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

[otto]

I believe you've misunderstood. The issue isn't which of 12 possible arguments the prosecution was planning to use; the prosecution isn't required to divulge its strategy.

The issue is that the defense didn't get the actual lab results--the numbers which are used to draw a conclusion--in time for all of its experts to weigh in on the veracity of the prosecution's conclusion. For this reason, some of the defense's DNA experts couldn't and didn't sign the report.

This appears to matter because most of the DNA experts involved (admittedly, most are those hired by AK) think the numbers found on the knife are too low to match to anyone.

I guess I'm having a problem understanding the problem. The lab completed DNA analysis. We know that. I'm assuming that all parties could request the information from the labs, and that seems to be true. The DNA analysis started on Dec 21, 2007, ended on May 20, 2008, the report was dated June 12, 2008 and delivered to the prosecution. Those dates tell use that complaints from defence that they did not receive the information in April are baseless. The trial started Dec 4, 2008 and the DNA evidence (Stefoni) was introduced May 22, 2009.
It seems that the important question is:

Was the information made available to the defence prior to trial?

If the DNA analysis was made available to the defence prior to the start of the trial, how did that present a problem for the defence?

 

[Nova]

I guess I'm having a problem understanding the problem. The lab completed DNA analysis. We know that. I'm assuming that all parties could request the information from the labs, and that seems to be true. The DNA analysis started on Dec 21, 2007, ended on May 20, 2008, the report was dated June 12, 2008 and delivered to the prosecution. Those dates tell use that complaints from defence that they did not receive the information in April are baseless. The trial started Dec 4, 2008 and the DNA evidence (Stefoni) was introduced May 22, 2009.
It seems that the important question is:

Was the information made available to the defence prior to trial?

If the DNA analysis was made available to the defence prior to the start of the trial, how did that present a problem for the defence?

I don't pretend to be a DNA expect, but my sense from reading the links above is that DNA results are comprised of numbers that then must be interpreted. It isn't always as simple as "Match" or "No Match", particularly not when the sample being tested is very small.

The defense got the prosecution-endorsed conclusion that MK's DNA was on the knife and RS' DNA was on the clasp, but they did not get the supporting documentation. In other words, they needed the lab to "show its work" (as we used to say in math class) in order to review the lab's conclusions.

It is that supporting documentation they didn't get in time and, in some instances, still haven't received because the prosecutor decreed the defense "had enough."

 

[otto]

I don't pretend to be a DNA expect, but my sense from reading the links above is that DNA results are comprised of numbers that then must be interpreted. It isn't always as simple as "Match" or "No Match", particularly not when the sample being tested is very small.

The defense got the prosecution-endorsed conclusion that MK's DNA was on the knife and RS' DNA was on the clasp, but they did not get the supporting documentation. In other words, they needed the lab to "show its work" (as we used to say in math class) in order to review the lab's conclusions.

It is that supporting documentation they didn't get in time and, in some instances, still haven't received because the prosecutor decreed the defense "had enough."

So are you saying that the defence never received the DNA analysis report? Do you have any kind of media link for this?

Here is a link to Amanda's appeal. I skimmed it, but I don't see where it states that DNA evidence was not available to the defence.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

The link is found through this site: http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/08/10/news/amanda-knox-motivation-document-first-english-tra

ETA: Here it is: " Data was withheld on scientific matters, especially on exhibit 36, the knife. Dr. Sarah Gino has provided ample explanation of the unreliability of the outcome of tests by Dr. Stefanoni, and the lack of genetic compliance with protocols along with numerous inconsistencies and serious documentary issues. The failure to disclose all documents is a violation of the right of defense."

 

[Nova]

No, these files correspond to the DNA testing done by Stefanoni. The defense requested the .fsa files during the original trial and were told by the prosecution that the defense has "everything they need". It is now being requested again as part of the appeals.

The story of the files is explained at length here:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

and in the appeals:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

and if you need an actual news report:

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

otto, here's Malkmus' post from two pages back. The blog has the clearest explanation, but the media account (Britain's The Telegraph) confirms it, at least in broad terms.

 

[otto]

otto, here's Malkmus' post from two pages back. The blog has the clearest explanation, but the media account (Britain's The Telegraph) confirms it, at least in broad terms.

That article quotes the stepfather: "Chris Mellas, Knox's step-father who is currently in Perugia, said yesterday: "Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp."

