Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[wasnt_me]

Reading Mignini's take on Interrogation night and though is story is definitely incomplete, some interesting points come out.

1. He must have been sleeping somewhere in the building at police headquarters and not at home.

2. He claims that AK's questioning as a person with facts meant she didn't have to have an attorney, but that ended at 145am.

3. He claims the he was called and awakened when RS said AK wasn't at home with him the night of the murder. If I understand his story correctly, (because he does ramble, I'm sorry--he just does.) he was called into someone office or called somewhere to see how to proceed with the case.

4. according to him, he was not in the room for the questioning of either, but he says AK did not become "incriminated" until 145am. At that time, he was called again. He claims he went there to tell her that he would NOT ask her questions, but she could make a spontenious declaration. If he asked her questions, she'd be required to have an attorney. So he said he just let her talk freely.

5. He says the minutes for the first part ended at 1am. The minutes for the declaration began at 545am and lasted 30 minutes. They drew up the documents etc and so on at 8am and she was arrested about 9am.

My first question is what were they doing all those hours between 1am and 545am?

Then, he apparently went down there to the interrogation area the moment they called him to say RS had bailed on AK. So he says they'd called AK in to ask her about it. AK reports being called back there about 10:30--1045pm, right?

So I'm to believe that Mignini, who admits to even seeing RS sitting in an interrogation room, NEVER participated in ANY OF IT until, what--about 5am? Because he says he sat down to tell AK that she could make this spontenious declaration, which began at 545am. He had to take the time to tell her, so I say 5am or 530am, he comes in to talk to her.

I don't believe it. I don't believe the man who showed up on DAY ONE of this investigation was just sitting somewhere else talking to others for hours without directing that interrogation.

 

[wasnt_me]

I truly don't put much faith in the mafia guys one. For some reason though RS's defense feels they have something with Alessi. I don't believe that the defense made another request and that the current judge was simply ruling on some things he put as pending. Whether these guys have anything to say or not I doubt it

ETA I simply find it to be mind boggling so many are coming forward for the defense

With the way that justice system is, maybe it's the inmates' ways of fighting back? It is unusual for them to testify for the defense, and in droves, no less? And they're getting nothing for it, that I know of.

I don't know about the mafia story or the drug story but I believe Alessi, who says RG talked about the crime. RG seems like he's a talker. He was a prolific writer in his diary and he spent 3 hours on a skype call? I also think that he thinks he's smarter than the police (which they have thus far proved) so I'm sure he is itching to brag a little to someone. Not even brag, but somehow make it known that he got one over on the police.

If I were RG, I probably would be bursting at the seams to tell someone how stupid the police were to believe AK and RS were involved.

 

[Amster]

So....she has been in prison for 3 and 1/2 years? Only 24 and 1/2 to go!

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know when this was, but Mignini keeps saying in his interview, that AK was crying from liberation and that's why they believed she was telling the truth about PL. He also says that she SEEMED genuinely terrified of PL.

I find that interesting considering those were the first words of her so called statement.

Though he keeps claiming he wasn't there, he doesn't believe she was hit, but he names at least two people who were there with AK and he describes one as being "fatherly" to her. So when did he see that? after the declaration, when it was unnecessary to even keep talking to her? I doubt it.

It's also a little hard to believe considering AK said she couldn't even understand them half the time, given her rudementary grasp of Italian, and I do not know and cannot say how much english they spoke, but apparently not enough if she needed an interpretor. Just so happened to get one that was biased merely because she was also a police officer.

Then he says he taped and transcribed other witnesses that he interviewed in his office, but the police station doesn't have the budget to transcribe. He didn't say they didn't have the budget to record and he kind of elludes to there being a tape recording. So is there one or not?

15’14’’ Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me. page 15.

If there is a recording, what was the problem with allowing the defense to pay for a transcription?

 

[dgfred]

okay, according to the article I just posted:

Stefanoni has been putting the judge off as he has requested files of her findings. Hellmann sent her a handwritten note on April 4 ordering her to produce the files. Tomorrow the judge is expected to ask why she has ignored his requests. dragging the process out of giving over the DNA data. She has refused so far, in a letter to the judge.

