Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[carbonjam72]

Looks can be deceiving

This reply says nothing. I have no idea what you're referring to. This is trollish posting.

Funny, he doesn't look trollish.

 

[acbytesla]

You're likely to remember if the lights are on and there is shouting about money, followed by the most horrible scream in the world ever, followed by more than one person running out of the house - otherwise I agree with what you're saying

Then you agree with me totally. Because this would be unusual.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the waiting is the hardest part, or so I have heard

Fascinating question. Uh...let me go out on the terrace and have a smoke. I'll be back in 15 minutes.

More than 15 minutes have passed...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Let's be more specific

i.e.: despite your 500 or so posts about the Nencini report (or at least it seems like 500 or so) you haven't even read it.

And as far as the "not specifically about this case but possibly applicable to this case" question goes: that's the response the question deserves.

Evasion noted. I would prefer to have established some general principles about fair trials first, but so be it. Let's try one more time, a bit differently. Material from witness statements in Guede's trial served as evidence in Nencini's court with respect to the wounds on Guede's hand. Is that fair? The conclusion that Guede acted with others came from Guede's legal process. Is it fair to make this a bedrock conclusion against Knox and Sollecito, who were not part of Guede's legal process? Before you answer, please consider that the majority of forensic pathologists who testified before Massei either said that it was a lone attacker or that it could not definitively be determined whether it was one or more than one attacker.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic tests for blood seem to be part of the territory

Massei says this p257/8 of motivation report. But I cannot find this in Sarah Gino testimony. It makes no sense for her to say this, she is a forensic geneticist, why would she be doing a TMB test. If any one can reference the original testimony it would help to put it in context.

Some forensic geneticists have a good working knowledge of forensic tests for blood. Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, Professor Bruce Budowle, Professor Greg Hampikian, and Professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti all come to mind.

 

[Bill Williams]

i.e.: despite your 500 or so posts about the Nencini report (or at least it seems like 500 or so) you haven't even read it.

And as far as the "not specifically about this case but possibly applicable to this case" question goes: that's the response the question deserves.

Ad hominem and evasion noted.

Do you agree with those who have read it that:

- Nencini says that the defence failed to prove contamination?
- Nencini said that Raffaele's DNA was on the knife?
- Nencini says that there is no innocent reason for Raffaele's DNA to be on the clasp, even though Nencini says that there IS innocent reason for the other male-DNA to be on the clasp, even though he admits he does not really know whose DNA those other samples belong to?​

I do not know why someone who says he/she has read the report will not answer these questions.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Nothing is going to make you feel more murderous than watching a chick flick about being lovely to people.

-

Yup, I watched that movie and it gave me such a murderous feeling of rage and anger, I fell asleep half way through it... twice,

d

-

 

[Vibio]

Material from witness statements in Guede's trial served as evidence in Nencini's court with respect to the wounds on Guede's hand. Is that fair?

Sounds fair to me. Did the defense object to this? (Could you please provide a link to the original sources?)

The conclusion that Guede acted with others came from Guede's legal process. Is it fair to make this a bedrock conclusion against Knox and Sollecito, who were not part of Guede's legal process?

You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.

Before you answer, please consider that the majority of forensic pathologists who testified before Massei either said that it was a lone attacker or that it could not definitively be determined whether it was one or more than one attacker.

As happens in trials, all the testimony is considered and conclusions are drawn. I did not sit in on the trials. I was not part of the jury.

BTW: I have never read a motivations report from a court in the US. What are they like? And how detailed are they?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cross examination? we don't need no stinking cross-examination

Sounds fair to me. Did the defense object to this? (Could you please provide a link to the original sources?)

I see. So it is OK to accept testimony or statements from someone who is not cross-examined by Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys. So much for the right to confront one's accusers. I am not sure how Sollecito or Knox were even supposed to know what Nencini would conjure up; therefore, I don't see how they could object.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the absence of evidence, Nencini-style

Elsewhere our own katy_did wrote, "While I'm here, another random inaccuracy: Nencini says on page 60 that an "extremely significant" fact, from the point of view of proving there were multiple attackers, is that no DNA was found beneath Meredith's nails (other than her own, obviously). Yet on page 195 of Massei's report, he says that the fact no DNA was found beneath Meredith's nails may have been because they were "very short" and therefore couldn't have scratched her attacker in any significant way. I guess Nencini didn't read Massei's report very carefully either."