From the appeal, it sounds like the defence believes there is additional information related to the knife testing that Stefanoni did not release.

 

[SleuthyGal]

From Otto: If the DNA analysis was made available to the defence prior to the start of the trial

The question is, was ALL the DNA evidence, including all work product, files, stats and whatever else was used to derive their findings made available to the defense? From what I've read, it sounds as if not all the info was made available and that is part of what the defense is objecting to.

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

There is no reason for the prosecution or the lab or anyone else involved in the DNA testing to withhold anything from the defense team...unless....they have something they don't want the defense to see?

I have my suspicions, especially after reading and seeing what various DNA experts around the globe have said when they've looked at the scientific parts of this case.

 

[otto]

The question is, was ALL the DNA evidence, including all work product, files, stats and whatever else was used to derive their findings made available to the defense? From what I've read, it sounds as if not all the info was made available and that is part of what the defense is objecting to.

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

There is no reason for the prosecution or the lab or anyone else involved in the DNA testing to withhold anything from the defense team...unless....they have something they don't want the defense to see?

I have my suspicions, especially after reading and seeing what various DNA experts around the globe have said when they've looked at the scientific parts of this case.

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?

 

[miley]

here's a quote:

Defense lawyers also complained that the police did not make results of some biological tests available to them.
"We have been working with our hands tied behind our backs without access to essential evidence that would have allowed us to do pre-emptive analysis and might have led us to different conclusions. I don't even know if Raffaele would be in prison," Sollecito's lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/story?id=8118652​

 

[otto]

here's a quote:

Defense lawyers also complained that the police did not make results of some biological tests available to them.
"We have been working with our hands tied behind our backs without access to essential evidence that would have allowed us to do pre-emptive analysis and might have led us to different conclusions. I don't even know if Raffaele would be in prison," Sollecito's lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/story?id=8118652​

I don't interpret this as claiming that police are withholding information, but rather that the defence believes there is additional documentation that was not released by the lab.

In the appeal, what the lawyers have to say is this: " Data was withheld on scientific matters, especially on exhibit 36, the knife. Dr. Sarah Gino has provided ample explanation of the unreliability of the outcome of tests by Dr. Stefanoni, and the lack of genetic compliance with protocols along with numerous inconsistencies and serious documentary issues. The failure to disclose all documents is a violation of the right of defense."

 

[otto]

From Raffaele's appeal (below), I also get the impression that it is the lab that is being accused of not providing all documentation, not the prosecution:

"The defense argues that documentation was withheld. They request that all documents be released for review. These documents pertain to all aspects of DNA testing. Laboratory documents were incomplete with regard to the knife and the bra clasp.

The actual DNA testing dates were withheld. 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.

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."

Ref: same link as above for Amanda's appeal

 

[otto]

<snipped for emphasis>
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.

From my research, I can only find information in the appeal documents claiming that lab report was incomplete, not that the prosecution denied the defence access to the lab reports.

 

[Nova]

That article quotes the stepfather: "Chris Mellas, Knox's step-father who is currently in Perugia, said yesterday: "Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp."

From the appeal, it sounds like the defence believes there is additional information related to the knife testing that Stefanoni did not release.

That's how it sounds to me, as well.

In something I read today, it said the defense experts couldn't sign on to the final denunciation of the test conclusions because they didn't have that supporting documentation.

 

[Nova]

The question is, was ALL the DNA evidence, including all work product, files, stats and whatever else was used to derive their findings made available to the defense? From what I've read, it sounds as if not all the info was made available and that is part of what the defense is objecting to.

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

There is no reason for the prosecution or the lab or anyone else involved in the DNA testing to withhold anything from the defense team...unless....they have something they don't want the defense to see?

I have my suspicions, especially after reading and seeing what various DNA experts around the globe have said when they've looked at the scientific parts of this case.

I've worked discovery on high-profile cases and we can be talking about hundreds of thousands, even millions of pages. It's not uncommon for something to be omitted.

But given the continual requests over a period of a year, I think it's safe to say that here, the prosecutor is trying to hide something.

 

[Nova]

From Raffaele's appeal (below), I also get the impression that it is the lab that is being accused of not providing all documentation, not the prosecution....

I think that's semantics, otto. The prosecutor controls what is and what is not released. Sure, the lab might screw up and delay for a day or two, but after all this time, if the documents aren't in defense hands, it can only be because the prosecutor is dragging his feet.