Why is this? So if I'm reading this right, she refused in a letter AFTER being a no-show and after the judge sending her a formal letter on April 4th?

Why? Can't she be held in contempt or something. Why is Nova asleep and not in here when I need him? Not to mention the rest of the island gang, who seems to have gone to bed. Y'all know who you are.

:desert:

Wow it also says Mig is trying to prosecute the slander trial when he's the plantiff of it!

According to today: the re-testers have received 'MAXIMUM COOPERATION' regarding materials needed for their inquiry. Another piece of propaganda bites the dust. Where is the 'they don't have the raw data' crowd???

The first bit of propaganda to bite the dust is: If all these 'new' witnesses say someone was with RG- the 'lone-wolf' theory has gone down in flames.
Oh no... I guess the Supreme Court's ruling the RG was CO-RESPONSIBLE AND CONTRIBUTING was absolutely correct any way it is looked at now.

Another note: Since the re-testers want to see how the knife was collected from RS's... it seems they are verifying the original testing was VALID. So, no problems with Stefanoni's testing. Yep, that about does it for AK and RS IMO.

 

[dgfred]

I truly don't put much faith in the mafia guys one. For some reason though RS's defense feels they have something with Alessi. I don't believe that the defense made another request and that the current judge was simply ruling on some things he put as pending. Whether these guys have anything to say or not I doubt it

ETA I simply find it to be mind boggling so many are comming forward for the defense

Does it not look like desperation to you?

 

[wasnt_me]

Also interesting. Mignini claims that he has the utmost respect for the accused and he never, ever, ever forms personal opinions about them. he only assesses their character for the crime and that's it.

:floorlaugh:

Additionally, he makes it sound as if he had no responsibility for PL's arrest. And he insists that after the investigative findings absolved PL, he (MIG) was the one to request his release. I don't know why CNN didn't question why PL was arrested to begin with. Arrested because you had a "feeling" that Ak was telling the truth? How about call him in for questioning first? After all, that's EXACTLY what he claims happened when RS did the EXACT thing to AK.

He tells CNN that RS changed his story, so they called Ak in as a person with facts, just to clarify it. Oh, but when Ak changes her story about PL, he is outright arrested, but not called in as a person of facts to clarify anything. Why is this? Why did the police not even try to obtain an alibi or lack thereof from PL before arresting him?

 

[wasnt_me]

According to today: the re-testers have received 'MAXIMUM COOPERATION' regarding materials needed for their inquiry. Another piece of propaganda bites the dust. Where is the 'they don't have the raw data' crowd???

The first bit of propaganda to bite the dust is: If all these 'new' witnesses say someone was with RG- the 'lone-wolf' theory has gone down in flames.
Oh no... I guess the Supreme Court's ruling the RG was CO-RESPONSIBLE AND CONTRIBUTING was absolutely correct any way it is looked at now.

Another note: Since the re-testers want to see how the knife was collected from RS's... it seems they are verifying the original testing was VALID. So, no problems with Stefanoni's testing. Yep, that about does it for AK and RS IMO.

I'm sorry, you've again been misinformed by someone.

I'm not sure why you're posting this in response to me, but the files just got handed over a few days ago and the experts said they "want" max cooperation, not that they got it.

They also complained about the time it took to receive supporting documents from the state examiner, but they say they now have all the documentation they need to do their job. “We just want maximum collaboration,” said Carla Vecchiotti, a forensic specialist from La Sapienza University in Rome. “We now have everything we need.” (ETA--as opposed to all these weeks they were asking, but not getting.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...tragicomedy-of-her-appeal/?cid=hp:mainpromo5#


Additionally, we don't know WHAT the witnesses will say in court. They could turn out to be just as unreliable as the parade of memory hampered, half deaf, druggies the prosecution came up with. Think what you want about them, and note that some pro-innocent in this board are also skeptical and theorizing about it.

And the "re-testers" asking for the chain of custody for contamination does NOT mean they validated the DNA testing. They JUST GOT THE FILES a few days ago. They are asking for it in case there is yet another delay in getting it. And they must be thorough. They must check the files, and they must check the chain of custody, because it's all they have. We already know they don't have enough material to retest anything in regards to the knife. It would make NO sense to do a half-baked job when two things are being asked of them from the get-go. It would make no sense to study the test files, then decide they need the chain of custody files, but the time is too short to get them. It's best to ask for it up front.

