Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[Nova]

Well ... let's dissect the appeal paragraph.

The defense argues that documentation was withheld.

The actual DNA testing dates were withheld.

Testing dates were omitted in the report (I'm not sure what to make of this since the defense was invited to the testing), and the implication is that if the defense had that exact information, then perhaps they could better argue that the DNA on the knife was a result of contamination.

The DNA testing dates are vital because they would show that Meredith's blood and DNA were analyzed in the days immediately before the knife DNA testing, providing additional evidence that the low copy number DNA results were from contamination. The knife would have been tested in a lab environment containing abundant amounts of Meredith's DNA. Documents containing this information must be released to the defense.

The following says that documentation of some steps of the bra clasp DNA analysis were missing.

Documentation related to the bra clasp was missing some of the steps that were taken during analysis. All steps should be provided with nothing omitted. The credibility of this piece of evidence is discussed in great detail in the beginning of the appeal. There is no excuse for these documents to be withheld.

Alleging that the lab omitted some information that could be used to argue faulty testing is a far cry from alleging that the prosecution deliberately withheld lab reports.

Could you refer me to the paragraph in either appeal where it is alleged that prosecutors withheld information? I can't find it. I can only find information alleging that the lab omitted information that the defense wanted in order to argue that the lab results are faulty.

Regarding the handwritten note about "too low", I thought that was well known and part of the trial materials.

Re the reputed "too low" note, I may have misunderstood whether that was on the disclosed or nondislosed pages. It was just an example anyway. It may be as simple a matter as the prosecution asked the lab to push the scientific envelope in drawing conclusions and didn't want the defense to see the supporting data that made the fudging apparent.

As I said, a prosecutor may well claim that pages weren't disclosed to the defense by "accident." It is nearly always a lie. The judge and defense know it is a lie, but also know it is nearly impossible to prove a lie. So everybody plays the game.

And what I do know, after 20+ years of working for law firms, is that except in cases of the most extreme criminal corruption (I've never heard of such a case, actually, I'm just allowing for its theoretical possibility), the lab does NOT decide what is divulged and what is withheld. That is all done at the instruction of the prosecution (often under orders from the Court). There may be cases where "certified" copies must be provided by the lab itself, but the prosecution has the basic info and can divulge it to the defense without the lab's knowledge or participation.

Saying "we didn't get the lab report" (or the "police report") is just nomenclature for clarity. All disclosures to the defense are understood to come from the prosecution. (The reverse is equally true.)

In the U.S. every page divulged to the opposition is "Bates-stamped" with a unique number so that it can be clearly identified in all pleadings and throughout the trial. One reason docs don't go directly from the lab, say, to the defense, is that each page has to be Bates-stamped by the side divulging the document. (The Prosecution has its unique sequence of numbers; the Defense has another.)

I will be seriously shocked if Italy doesn't have a similar system. There's simply no other way to keep up with the thousands of pages involved in modern litigation, criminal or civil.

So, yeah, the defense is saying they didn't get all the pages from the lab. The implication is that the prosecutor withheld them. If pressed, Mignini may claim an error was made in the lab, and the lab director may well "fall on his sword" if required to do so. But that stuff is all show biz.

 

[Nova]

otto, you asked for another link. <modsnip>:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.

This isn't the best explanation of what has been called prosecutorial misconduct, but it is one from a mainstream media source and I know you prefer those.

 

[otto]

Re the reputed "too low" note, I may have misunderstood whether that was on the disclosed or nondislosed pages. It was just an example anyway. It may be as simple a matter as the prosecution asked the lab to push the scientific envelope in drawing conclusions and didn't want the defense to see the supporting data that made the fudging apparent.

As I said, a prosecutor may well claim that pages weren't disclosed to the defense by "accident." It is nearly always a lie. The judge and defense know it is a lie, but also know it is nearly impossible to prove a lie. So everybody plays the game.

And what I do know, after 20+ years of working for law firms, is that except in cases of the most extreme criminal corruption (I've never heard of such a case, actually, I'm just allowing for its theoretical possibility), the lab does NOT decide what is divulged and what is withheld. That is all done at the instruction of the prosecution (often under orders from the Court). There may be cases where "certified" copies must be provided by the lab itself, but the prosecution has the basic info and can divulge it to the defense without the lab's knowledge or participation.

