Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NancyS]

Well given the rather poor response to the petition massive may be a problem.
The best that can be hoped for is probably a small number of very ‘intense’ letters in ALL CAPS.

& Green ink is the de rigueur for these kind of missives apparently.

Although there hasn't yet been a proper petition as no extradition request has been made

 

[Desert Fox]

Well given the rather poor response to the petition massive may be a problem.
The best that can be hoped for is probably a small number of very ‘intense’ letters in ALL CAPS.

& Green ink is the de rigueur for these kind of missives apparently.

Being that it will likely be at least another year until any request for extradition is presented, it was a bit premature. If you think about it, two to three years would have passed.

These things sneak out of you out of the blue though. I signed a petition to the president on an issue tied to atheist rights in the military. We only had about 10,000 votes. Suddenly, out of the blue I got an e-mail from the officer of the president. It basically said little with a lot of words but it still shows they recognized the issue.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Public opinion matters lonepine. I'm convinced that they can and do influence some ongoing cases, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That said, one would hope that any jury or judge would do the right thing regardless of public opinion. I also believe that there are are times where judges and juries do the wrong thing regardless of public opinion.

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

 

[NancyS]

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

I've never known a trial where the experts that have given evidence (including court appointed independent experts), have been so completely and utterly ignored.

I don't think any of the evidence presented (and it has been widely discussed here) has provided proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable - and there has been fairly good evidence presented that supports their innocence? What is your opinion on this, do you think the evidence presented has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

One expert who weighed in was Bruce Budowle

Although he did not testify, Professor Bruce Budowle's letter was accepted and is now part of the trial record. IIUC he formerly directed a forensic research laboratory at the FBI. Professor Peter Gill is a coauthor on more than one hundred research publications. Carlo Torre and Francisco Vinci are two of the experts who gave testimony.

 

[lonepinealex]

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

why do you keep harping on about the judicial process, as if the only experts who should comment on the case should be part of it? If people with relevant expertise have things to say about it, why shouldn't they, and why shouldn't the public consider their remarks? Who cares if they were part of the trial or not?

The evidence and court documents are in the public domain now, so hiding behind the judicial process as a way to avoid commenting on the case is disingenuous.

As a thought experiment, regardless of the status of the case in court, what do you, personally, make of the statements of Peter Gill, Ron Hendry, John Douglass etc?

I said it above and I'll say it again - why do you expect people who believe that this was a miscarriage of justice within a broken judicial system to defer to the findings of a system they believe to be dysfunctional?

You are almost as much of a Dr Pangloss as Machiavelli. Almost.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I've never known a trial where the experts that have given evidence (including court appointed independent experts), have been so completely and utterly ignored.

Happens all the time, juries believe or accept prosecution or defence expert witnesses, V & C were no different than any other experts called in this case. Indeed, let us not forget that Raffaele and Amanda’s experts differed on whether Meredith was stabbed by an assailant(s) standing behind or in front of her.

I don't think any of the evidence presented (and it has been widely discussed here) has provided proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable - and there has been fairly good evidence presented that supports their innocence? What is your opinion on this, do you think the evidence presented has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Interesting observations. However, Raffaele and Amanda’s Italian legal teams as experienced lawyers should have been able to argue the case along the lines you state. That being said I am sure it is easy to debate on a discussion site with verses a court room.

 

[Diocletus]

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

What about that Italian lab guy who sent an unsolicited letter to Hellmann, telling Hellmann how great his lab was and they never make mistakes, yadayada. Not sure it had any impact on Hellmann, but the Supreme Court lapped it up as evidenced by their whining about all DNA tests since 1986 being suspect (probably should be, IMO).

 

[Diocletus]

Happens all the time, juries believe or accept prosecution or defence expert witnesses, V & C were no different than any other experts called in this case.

Sure they were. They were independent, court-appointed experts. The fact that they didn't agree with the way the prosecution did things doesn't make them any less independent, expert, or court-appointed.