What's funny is, I read all this that you said almost exactly off PMF. So I see where you get your news from. It's hard to have to spent a lot of time correcting misinformation, so from here on out, I'm going to refrain unless I actually feel passionate about it. If you feel that validates your arguments, then have it, hoss.

 

[dgfred]

'hoss'? :blushing:

No, they have 'received' MAXIMUM COOPERATION. Spin nor twisting will work in this instance IMO.

So, child-killers are ok... but Curatolo is not? :waitasec:

'Half-deaf'? :floorlaugh:

Yes, the testing has been verified... if there was any problem with the actual testing and results they would have said so today. Sorry about that. Hope you feel 'passionate' enough to reply. Seems now they only want to make sure through the court transcripts on the reliability of the collection process. That seems to also mean the testing and results of the evidence of AK's and Meredith's on the knife was valid.

 

[otto]

I also finally figured out and verified that the mixed blood (and not mixed DNA) proposed by Mignini was actually rejected by Massei. So in this case, Mignini seems clueless.

"It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own *room+ leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1)."

Motivation Report: pg 380

 

[wasnt_me]

At the end of the brief court session, the lawyers started arguing about summer calendar dates, giving excuses like weddings and planned vacations for why certain days wouldn’t work. As if to bring everyone back to the issue at hand, Knox then spoke, her voice quavering with emotion. “I have been in prison for three-and-a-half years as an innocent person,” she said, tears streaming down her face. “I am very frustrated and mentally exhausted.”

She was no doubt referring to the debacle unfolding around her.
Geez, if this was going on in the courtroom, I can imagine her frustration. Was RS not there today? I don't recall hearing anything about him--or the two no-show investigators from the last hearing.

The author also says one more very true thing:

The original criminal trial was a confusing process that seemed at times unfocused. But the appellate trial, so far just six sessions, looks like it will be even more convoluted. “There is nothing more important that finding the truth,” a tearful Knox told the court today. But it seems that in Perugia, there's nothing quite as difficult, either.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...tragicomedy-of-her-appeal/?cid=hp:mainpromo5#

 

[SkewedView]

'hoss'? :blushing:

No, they have 'received' MAXIMUM COOPERATION. Spin nor twisting will work in this instance IMO.

So, child-killers are ok... but Curatolo is not? :waitasec:

'Half-deaf'? :floorlaugh:

Yes, the testing has been verified... if there was any problem with the actual testing and results they would have said so today. Sorry about that. Hope you feel 'passionate' enough to reply. Seems now they only want to make sure through the court transcripts on the reliability of the collection process. That seems to also mean the testing and results of the evidence of AK's and Meredith's on the knife was valid.

Umm, no, they wouldn't have said a thing about their opinions one way or another w/r to the testing/validity, because they are still in the midst of their investigation - these are actual scientists, with training in the ethics of the scientific method - they will not present any conclusions until they are satisfied that they have explored all avenues of investigation. And we officially know that until the last minute, they didn't receive complete cooperation, else the Judge wouldn't have been forced to send multiple compulsory notes to Stephanini. Spinning and twisting the scientist's recent words just won't work in this instance.

And yes, the 'scream lady' is half deaf, by the words of one of her relatives.

As for your comment with regards to the child-killer, read through the recent comments again, and you'll find a near universal doubt as to the value and legitimacy of said witness, so I really don't get where that comment comes from...

EDIT: Sorry, I just noticed further back that someone does believe the dude's testimony might be legit...so you must have been responding to that. The lack of quotes threw me off. Disregard my last paragraph.

 

[SkewedView]

"It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own *room+ leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1)."

Motivation Report: pg 380

I hope you are aware that what you have quoted betrays the utter ignorance of the Judge with regards to the science of forensics. This isn't too surprising, as he took Stephanini at her word, even though she blatantly lied about the properties of Luminol. Luminol will not indicate whether it is being triggered by is blood or something else, thus why there is a test to confirm that it was indeed triggered by blood. Those tests are very sensitive, more so than Luminol. Thus any biological traces found were not blood based, which wouldn't be a problem if AK & MK didn't live there, but since both did...