Saying "we didn't get the lab report" (or the "police report") is just nomenclature for clarity. All disclosures to the defense are understood to come from the prosecution. (The reverse is equally true.)

In the U.S. every page divulged to the opposition is "Bates-stamped" with a unique number so that it can be clearly identified in all pleadings and throughout the trial. One reason docs don't go directly from the lab, say, to the defense, is that each page has to be Bates-stamped by the side divulging the document. (The Prosecution has its unique sequence of numbers; the Defense has another.)

I will be seriously shocked if Italy doesn't have a similar system. There's simply no other way to keep up with the thousands of pages involved in modern litigation, criminal or civil.

So, yeah, the defense is saying they didn't get all the pages from the lab. The implication is that the prosecutor withheld them. If pressed, Mignini may claim an error was made in the lab, and the lab director may well "fall on his sword" if required to do so. But that stuff is all show biz.

So we don't know exactly why the information that the defense wants was not available to them (withheld by prosecution or omitted from the report), but we do know that the reason they wanted this information was in order to argue that faulty testing occurred in the lab. The dates for the knife testing are sought because the defense could use that information to argue that the knife testing was contaminated, and the bra clasp notes are sought because the defense would like to use it to argue against the use of LNC DNA. On the up side, since the knife and bra clasp DNA are being reassessed, all of the information that was recorded in the lab will be available.

It may be interesting to note that LNC DNA is being discussed in other cases ... not from the viewpoint that it is faulty science, but from the perspective of hoping that a partial sample can be used to identify a suspect. The practice has been used and accepted internationally for some time ... and most likely will continue to be used in the future. The objection of it's use in this case seems more about Amanda than whether the testing is valid ... but I'm sure everything will become clear in time.

 

[otto]

otto, you asked for another link. <modsnip>:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

This isn't the best explanation of what has been called prosecutorial misconduct, but it is one from a mainstream media source and I know you prefer those.

Yes .. Chris Mellas is quoted commenting on the DNA. I don't consider him a reliable source, which is why I have referred to the court documents: the actual appeal affidavits. Is there any particular reason why comments from the convicted woman's stepfather (who reportedly does not speak Italian) should be given more weight than the appeal affidavits?

 

[Malkmus]

I see there seems to be debate over whether the lab or the prosecution withheld the electronic data files. With regards to the quote below I don't see how it can be assumed that the lab is the one denying the request:

Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: "They have everything they need. That is enough."

The article makes clear that the prosecutor denied the request and we have her quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

 

[SleuthyGal]

How do you interpret the paragraph from the appeal document? Does it sound like the prosecution has withheld information, or does it sound like the defence believes there is additional information that the lab did not release?

I haven't read the appeal document. My impressions have come from reading other things. The defense clearly appears to believe they have not been given all the data surrounding DNA testing. Whether it's data files, analysis or whatever, I don't know. Whether it's the lab or the prosecution withholding info or data, I don't know. Doesn't matter. They need it all and they have a legal right to all of it.

 

[otto]

I see there seems to be debate over whether the lab or the prosecution withheld the electronic data files. With regards to the quote below I don't see how it can be assumed that the lab is the one denying the request:



The article makes clear that the prosecutor denied the request and we have her quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

Yes, that article quotes Chris Mellas ... <modsnip>. The statement from the prosecutor claiming that the defense has all the information they need does not mean that the prosecution withheld information. Since the defense wants to contest the actual lab testing methods, it appears that they want more information than what was used, or perceived necessary, to demonstrate that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.

The appeal affidavits do clarify what information was requested, but not who is responsible for omitting it. The appeal states why specific dates and additional notes were requested, and stipulates that the lab documents were incomplete. That has hopefully all been set straight now that the testing of the two items will be reassessed.

 

[SleuthyGal]

So we don't know exactly why the information that the defense wants was not available to them (withheld by prosecution or omitted from the report), but we do know that the reason they wanted this information was in order to argue that faulty testing occurred in the lab.

Yes of course. They have to look at the entire chain of sequence from discovery to handling to collection to preparation to testing to analysis, etc., etc. At any point along the way there can be errors or procedures not followed that could affect the outcome. The defense has to look at this plus the way the testing was done. Testing methods are the foundation of determining validity. If the test protocol was not followed or was nuanced in some way, there is an argument that can be made.