I wonder what Nencini would have said had their been DNA under the Meredith's nails.

 

[carbonjam72]

Fair Trials

Sounds fair to me. Did the defense object to this? (Could you please provide a link to the original sources?)



You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.



As happens in trials, all the testimony is considered and conclusions are drawn. I did not sit in on the trials. I was not part of the jury.

BTW: I have never read a motivations report from a court in the US. What are they like? And how detailed are they?

Its a little strange you would be arguing the trial process was fair.

Why would any aspect of a 'fast track trial', where the evidence isn't contested, be binding on anyone who hasn't agreed to be bound by it?

It's especially strange in light of the fact that later trials, that contest evidence, have a more informed view of the available evidence. So what possible benefit can there be to holding the results of the prior trial above the results of the more informed one? It's like deliberately remaining ignorant, on principle. Unless the goal is other than a fair outcome, which is likely the case here.

It really makes no sense, and I'll bet this issue gets reversed, by the ECHR if necessary, but it really can't be allowed to stand because it's so blatantly unfair.

But the lack of motivation reports in US trials, is a good point. I wish we had them here. But there probably would be way fewer convictions, and many more reversals of convictions, if jurors actually had to explain why they voted they way they did. Judges and appeals courts however do issue written opinions, and those can be anywhere from wonderful to appalling.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip

You're not "digging up quotes for me" [snip] because you can't! No can do.

snip

Please try to stick to the case under discussion and avoid personal abuse. Are you denying Nencini found Rudy did not come in through the window because, as a professional burglar, he would have got in through the door? That is profoundly interesting. It means you are threatened by some obviously unsound, not to say ridiculous, reasoning by an Italian court that ruled for guilt. I can see why that would disturb the pro-guilt position, so much of which (as Vibio sarcastically affirmed today) hinges on the authority conferred by the 50 judges (or whatever the number is now) who found for guilt.

Tell you what. I'll do a deal with you - if you honestly say what it would mean to you if Nencini really has said that about Guede, I'll find the reference for you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Borsini-Belardi's fanciful reconstruction

You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.

Vibio,

From the Borsini-Belardi report: "Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."

If Guede were shown mitigation for identifying the others that participated (as indicated above), then the distinction you are trying to draw evaporates into nothingness.

 

[anglolawyer]

Elsewhere our own katy_did wrote, "While I'm here, another random inaccuracy: Nencini says on page 60 that an "extremely significant" fact, from the point of view of proving there were multiple attackers, is that no DNA was found beneath Meredith's nails (other than her own, obviously). Yet on page 195 of Massei's report, he says that the fact no DNA was found beneath Meredith's nails may have been because they were "very short" and therefore couldn't have scratched her attacker in any significant way. I guess Nencini didn't read Massei's report very carefully either."

I wonder what Nencini would have said had their been DNA under the Meredith's nails.

From Amanda's appeal from Massei

Hair formations were found under Meredith's fingernails. Mitochondrial DNA exam should be done to determine who this belongs to. This test was not done. This shows that Meredith broke free and grabbed her attacker's hair to try and stop the attack.

 

[js202]

You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.

Wrong. Taking its marching orders from the ISC, the Nencini court de facto put in place the condition that, since it was ruled in Guede's fast track trial that he did not act alone, it was up to Knox and Sollecito to prove in their trial that it was not them. Rather profound reversal of the doctrines of the right to represent oneself in one's own defense, and innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't you say?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.

Guede's "trial" was a fast track trial, meaning that it is the regular process with the "trial phase" missing. The trial phase is the part of the trial where evidence is evaluated. Therefore the court was drawing conclusion from only uncontested claims made by the prosecution, not because evidence was presented.

In exchange for certain admissions, a defendant foregoes a trial phase. Therefore all the "conclusions" which such a process draws are ones that noth sides, prosecution and defence (in this case Rudy's defence) simply agree upon.

Both sides said that Rudy did not act alone. No evidence was presented to either prove or disprove this. Such evidence would be part of a trial-phase which in a fast-track is, as stated, missing.