I've had my wife's biotech professor, a woman with a PHD in this field who has worked with this stuff for years, take a look at this case, and she's utterly horrified by the crank science that the Motivation Report takes as gospel. Quoting from it like it's the bible just doesn't work too well for me, sorry.

 

[otto]

I hope you are aware that what you have quoted betrays the utter ignorance of the Judge with regards to the science of forensics. This isn't too surprising, as he took Stephanini at her word, even though she blatantly lied about the properties of Luminol. Luminol will not indicate whether it is being triggered by is blood or something else, thus why there is a test to confirm that it was indeed triggered by blood. Those tests are very sensitive, more so than Luminol. Thus any biological traces found were not blood based, which wouldn't be a problem if AK & MK didn't live there, but since both did...

I've had my wife's biotech professor, a woman with a PHD in this field who has worked with this stuff for years, take a look at this case, and she's utterly horrified by the crank science that the Motivation Report takes as gospel. Quoting from it like it's the bible just doesn't work too well for me, sorry.

My understanding is that there were two types of tests done, one standard test and one more sensitive for blood. The conclusion was that some of the barefoot prints were made with a haematic substance, but some prints were to faint to confirm the presence of blood.

Still, what the report says is that Amanda walked in Meredith's blood and then left invisible barefoot prints in the hallway and in Filomina's bedroom. There is mixed evidence of this blood and Amanda's DNA in Filomina's bedroom.

There are all sorts of experts popping out of the woodwork claiming that the evidence presented during the 11 months trial is no good, but the problem is that none of the vocal people speak Italian or attended the trial. The 427 page report is a summary of the jury conclusions, not a detailed explanation of the evidence or a transcript of trial evidence.

 

[SkewedView]

My understanding is that there were two types of tests done, one standard test and one more sensitive for blood. The conclusion was that some of the barefoot prints were made with a haematic substance, but some prints were to faint to confirm the presence of blood.

Still, what the report says is that Amanda walked in Meredith's blood and then left invisible barefoot prints in the hallway and in Filomina's bedroom. There is mixed evidence of this blood and Amanda's DNA in Filomina's bedroom.

There are all sorts of experts popping out of the woodwork claiming that the evidence presented during the 11 months trial is no good, but the problem is that none of the vocal people speak Italian or attended the trial. The 427 page report is a summary of the jury conclusions, not a detailed explanation of the evidence or a transcript of trial evidence.

No, the report is an explanation of the how the Judge arrived at the verdict, and his view of the evidence. His very explanations reveal a severe lack of understanding of forensic science. It is very, very common to get Luminol hits that aren't viable. In any investigation being run by a competent, unbiased tech would never have stated that there was 'undetectable blood' there. Such an assertion flies in the face of Scientific Method, and the ethics of forensic investigation. That the Judge felt that the Defense should provide definitive proof that there were other triggering substances in the household in order to 'prove that it wasn't blood', also betrays that he is of the old school, Inquisitorial mindset (which is obvious throughout his report), and had the approach of looking for guilt, as opposed to weighing evidence in an unbiased manner. None of these traits is uncommon in modern Italian Judges, and is one of the reasons that the Appeals Process is so important in the Italian System.

I'm sorry, but any professional in the forensic field can take on look at that report and walk away knowing with certainty that an expert witness for the prosecution could have told the Judge she could change lead to gold, and he would have bought it. The Judge's lack of understanding of basic Forensic and Investigatory principals, along with his blatant, offhanded disregard for every argument presented by the defense is simply shameful.

But please, do quote from that report as often as you wish, if you respect the Judges opinions above all others - my opinion of it is just that in the end, an opinion.