(Well, the other alternative is that the lab really is completely corrupt and is engaged in a deliberate cover-up of its own contamination. But then why give the info to MK's lawyer?)

 

[Nova]

otto, unless Italian law is completely unlike that of other Western countries, EVERYTHING goes through the prosecutor (or the defense attorney). The state's labs don't provide docs to the defense (unless the prosecutor, for the sake of convenience, says "Send them a copy while you're at it."). By the same token, the defense's experts don't send their reports directly to the prosecution; that is done through the defense attorney.

Usually working for the defense, I have copied and forwarded literally millions of such pages.

For the sake of clarity, the appeal says "we didn't get such and such from the lab." But the battle is between the prosecutor and the defense, not between the defense and the lab.

 

[otto]

otto, unless Italian law is completely unlike that of other Western countries, EVERYTHING goes through the prosecutor (or the defense attorney). The state's labs don't provide docs to the defense (unless the prosecutor, for the sake of convenience, says "Send them a copy while you're at it."). By the same token, the defense's experts don't send their reports directly to the prosecution; that is done through the defense attorney.

Usually working for the defense, I have copied and forwarded literally millions of such pages.

For the sake of clarity, the appeal says "we didn't get such and such from the lab." But the battle is between the prosecutor and the defense, not between the defense and the lab.

My understanding of the appeal contents is that it is alleged that the lab did not provide complete documentation ...so ... if certain information is not in the report, the prosecution can't produce it - through no fault of their own. I see this as the defence looking to find fault in the DNA testing; to suggest that a specific date or time was not recorded ... and to attempt to discredit the results on that basis. I do not see anything in either appeal documents accusing the prosecution of withholding lab reports.

 

[missyjane77]

I would think that the prosecution would want the full report either way. They should have asked for it, IMO.

 

[Nova]

My understanding of the appeal contents is that it is alleged that the lab did not provide complete documentation ...so ... if certain information is not in the report, the prosecution can't produce it - through no fault of their own. I see this as the defence looking to find fault in the DNA testing; to suggest that a specific date or time was not recorded ... and to attempt to discredit the results on that basis. I do not see anything in either appeal documents accusing the prosecution of withholding lab reports.

I am 99.9% sure you are misreading it or being misled by legal terminology that mimics everyday speech.

I promise you the prosecutor had EVERYTHING the lab had to offer from the earliest possible date. It appears MK's lawyer had it (or most of it) at some point as well. I can promise you this because a prosecutor would have to be a literal moron to go into court with incomplete lab results; Mignini knew full well what he could get the lab techs to say and what he couldn't get them to say. Mignini could have walked to a copy machine at any time and made copies of the requested data for the defense.

The defense charge is that they didn't have what everyone else had, so their experts couldn't properly evaluate it.

It is simply worded as "we didn't get the lab report" because that is simpler and clearer than saying "the prosecution didn't give us his copy of the lab report." It doesn't mean it was actually the lab's error (though sometimes a prosecutor will claim it was if he gets backed into a corner).

My prediction is that if and when the defense gets the full paperwork, there will be something on it (such as the reported, handwritten words "too low") that the prosecutor didn't want them to see. The prosecutor will then claim that the damaging info found on the withheld paperwork is "immaterial."

 

[Nova]

I would think that the prosecution would want the full report either way. They should have asked for it, IMO.

Trust me, they did. If they claim they did not, they are lying. It really is as simple as that.

 

[otto]

I am 99.9% sure you are misreading it or being misled by legal terminology that mimics everyday speech.

I promise you the prosecutor had EVERYTHING the lab had to offer from the earliest possible date. It appears MK's lawyer had it (or most of it) at some point as well. I can promise you this because a prosecutor would have to be a literal moron to go into court with incomplete lab results; Mignini knew full well what he could get the lab techs to say and what he couldn't get them to say. Mignini could have walked to a copy machine at any time and made copies of the requested data for the defense.

The defense charge is that they didn't have what everyone else had, so their experts couldn't properly evaluate it.

It is simply worded as "we didn't get the lab report" because that is simpler and clearer than saying "the prosecution didn't give us his copy of the lab report." It doesn't mean it was actually the lab's error (though sometimes a prosecutor will claim it was if he gets backed into a corner).

My prediction is that if and when the defense gets the full paperwork, there will be something on it (such as the reported, handwritten words "too low") that the prosecutor didn't want them to see. The prosecutor will then claim that the damaging info found on the withheld paperwork is "immaterial."

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.