Furthermore, as mentioned upthread the Borsini motivations report is the one which says:

"Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."​

My reading of this is that it is not "the evidence" per se that indicates who those other perpetrators are, it is Rudy Guede himself, who has tremendous incentive to name Knox and Sollecito to get mitigation for his sentence.

Which is, in fact, what happened.

Now in the Nencini report, which you have read in the original Italian, Rudy becomes to sole source of motive - that Meredith and Amanda were fighting over rent money. And this is cherry-picked by Nencini from a set of ever changing "admissions" from Guede, this one though is from an admission where Rudy specifically says that Meredith let him into the cottage (not Amanda), and the Meredith searched Amanda's room for the rent money, meaning that Amanda was not there.

So you are right - Guede's trial did come to the conclusion that he did not act alone - and this was at a process where no evidence at all was submitted (not could it be because of the missing trial phase) that shows that he obviously did act alone. And Borsini's comments, acc. to the ISC, now lock Amanda and Raffaele's process into finding that they are the others.

Nencini's report shows the ridiculousness of trying to harmonize Rudy's process with Amanda's and Raffaele's. Nencini has to claim all those ridiculous things you have read in the original Italian, but will not even comment upon.

All to harmonize according to the ISC instructions, that Rudy's trial process is to be preferred.

 

[Samson]

Vibio,

From the Borsini-Belardi report: "Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."
If Guede were shown mitigation for identifying the other that participated (as indicated above), then the distinction you are trying to draw evaporates into nothingness.

From Hellmann

“…DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And so, Mr. Guede, when you write the text that it was “a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Had you ever said this?

WITNESS – Well this, I never said it explicitly in this manner however I always thought it.

DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – So why did you write it?

WITNESS – I wrote it because it was a thought that I’ve always had [che è sempre stato dentro di me, lit. "that has always been inside me"].

After the original interview with Mignini, his attorney Biscotti said he did not name anyone because there was no one to name.

This is a structurally flawed process. I hope Vibio would consider explaining how anything Guede says in Italian, confirms that he knows whether R an A were definitively involved.

 

[Samson]

I must thank TJMK. I just stole this translation from their latest post, of Rita Ficarra's testimony.

And she was calm, she says [sic]: “Yes, yes, ok. let’s wait for the interpreter that way we avoid misunderstandings”, and that is what we did. The problem [is] that at a certain point, the problem, that is to say, the fact that at a certain point there was a colleague from the SCO [NdT: “Servizio centrale operativo”, Central operations service], who came from the place where they were listening to Raffaele Sollecito.

And then after that came the Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, who says to me that Sollecito had said different things, that in effect he was no longer giving an alibi to Amanda, and therefore to ask Amanda, since I was recording [NdT: in the sense “writing down what was said”] her - [or] I had started to report/write down - to ask what the latter had done that evening in particular, in other words, to focus on that evening more than on anything else: we were interested in the hour more or less preceeding ...

Ergon calls this theft, which is strange, because a translation should be the perfect truth, and that should be available to everyone. I believe this translation, and find it corroborates everything that makes sense of the interrogation, and how Amanda's life was stolen at this point.

 

[Bill Williams]

While Vibio is reading in the original Italian,I am wondering if he/she would be on the look out for something.

Does Nencini really say that one proof that the DNA on the bra-clasp should speak to guilt, presumably Raffaele's as a result of the attack, is that no more of Raffaele's DNA is found anywhere else?

To me this is implying that IF the Scientific Police had found Raffaele's DNA all over the crimescene, that this (to Nencini) would speak to Raffaele's innocence! It shows Nencini's flawed thought process, if nothing else.

But Vibio is in a position to clear this up. Thanks in advance.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two logical fallacies

You are twisting this. Yes, Guede's trial came to the conclusion that he did not act alone. But it is AK & RS trial that came to the conclusion that they are the ones who acted with Guede.

This is begging the question of why even the conclusion from his trials that Guede did not act alone should have any part whatsoever in the trials of Knox and Sollecito. It is also an argument from authority, in essence: who are you to criticize the judges? Among the many problems with that line of thinking is that it ignores how thin Massei's original argument was. It was based on Meredith's having taken karate lessons and conjecture of what she would have done when confronted with an intruder.