 

[SleuthyGal]

By Otto: The appeal affidavits do clarify what information was requested, but not who is responsible for omitting it.

For our purposes, why is this important? To me it doesn't matter who was responsible. The point is that the defense is entitled (legally entitled) to all evidence, discovery, and data, including that for the DNA tests. They cannot put on an adequate defense for a client without having access to all the information. It may not change the ultimate outcome for the client (in this case AK and RS), but they are entitled to have all the data.

 

[otto]

For our purposes, why is this important? To me it doesn't matter who was responsible. The point is that the defense is entitled (legally entitled) to all evidence, discovery, and data, including that for the DNA tests. They cannot put on an adequate defense for a client without having access to all the information. It may not change the ultimate outcome for the client (in this case AK and RS), but they are entitled to have all the data.

The defense states in the affidavit that the testing dates for the knife were not available to them. We also know that the defense was invited to attend the testing. If they had attended the testing, wouldn't they know exactly on which dates the was done? Was this information that was deliberately withheld, omitted, or was it information that was readily available to the defense but they chose not to attend the testing?

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, that article quotes Chris Mellas ... <modsnip>. The statement from the prosecutor claiming that the defense has all the information they need does not mean that the prosecution withheld information. Since the defense wants to contest the actual lab testing methods, it appears that they want more information than what was used, or perceived necessary, to demonstrate that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.

The appeal affidavits do clarify what information was requested, but not who is responsible for omitting it. The appeal states why specific dates and additional notes were requested, and stipulates that the lab documents were incomplete. That has hopefully all been set straight now that the testing of the two items will be reassessed.

It's not just the quote, Otto, but the statement that Comodi "brushed off the request". That places the the blame squarely on the prosecution. However, I see that you also mention the appeals not stating who denied the additional files they requested. The appeals do in fact blame the prosecution. The prosecution's denial of such information is mentioned several times in both Amanda and Raffaele's appeals documents, but this quote in particular makes it clear:

The office of the PM or denied full discovery of documents investigation, pushing this lesion of the right of defense to the debate!

The unusual wording is due to it being a Google translation. You can find other instances of the prosecution denying access by searching for the word "data" in both documents. Perhaps you missed it because you've been reading English translation summaries which are not verbatim.

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

Thanks to Rose for posting these, BTW.

 

[otto]

It's not just the quote, Otto, but the statement that Comodi "brushed off the request". That places the the blame squarely on the prosecution. However, I see that you also mention the appeals not stating who denied the additional files they requested. The appeals do in fact blame the prosecution. The prosecution's denial of such information is mentioned several times in both Amanda and Raffaele's appeals documents, but this quote in particular makes it clear:

"The office of the PM or denied full discovery of documents investigation, pushing this lesion of the right of defense to the debate!"

The unusual wording is due to it being a Google translation. You can find other instances of the prosecution denying access by searching for the word "data" in both documents. Perhaps you missed it because you've been reading English translation summaries which are not verbatim.

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

Thanks to Rose for posting these, BTW.

Is that part of the actual transcript, or a commentary? Do we know what comes after the word "or"?

It is quite obviously an electronic translation ... the words are rather jumbled up. I think that people that speak more than one language would never rely on an electronic translation as they know that the meaning is most often lost in translation.

 

[Malkmus]

Is that part of the actual transcript, or a commentary? Why do I get the impression that it is an electronic translation? Do we know what comes after the word "or"?

There's no commentary other than that made by the lawyers. These are the actual documents, not summaries. As I stated they are Google translations. The original Italian documents are also there if you prefer to do your own translating.

 

[otto]

There's no commentary other than that made by the lawyers. These are the actual documents, not summaries. As I stated they are Google translations. The original Italian documents are also there if you prefer to do your own translating.

From the auto-translation in your above comment: "The office of the PM or denied full discovery of documents investigation, pushing this lesion of the right of defense to the debate!"

Any thoughts on what comes after the "or"? Also, any thoughts on what this complete sentence actually means?