 

[otto]

No, the report is an explanation of the how the Judge arrived at the verdict, and his view of the evidence. His very explanations reveal a severe lack of understanding of forensic science. It is very, very common to get Luminol hits that aren't viable. In any investigation being run by a competent, unbiased tech would never have stated that there was 'undetectable blood' there. Such an assertion flies in the face of Scientific Method, and the ethics of forensic investigation. That the Judge felt that the Defense should provide definitive proof that there were other triggering substances in the household in order to 'prove that it wasn't blood', also betrays that he is of the old school, Inquisitorial mindset (which is obvious throughout his report), and had the approach of looking for guilt, as opposed to weighing evidence in an unbiased manner. None of these traits is uncommon in modern Italian Judges, and is one of the reasons that the Appeals Process is so important in the Italian System.

I'm sorry, but any professional in the forensic field can take on look at that report and walk away knowing with certainty that an expert witness for the prosecution could have told the Judge she could change lead to gold, and he would have bought it. The Judge's lack of understanding of basic Forensic and Investigatory principals, along with his blatant, offhanded disregard for every argument presented by the defense is simply shameful.

But please, do quote from that report as often as you wish, if you respect the Judges opinions above all others - my opinion of it is just that in the end, an opinion.

If you completely discredit the report, on what are you basing your opinion that the forensic analysis was faulty?

 

[sherlockh]

I hope you are aware that what you have quoted betrays the utter ignorance of the Judge with regards to the science of forensics. This isn't too surprising, as he took Stephanini at her word, even though she blatantly lied about the properties of Luminol. Luminol will not indicate whether it is being triggered by is blood or something else, thus why there is a test to confirm that it was indeed triggered by blood. Those tests are very sensitive, more so than Luminol. Thus any biological traces found were not blood based, which wouldn't be a problem if AK & MK didn't live there, but since both did...

I've had my wife's biotech professor, a woman with a PHD in this field who has worked with this stuff for years, take a look at this case, and she's utterly horrified by the crank science that the Motivation Report takes as gospel. Quoting from it like it's the bible just doesn't work too well for me, sorry.

With all due respect to your wife, but the blood tests are less sensitive than the luminol one and it is possible to get an indication if it is blood from the luminol glow itself. Besides that, one print had mixed DNA in it. If you live somewhere doesn't mean your DNA is all over the floor. These things are just made up on the internet. Also one print was compatible with the very bloody print on the bathmat.

Just saying all judges and independent scientists are ignorant isn't really going to cut the cake. What if for example the bra clasp is going to be confirmed by the 2 scientists reviewing it, and they rule out contamination? How can any piece of evidence be proven if it is always 'these ignorant judges' or these 'lying scientists'?

And I am going to quote again anyway

p282 But it must be noted that the negative result for blood does not necessarily indicate that no blood was present. The result may have been negative because there was not sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood.

 

[SkewedView]

If you completely discredit the report, on what are you basing your opinion that the forensic analysis was faulty?

In the report, the Judge describes exactly what evidence and arguments he accepts (or modifies to fit his version of events), and those that he discounts, and to a certain extent, why. This gives me more than enough material to judge his opinions and interpretations of the evidence and arguments that were presented in the trial. Seriously, I have no problem with the guy's honesty, he really lays it all out in that report - it's his judgment and very approach to the case that I find deplorable.

Of course, I really can't blame him for taking an Inquisitorial approach, since it's what he undoubtedly started his career dealing with (pre-1988 system), multiple aspects of said system have been reintroduced by questionable Constitutional Court rulings, and to be honest, it's a heck of a lot simpler on a Judge to use that approach. And to be honest, with how muddled that system is right now, I can't honestly say that he was in the wrong (in the context of his own system, which is the only one that really matters here, isn't it).

I also can't really fault him for being ignorant of Forensic Science and modern investigative techniques, as most judges in most countries are. They have to rely on the expert witnesses to deliver testimony in good faith, and all too often such witnesses...fudge the truth, if they don't just outright lie. There is, in both the Italian and US legal systems, little reason for such witnesses to tell the complete truth, and few consequences even when they get caught doing such things (as an example, many newer studies into police conduct in US trials have revealed a disturbingly common and casual trend amongst said officers to lie under oath). This is why it is so important to properly weigh the evidence, expert testimony and arguments of both sides, and to make damn sure that you know the full professional background of expert witnesses.

I hope the above makes some sense to you - I don't expect you to agree with my conclusions, just know that I am attacking the Judge's lines of reasoning etc, not the Judge himself.

 

[SkewedView]

With all due respect to your wife, but the blood tests are less sensitive than the luminol one and it is possible to get an indication if it is blood from the luminol glow itself. Besides that, one print had mixed DNA in it. If you live somewhere doesn't mean your DNA is all over the floor. These things are just made up on the internet. Also one print was compatible with the very bloody print on the bathmat.

Just saying all judges and independent scientists are ignorant isn't really going to cut the cake. What if for example the bra clasp is going to be confirmed by the 2 scientists reviewing it, and they rule out contamination? How can any piece of evidence be proven if it is always 'these ignorant judges' or these 'lying scientists'?

And I am going to quote again anyway

Um, no, luminol does not indicate if it is blood or something else - that was a Stephanini lie, one that IMO puts all of her testimony in doubt. Luminol is the same color regardless of the substance that it is detecting, thus why they MUST have a confirmation of the presence of blood. If they don't, any DNA found could be from anything, including shed skin (which is all over the place in even very clean households). Saying that something is made up on the internet when it is in fact something that is well known in forensic circles is disingenuous to say the least.

Are you aware of what a forensic scientist means when they say 'comparable'? I'll give you a hint, it is not the same as saying something is a match. Not by a long shot.

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially in such a snarky manner. It is rude and hurts your arguments. I did not by any stretch of the imagination say that 'all judges and independent scientists are ignorant'. Did you actually read what I said, or just cherry pick to attack me? Calm down, go back, and read again.

And if the independent review definitively confirms the clasp and blade, then I will accept their finding.

It is telling that the Judge in the first trial wouldn't allow such a review, and that he pretty much accepted none of the refuting arguments and evidence presented by the defense. Had the Judge not betrayed such blatant bias towards the Prosecution, there would have been far fewer issues with the first trial, if any. Again, however, I understand where that bias came from, and I don't blame the Judge for having it.

Oh, and your last quote is pure speculation that no unbiased Judge would give any weight to in an Accusitorial System (which is what Italy is supposed to be, but fails at for reasons that I've gone into a few pages back). You don't risk throwing an innocent in prison based on 'well, our tests don't say what we want them to say, but we think it's there but we can't detect it...

 

[otto]

In the report, the Judge describes exactly what evidence and arguments he accepts (or modifies to fit his version of events), and those that he discounts, and to a certain extent, why. This gives me more than enough material to judge his opinions and interpretations of the evidence and arguments that were presented in the trial. Seriously, I have no problem with the guy's honesty, he really lays it all out in that report - it's his judgment and very approach to the case that I find deplorable.

Of course, I really can't blame him for taking an Inquisitorial approach, since it's what he undoubtedly started his career dealing with (pre-1988 system), multiple aspects of said system have been reintroduced by questionable Constitutional Court rulings, and to be honest, it's a heck of a lot simpler on a Judge to use that approach. And to be honest, with how muddled that system is right now, I can't honestly say that he was in the wrong (in the context of his own system, which is the only one that really matters here, isn't it).

I also can't really fault him for being ignorant of Forensic Science and modern investigative techniques, as most judges in most countries are. They have to rely on the expert witnesses to deliver testimony in good faith, and all too often such witnesses...fudge the truth, if they don't just outright lie. There is, in both the Italian and US legal systems, little reason for such witnesses to tell the complete truth, and few consequences even when they get caught doing such things (as an example, many newer studies into police conduct in US trials have revealed a disturbingly common and casual trend amongst said officers to lie under oath).

I hope the above makes some sense to you - I don't expect you to agree with my conclusions, just know that I am attacking the Judge's lines of reasoning etc, not the Judge himself.

I get the impression that you disagree with the Italian legal system, and object to the fact that the Judge was not an expert in forensic analysis.

On the first point, if people wants to avoid the Italian legal system, they shouldn't lie in witness statements and most certainly should not commit murder in Italy. On the second point, no judge, jury, defense lawyer or prosecutor are experts in all things introduced as evidence. Experts are accepted by the courts and provide testimony. Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence has already been reviewed several time by experts and no problems were found in the process. To critique the expert witness based on the judge's summary seems a bit like shooting the messenger because the conclusions based on the expert testimony are disagreeable.