 

[Diocletus]

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

Well, I think in Italy they would just put it on TV and the jurors could see it there.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Although he did not testify, Professor Bruce Budowle's letter was accepted and is now part of the trial record. IIUC he formerly directed a forensic research laboratory at the FBI. Professor Peter Gill is a coauthor on more than one hundred research publications. Carlo Torre and Francisco Vinci are two of the experts who gave testimony.

When did Professor Budowle testify in this case? I recall the others you mention.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wrong premise, faulty conclusion

Happens all the time, juries believe or accept prosecution or defence expert witnesses, V & C were no different than any other experts called in this case.

CoulsdonUK,

This is simply untrue. Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts, not defense experts. The SCC chose to believe a less qualified prosecution witness (Novelli) over more qualified independent experts (Conti and Vecchiotti). What chance did the defense have under those circumstances?

It is equally remarkable that some of the courts have ignored Dr. Vinci's persuasive work on this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a message sent is not always a message received

When did Professor Budowle testify in this case? I recall the others you mention.

The message of mine that you quoted stated explicitly that Professor Budowle did not testify (Hellman wanted to go a different route, choosing independent experts). Nevertheless, his letter was accepted and is now public, and anyone with a legitimate interest in the case should read it. MOO.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

This is simply untrue. Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts, not defense experts. The SCC chose to believe a less qualified prosecution witness (Novelli) over more qualified independent experts (Conti and Vecchiotti). What chance did the defense have under those circumstances?

It is equally remarkable that some of the courts have ignored Dr. Vinci's persuasive work on this case.

Erm, what is untrue specifically?

The message of mine that you quoted stated explicitly that Professor Budowle did not testify (Hellman wanted to go a different route, choosing independent experts). Nevertheless, his letter was accepted and is now public, and anyone with a legitimate interest in the case should read it. MOO.

Sorry you did mention that Professor Budowle did not testify and yes his letter is part of the court records. Apologies

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independent witnesses ignored

Erm, what is untrue specifically?

CoulsdonUK,

As Diocletus also pointed out, Conti and Vecchiotti were not defense witnesses or prosecution witnesses, but instead were independent, court-appointed witnesses. What chance does the defense have when prosecution witnesses are believed and independent witnesses are not?

Everyone else,

Despite the SCC's puffery, Dr. Novelli is not a full-time forensic geneticist (I would describe him as more of a medical geneticist). On the one hand, he and his colleagues have done some research in single nucleotide polymorphisms as a possible alternative/supplement to the tandem repeat-based forensic genetics which is the most common method used present. On the other hand, that research doesn't mean that he has greater experience in standard DNA profiling than any of a number of other people have.

 

[Dan O.]

-
Thanx d. That helps a little, but it was weird reading it, especially the hilited part. It gave me the impression that no one knew if the hyoid bone was broken or not, or they didn't know what damaged it, and what the hell does "skeleton of the language" really suppose to mean?

Just weird. Is that a product of google translate?

d

-
ETA: and that third line, "How did you find us?" Ha ha.

-

Yes, welcome to the world of Google translations. the hyoid bone is the skeletal structure that enables us to speak so "skeleton of the language" would be a reasonable translation. You have to be flexible when interpreting these mechanical translations so as not to jump to a wrong conclusion. An example is how an Italian would interpret the literal translation of "see you later".

 

[acbytesla]

When did Professor Budowle testify in this case? I recall the others you mention.

His letter is his testimony Coulsdon. If they accepted the letter, it becomes part of the court record and can be considered.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

As Diocletus also pointed out, Conti and Vecchiotti were not defense witnesses or prosecution witnesses, but instead were independent, court-appointed witnesses. What chance does the defense have when prosecution witnesses are believed and independent witnesses are not?

Where did I post that they were either defence or prosecution expert witnesses? I merely said they were no different as experts the rest of your posts confirms this, although like you I have no idea why SCC treated V & C as they did.

 

[acbytesla]

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

Courts cannot admit that they were persuaded by public influence, but that does not mean that they aren't. These are people Coulsdon. We are all influenced by others whether we realize it or not. Over the last 225 years, the US Constitution has changed little, yet how it has been interpreted has changed many times and this is because public opinion has changed.

People have been convicted of crimes and public opinion has led to reexamination of countless cases and that has led to many exonerations.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dup