 

[Nova]

Yes .. Chris Mellas is quoted commenting on the DNA. I don't consider him a reliable source, which is why I have referred to the court documents: the actual appeal affidavits. Is there any particular reason why comments from the convicted woman's stepfather (who reportedly does not speak Italian) should be given more weight than the appeal affidavits?

Yes, Mellas is quoted at the end of the article saying they have not received all the DNA results. And the prosecutor is quoted as saying "they have enough"; obviously implying they do not have all and, in fact, Mellas is correct. What better corroboration could you want?

But in fact I repeated that link because the article claims earlier (before the Mellas quote and without attribution to him) that the prosecution withheld DNA test results. You don't like blogs, so I gave you an MSM source. That's all.

 

[Nova]

So we don't know exactly why the information that the defense wants was not available to them (withheld by prosecution or omitted from the report)...

YES, WE DO KNOW! It was withheld by the prosecution. <modsnip>, we know it was withheld by the prosecution because Mignini specifically refused to supply the missing info with the statement, "They have enough." Now I admit I don't speak Italian, but I've read music well enough to know Italians can distinguish between enough ("basta", I believe) and all ("tutti").

...but we do know that the reason they wanted this information was in order to argue that faulty testing occurred in the lab....

Well, the sources I've read today speak not so much of faulting testing (though that may be part of it) as they do of faulting interpretation of the underlying data. It is that data the defense wants; but they may need more info to evaluate the testing process as well.

The dates for the knife testing are sought because the defense could use that information to argue that the knife testing was contaminated, and the bra clasp notes are sought because the defense would like to use it to argue against the use of LNC DNA. On the up side, since the knife and bra clasp DNA are being reassessed, all of the information that was recorded in the lab will be available.

Maybe, but my sense is that the issue with the knife isn't just contamination but whether the sample available was large enough to match to MK or anyone. I believe contamination has been an issue with the bra clasp, but whether the additional material requested in the appeal will speak to that subject, I don't know.

It may be interesting to note that LNC DNA is being discussed in other cases ... not from the viewpoint that it is faulty science, but from the perspective of hoping that a partial sample can be used to identify a suspect. The practice has been used and accepted internationally for some time ... and most likely will continue to be used in the future. The objection of it's use in this case seems more about Amanda than whether the testing is valid ... but I'm sure everything will become clear in time.

Actually, that does not appear to be true, not to me. There seem to be a large number of experts who are questioning the testing; I don't know that any of them have any special allegiance to AK. Besides, above you said the LNC DNA issues applied to the bra clasp; to my knowledge, that has never been tied to AK. Is there additional DNA I don't know about?

 

[Nova]

Yes .. Chris Mellas is quoted commenting on the DNA. I don't consider him a reliable source, which is why I have referred to the court documents: the actual appeal affidavits. Is there any particular reason why comments from the convicted woman's stepfather (who reportedly does not speak Italian) should be given more weight than the appeal affidavits?

This is not a fair characterization of what has been posted here today<modsnip>

<modsnip> at least a half-dozen different links (some of them to blogs with additional links) on the defense complaints about the info the prosecution failed to divulge to them. Included sources include, Mellas, but also various other sources, including the prosecutor ("They have enough.") himself.

<modsnip>.

 

[dgfred]

Of course it is a defense appeal document. It is up to the Judge(s) to decide whether their appeal point/request/complaint/etc is VALID. Seems like this one wasn't in the Judge's opinion and they did in fact have all necessary testing information.

 

[dgfred]

The knife retesting will be interesting. It was never fair during the first trial considering that the prosecution denied the defense access to the electronic data files. And this latest "objection" to opening the handle while the defense is leaning back saying "go ahead" is very telling.

Well hey.
Has anyone in the pro-AK circles found out who AK's 'special' friend was that she was calling just after the murder and before she was arrested?

'The prosecution denied' :maddening: ... it is the Judge's decision, the prosecution can not deny anything.

Surely since the prosecution got a conviction, based on the knife evidence already presented they think any further testing is not needed.

If more of Meredith's dna is found... IMO the defense will wish they hadn't asked for additional testing.

The defense should be hoping (really hoping) the experts find the evidence already presented on the knife lacking in some way. Their only hope really.

 

[Salem]

Remember - address the post, NOT the poster.

Thanks,

Salem