no idea of whether Rudy Guede or his lawyers at the end want a retrial or not!

The question was why did Rudy Guede not mention the semen stain during the interrogation and why was he limiting to only concede 'sexual attouchments' although he must have known that if analysed the result would lead to him.

And if I understood correctly, how credible was Stefanoni concerning the results implying Rudy Guede.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Patrizia Stefanoni Corruption and Perjury

Postby pmop57 » Fri May 15, 2015 4:01 am

Holmes wrote:I don’t buy it.
Lalli, the pathologist, didn’t buy the rape story either. Mignini kicked him off his defense team because he continued to say that there were no medical signs of rape whatsoever.
I think Stefanoni pulled another rabbit out of her dodgy hat. That doesn’t mean that Rudy is innocent. Just looking for cold hard facts here. (If anyone disagrees, please. I’d love to know where my analysis goes wrong.)


The first point is that Rudy Guede was identified through a palm print of his at the crime scene, this identification was not performed by Stefanoni but by a Roman 'fingerprint' specialist who if my information is correct first informed Edgardo Giobbi about his findings.

Yes, Lalli stated that based on his medical expertise he could not fix that there was violent sexual penetration of the victim.
IMO Lalli was not contested by Mignini because of 'insufficient' support for 'a rape confirmation' but because Lalli was 'more or less opting' for an early time of death. A correct interpretation of what Judge Claudia Mattaini was quoting about Lalli in her motivation report should leave no doubt that Lalli opted for an early time of death (detention order of the 8 of Nov. 2007).
Stefanoni's findings of biological material of Rudy Guede inside the body of the victim WAS confirmed by Rudy Guede himself. Rudy Guede saw no other way out but to confirm these findings even if insisting the sexual attouchments had been consensual (a consequence of his alleged date he had with him). There was absolutely no evidence at all that MK ever had an arrangement with Rudy Guede the evening of the 1t of November 2007.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)


Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests