Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

On 1. - I'm not aware of any contact between the wealthy family (caporelli?) in Perugia that had "adopted" Rudy Guede, and then "disowned" him for the most part, and the intervention with the Milan police. While its certainly a decent enough hypothesis to look in the factual record for confirmation of some kind, there's nothing I'm aware of that supports this line of inquiry. So its not even a viable theory yet, IMO, just pure conjecture. The second, highlighted is my view, based on Steve Moore's conjecture, and the behavior and record of Mignini and the Perugians with regard to Guede.

On 2. - A deliberate tanking of the case is I suppose a possibility. The funny part of this affair, is that Paolo Canessa (?) the prosecutor in Florence, was a target of Mignini's wiretaps that caused the charges, and also responsible for prosecuting Mignini's failed MOF cases, AND prosecuting Mignini! They've got a flow chart going on in Florence, like Woody Allen's family tree.

But the case was removed to Turin, and could have been refiled. But they chose not to. They could have refiled, it didn't have to get tanked. Also, and I'm not an expert here, but under some legal systems with a statute of limitations in place, the statute can be "tolled", that is suspended for certain reasons. So the clock can be suspended for a time to allow the administration of justice, and avoid the scenario where criminals simply delay proceedings to intentionally run out the clock. Not sure how it works in Italy though.

But trying and convicting Mignini and Giutarri is a huge public embarrassment to them and the police. The importance of saving face suggests to me that tanking the case was not the intention of prosecuting and convicting Mignini and Giutarri, even if they knew that might be an outcome, As seems to be a common refrain, we are left wondering, "how dumb are they really?".

1a & b. Both of these are speculations or conjectures, IMO. I'm not aware of any specific evidence of contact between Guede and his wealthy unofficial foster family (Caporelli?). But who paid for Guede's lawyer, said by some sources to be among the most expensive in Perugia?

But here's speculation 1c: the Perugian police had a soft spot for Rudy because of his basketball skills, and they were fans.

2. This kind of trickery is routine in Italy, from what I have read. Do you think anyone in the judicial system there wasn't aware of these conflicts? They intentionally set up trials to be inconclusive, at least for officials. I believe that in terms of Italian law, they truly had run out the clock on the statute of limitations - by intent.

Interestingly, in a frightening way, since there is no statute of limitations in Italy for murder, and no limit to the number of appeals by defendant or prosecutor, AK and RS could, in theory, face an indefinite (life-long) series of trials for murder if the CSC allows it by never finalizing a verdict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures

From the Motion to Compel (co-signed by attorneys for the Duke lacrosse three):

"52. Included in the materials provided to the Defendants from DNA Security are the laboratory’s standard operating procedures, which include guidelines for drafting “Reports and Documentation” of analyses performed by the lab in each case:

Reports shall incude:
• Case identifier.
• Description of evidence examined.
• Description of methodology.
• Name of each DNA locus analyzed.
• Results for each DNA test.
• Interpretative statement of conclusions.
• Date report issued.
• Disposition of evidence.
• Signature of laboratory director.⁸³"

I wonder what the standard operating procedures of the Rome lab say about the "results for each test." However, Professor Hampikian indicated back in 2010 that he was unable to obtain the information he sought. "...It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” see this link. The original link may not be available any longer.

 

[acbytesla]

From the Motion to Compel (co-signed by attorneys for the Duke lacrosse three):

"52. Included in the materials provided to the Defendants from DNA Security are the laboratory’s standard operating procedures, which include guidelines for drafting “Reports and Documentation” of analyses performed by the lab in each case:

Reports shall incude:
• Case identifier.
• Description of evidence examined.
• Description of methodology.
• Name of each DNA locus analyzed.
• Results for each DNA test.
• Interpretative statement of conclusions.
• Date report issued.
• Disposition of evidence.
• Signature of laboratory director.⁸³"

I wonder what the standard operating procedures of the Rome lab say about the "results for each test." However, Professor Hampikian indicated back in 2010 that he was unable to obtain the information he sought. "...It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” see this link. The original link may not be available any longer.

It seems to me that those doing the DNA testing should have nothing to do with the collection of evidence and that all tests should be blind where suspects and victims are only identified with numbers and maybe there should be control samples of say police officers. This way the tech doesn't know what he's testing and could care less. ie: sample #7a matches person #8 etc.

 

[Numbers]

I bumped all this down because it seems important.

One solution for releasing someone from prison in Italy:
The President of the Italian Republic may grant a pardon to such person, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. (Italian constitutional provision)

If the Italian judiciary were unable to find a legality to allow release of wrongfully imprisoned RS after an ECtHR judgment that he had not received a fair trial (Article 6) and was unjustly deprived of liberty (Article 5), the Italian Government could use a pardon to free him. The Committee of Ministers works through diplomatic and political measures, so it would be communicating with the Ministry of Justice, and possibly the Italian Judiciary.

From:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Article 87 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic states in part:

The President may grant pardons and commute punishments.
Article 89 states in part:

A writ of the President of the Republic shall not be valid unless signed by the proposing Minister, who shall be accountable for it.

 

[Dan O.]

It seems to me that those doing the DNA testing should have nothing to do with the collection of evidence and that all tests should be blind where suspects and victims are only identified with numbers and maybe there should be control samples of say police officers. This way the tech doesn't know what he's testing and could care less. ie: sample #7a matches person #8 etc.

There needs to be a division in the DNA work. Extraction, amplification and production of the profile must not be suspect driven. The lab doing the wet work should not even care where the samples came from as long as each sample is uniquely identified.

Analysis would work with the raw profiles in electronic form (EDFs). Most of this would simply be processed by computer to match the profiles to the suspects. The manual step of choosing which peaks are stutters or shadows needs to be eliminated. The defense would automatically get the same EDFs that the prosecution gets.

In addition, a regular audit of the labs would get all of the results that the lab produces to analyze the quality and contamination levels within each lab. The audit results stripped of any individual case identification would be public record.

 

[RWVBWL]

There has been much talk about the police protecting Rudy. But the fact that Rudy was prosecuted and convicted should dismiss that theory. They aren't going to be putting their own careers at risk to protect somebody unless the person is important or holds some control over them. A person like Mignini would be protected at all costs.

I tend to think that Hekuran Kokomani was involved in this murder.
I believe B. Nadeau when she writes that Kokomani was a police informant.
Wasn't it odd how Hekuran dressed for Trial, completely covered up in a hoody, baseball cap and dark sunglasses?
What was he hiding from?

If Hekuran was an informant, he was probably doing so for much longer than RG was, if RG was even ever an informant at all. Kokomani was in his early 30's, IIRC, he would be a far more valuable person to protect than RG.

Rudy did get some luv from ILE though.

Recall that he took the Fast Track Trial, was found guilty and was sentenced for the full 30 years,
which he knew would then be discounted by 1/3.
20 years would have been his sentence.

But upon Appeal,
Rudy's original sentence was reduced 6 years. It was apparently aligned with the base penalty of Amanda and Raffaeles' conviction, and then reduced by 1/3 due to the Fast Track Trial.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50
Prison for 16 years, Rudy Guede.

And it seems like PM Mignini did not seem to raise any objections when his sentence was decreased!

That to me seems like a nice reward for RG keeping mouth shut about any involvement of a guy like Kokomani and blaming it all on Amanda and Raffaele.
My opinion only...
RW

 

[Samson]

I tend to think that Hekuran Kokomani was involved in this murder.
I believe B. Nadeau when she writes that Kokomani was a police informant.
Wasn't it odd how Hekuran dressed for Trial, completely covered up in a hoody, baseball cap and dark sunglasses?
What was he hiding from?

If Hekuran was an informant, he was probably doing so for much longer than RG was, if RG was even ever an informant at all. Kokomani was in his early 30's, IIRC, he would be a far more valuable person to protect than RG.

Rudy did get some luv from ILE though.

Recall that he took the Fast Track Trial, was found guilty and was sentenced for the full 30 years,
which he knew would then be discounted by 1/3.
20 years would have been his sentence.

But upon Appeal,
Rudy's original sentence was reduced 6 years. It was apparently aligned with the base penalty of Amanda and Raffaeles' conviction, and then reduced by 1/3 due to the Fast Track Trial.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50
Prison for 16 years, Rudy Guede.

And it seems like PM Mignini did not seem to raise any objections when his sentence was decreased!

That to me seems like a nice reward for RG keeping mouth shut about any involvement of a guy like Kokomani and blaming it all on Amanda and Raffaele.
My opinion only...
RW

RWVBWL

I love your posts, because you are distant and independent like me, we have surf, the left break at whale bay, Raglan, can be watched from fantastic altitude.

I hope you watch the Teina Pora case at the privy council on tuesday wednesday this coming week.
I think it will be an eye opener for people who buy into multi perpetrator crimes where one perpetrator suffices, but you could be right here.
But Amanda and Raffaele were unavailable for the murder of Meredith, I know that for certain.

 

[acbytesla]

There needs to be a division in the DNA work. Extraction, amplification and production of the profile must not be suspect driven. The lab doing the wet work should not even care where the samples came from as long as each sample is uniquely identified.

Analysis would work with the raw profiles in electronic form (EDFs). Most of this would simply be processed by computer to match the profiles to the suspects. The manual step of choosing which peaks are stutters or shadows needs to be eliminated. The defense would automatically get the same EDFs that the prosecution gets.

In addition, a regular audit of the labs would get all of the results that the lab produces to analyze the quality and contamination levels within each lab. The audit results stripped of any individual case identification would be public record.

This too...

 

[Kauffer]

Pardons

From:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Article 87 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic states in part:

The President may grant pardons and commute punishments.
Article 89 states in part:

A writ of the President of the Republic shall not be valid unless signed by the proposing Minister, who shall be accountable for it.

Ah good. So you have identified a process. This could be used independently of any ECHR application, admittance and judgement could it not? So if I've understood this correctly, the whole case leaves the fiercely independent Italian judiciary and becomes a matter for politics and government.

So now I am really interested in the evidence Diocletus put up from the ECHR where Italy was called out for not righting previously adjudged wrongs. Some research needed I think.

 

[carbonjam72]

1a & b. Both of these are speculations or conjectures, IMO. I'm not aware of any specific evidence of contact between Guede and his wealthy unofficial foster family (Caporelli?). But who paid for Guede's lawyer, said by some sources to be among the most expensive in Perugia?
But here's speculation 1c: the Perugian police had a soft spot for Rudy because of his basketball skills, and they were fans.

2. This kind of trickery is routine in Italy, from what I have read. Do you think anyone in the judicial system there wasn't aware of these conflicts? They intentionally set up trials to be inconclusive, at least for officials. I believe that in terms of Italian law, they truly had run out the clock on the statute of limitations - by intent.

Interestingly, in a frightening way, since there is no statute of limitations in Italy for murder, and no limit to the number of appeals by defendant or prosecutor, AK and RS could, in theory, face an indefinite (life-long) series of trials for murder if the CSC allows it by never finalizing a verdict.

1st hilite - is an interesting point I think. At what point does speculation or conjecture start to take on some legitimate weight in our analysis? I tend to take a pretty tough line on these things, and imo, these two thoughts are of a distinctly different standing.

The police protecting Guede, explains a lot, and is supported by a lot. For example, going so far as to say the police were intentionally protecting Guede from day one at the crime scene by claiming - the break-in was staged. I believe that. But why would they do that?

You could say the motivation was to please the Caporellis (? still not sure thats their name). Or, you could say their motivation in covering for Guede was to protect themselves. Which seems more plausible? Is that family simply wealthy, or are they mafia overlords who must be obeyed by the police? Which is supported by known information? I'd say the latter has some factual basis for support, whereas the former has literally nothing I'm aware of. Doesn't mean its not true, but how ought we weight the uncertainty, if not by the available record?

As to who hired Biscotti, thats a great question, and as far as I know, still a mystery. But there has to be a record of some kind, no? Are the police department or government budgets publicly available in Italy? Seems like thats a question that has an answer, someone knows that, and it might be telling.

On the judicial strategy front, I'm aware that the statutes of limitation and glacial pace of Italian courts are often manipulated in this way. I do believe the charges against Mignini and Giutarri reflected a deeper struggle between Mignini and the judiciary, and not so much a specific outrage over Mignini's specific actions. My sense is that any prosecutor in Italy could be criminally charged at any time, if someone wanted to hold them accountable to their own actual laws. I do think they were trying to get Mignini under control, and they could have let the conviction stand and sent it through to cassation for final confirmation if they had wanted to - and if they had, Mignini would have had to step down at that point. So they had that power, if they wanted to use it, I think.

I guess the point I'm objecting to, is the idea that the Italians are that well thought out to begin with. And secondly, that the judges feel bound or obligated to honor their own laws, fairly consider facts or evidence, or give judicial outcomes that are in any way connected to a rational plan or how things, "ought to be". I think they can do whatever they like, whenever they like, and if you object, you can wait around for years - often in jail - to get it addressed - if at all. Or, they can charge you for calumnia, and again, its off to jail you go.

Its the historical remnant of a fascist institution designed to suppress resistance to state authorities. I think its a much bigger problem then an occasional errant verdict.

Endless trials are a possibility, but even the regular trial duration (5-6 years?) is flat nuts, imo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

honest differences of opinion not wanted here

Here are some comments from a DNA expert about an unrelated case: “Honest differences of opinion by qualified experts should be welcomed by the Court. This can only be accomplished if the independent expert is provided full and complete discovery by the government.” There are two take-home messages. One is that full discovery is something that virtually every forensic expert sees as important, and two is that courts should be open-minded when differing viewpoints are given. Nothing I have seen in Nencini indicates that he honestly weighed the testimony of the experts; to the contrary, he seems fixated at defending Stefanoni. This despite the fact that she made mistakes collecting the evidence, misrepresented or hid data in multiple ways, apparently took lessons from the people who lost the jacket in the Hank Skinner case about how to store evidence, and can't seem to keep her equipment working properly.

 

[carbonjam72]

I tend to think that Hekuran Kokomani was involved in this murder.
I believe B. Nadeau when she writes that Kokomani was a police informant.
Wasn't it odd how Hekuran dressed for Trial, completely covered up in a hoody, baseball cap and dark sunglasses?
What was he hiding from?

If Hekuran was an informant, he was probably doing so for much longer than RG was, if RG was even ever an informant at all. Kokomani was in his early 30's, IIRC, he would be a far more valuable person to protect than RG.

Rudy did get some luv from ILE though.

Recall that he took the Fast Track Trial, was found guilty and was sentenced for the full 30 years,which he knew would then be discounted by 1/3.
20 years would have been his sentence.

But upon Appeal,
Rudy's original sentence was reduced 6 years. It was apparently aligned with the base penalty of Amanda and Raffaeles' conviction, and then reduced by 1/3 due to the Fast Track Trial.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50
Prison for 16 years, Rudy Guede.

And it seems like PM Mignini did not seem to raise any objections when his sentence was decreased!

That to me seems like a nice reward for RG keeping mouth shut about any involvement of a guy like Kokomani and blaming it all on Amanda and Raffaele.
My opinion only...
RW

I might be wrong on this point, but I thought a sentence of "life", meant you have to do 30 years, no parole. A fast track reduction from a "life sentence" means the sentence is reduced to "30 years", and then available for parole off of that, so you could do less than 30 years with parole.

Whereas if the original sentence had been "30 years", the fast track reduction would have been automatic at 1/3 off, 10 years reduced, for a total of a new "20 year sentence" with parole available.

So Guede's sentence getting knocked down from "Life" to "24 years" on appeal, meant GUede's fast track reduction going from "30 years with possibility of parole", to "16 years" with possibility of parole.

And from what we hear, Guede's already eligible for day release, is studying for a degree in history, and is likely to become a university professor, or possibly a public minister or judge. Having graduated high school (?), Guede is eligible to sit on an appeal as a lay judge (unless the murder conviction is an issue).

 

[Diocletus]

Ah good. So you have identified a process. This could be used independently of any ECHR application, admittance and judgement could it not? So if I've understood this correctly, the whole case leaves the fiercely independent Italian judiciary and becomes a matter for politics and government.

So now I am really interested in the evidence Diocletus put up from the ECHR where Italy was called out for not righting previously adjudged wrongs. Some research needed I think.

Not only that, but as I recall, Italy's Constitutional Court more recently held unconstitutional an appellate review statute, because that statute failed to provide a mechanism for opening judgments that have been found by ECtHR to violate the ECHR. In other words, it is a constitutional requirement that ECtHR judgments are executed. I believe that this happened in the Palomar cases.

That said, I am not aware that Italy's legislature has passed a new statute, so we may have a strange situation where Italy's Constitutional Court has said that relief from illegal judgments is required, but the legislature hasn't acted to cure a defect in existing law to provide for such relief.

In practice, I don't expect this to be much of an issue for Knox, because I do not believe that they will request or be able to extradite Knox once the case is admitted to ECtHR. Sollecito is another matter, but if Knox's case is admitted, then he is going to have a strong argument for getting his own review and/or securing interim relief (release) from the ECtHR; Italy may be compelled by the Dorigo case to release him on its own.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Samuel Gross on the number of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases

Here is a link to a study on the number of false convictions involving death penalty cases. "To be more precise: Gross and his colleagues calculated a 4.1 percent error rate among people who are sentenced to death." My point in bringing this up is not to ignite a debate about the death penalty (which would be off topic). Instead, my question is that if errors happen in Australian, Great Britain, and the United States, does anyone seriously question that they have also happened in Italy?

 

[acbytesla]

Not only that, but as I recall, Italy's Constitutional Court more recently held unconstitutional an appellate review statute, because that statute failed to provide a mechanism for opening judgments that have been found by ECtHR to violate the ECHR. In other words, it is a constitutional requirement that ECtHR judgments are executed. I believe that this happened in the Palomar cases.

That said, I am not aware that Italy's legislature has passed a new statute, so we may have a strange situation where Italy's Constitutional Court has said that relief from illegal judgments is required, but the legislature hasn't acted to cure a defect in existing law to provide for such relief.

In practice, I don't expect this to be much of an issue for Knox, because I do not believe that they will request or be able to extradite Knox once the case is admitted to ECtHR. Sollecito is another matter, but if Knox's case is admitted, then he is going to have a strong argument for getting his own review and/or securing interim relief (release) from the ECtHR; Italy may be compelled by the Dorigo case to release him on its own.

The sticking point I see in your analysis is that Italy doesn't seem to care about precedent. They seem to ignore it at their convenience. Am I wrong?

 

[Diocletus]

There needs to be a division in the DNA work. Extraction, amplification and production of the profile must not be suspect driven. The lab doing the wet work should not even care where the samples came from as long as each sample is uniquely identified.

Analysis would work with the raw profiles in electronic form (EDFs). Most of this would simply be processed by computer to match the profiles to the suspects. The manual step of choosing which peaks are stutters or shadows needs to be eliminated. The defense would automatically get the same EDFs that the prosecution gets.

In addition, a regular audit of the labs would get all of the results that the lab produces to analyze the quality and contamination levels within each lab. The audit results stripped of any individual case identification would be public record.

This particular lab was very unsophisticated in terms of operating procedures, as evidenced by its conduct in this case. The Italian courts are scared to death that if the lid is blown off of this, then every DNA-related case back to 1986 will be subject to scrutiny as, frankly, they should be. Similar mass reviews of lab results have occurred in the US and UK, but Italy is unwilling to admit the possibility of institutionalized error. My conclusion is that innocent people are sitting in jail in Italy because of DNA misconduct.

Not only that, but the Italian justice system (at least in 2007) was stunningly unable to handle DNA matters. Judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers seemed unequipped to compel transparency into lab practices/results. Nencini's opinion illustrates that even today, Italian judges have a limited understanding of DNA science.

DNA is a powerful tool, but the Italian justice system hasn't been willing to put in the effort to assure a fair process when it comes to DNA. It's a toy that they shouldn't be allowed to play with until they read the instruction manual . . . as the saying goes: "You'll shoot your eye out" (or someone else's).

 

[Diocletus]

The sticking point I see in your analysis is that Italy doesn't seem to care about precedent. They seem to ignore it at their convenience. Am I wrong?

It depends who is driving the process at the relevant point. But at some point, there won't be any choice.

 

[JREF2010]

I might be wrong on this point, but I thought a sentence of "life", meant you have to do 30 years, no parole. A fast track reduction from a "life sentence" means the sentence is reduced to "30 years", and then available for parole off of that, so you could do less than 30 years with parole.

Whereas if the original sentence had been "30 years", the fast track reduction would have been automatic at 1/3 off, 10 years reduced, for a total of a new "20 year sentence" with parole available.

So Guede's sentence getting knocked down from "Life" to "24 years" on appeal, meant GUede's fast track reduction going from "30 years with possibility of parole", to "16 years" with possibility of parole.

And from what we hear, Guede's already eligible for day release, is studying for a degree in history, and is likely to become a university professor, or possibly a public minister or judge. Having graduated high school (?), Guede is eligible to sit on an appeal as a lay judge (unless the murder conviction is an issue).

If I were in the Kercher's shoes, it would be a great insult and let down in Maresca and all the rest of Italys long drawn out, deal making, clown circus system.

After all the dragging the case on and on, only to let the most likely lone perp walk out without much punishment (and a free degree), the "main evil" as Massei called him....its as if it was all for nothing, no justice is done if Rudy walks out free and served such little time.

Unbelievable how this case has been so upside down and basically, an insult to the Kerchers from the day Mignnini and Maresca and the rest of the Lying Squad clowns mucked the entire investigation up.

If Maresca was my lawyer I'd ask for a refund.

 

[anglolawyer]

The *********** lamp

There is also another element that is of undoubted importance.

Great. What is it?

From the report of the site inspection and from the photos taken by the State Police, it can be seen that in the room where the murder occurred a small table lamp was found, which came from Amanda Marie Knox’s *room (leaving that room with no light fixtures), located on the floor. From the finding of this lamp, and from the location in which it was found, it must be considered that on the night in question, after the murder, someone needed to have a point of direct light at hand in order to see into the [83] parts of the room that inevitably remain in shadow if lit by the only light source, located high up in the room.

Unbelievable and egregiously wrong (no evidence the lamp was already in the room, some inferential evidence that it wasn't, overhead light not the only source as there was also Meredith's own lamp etc.). Nencini doesn't seem to get round to saying elsewhere what the 'undoubted importance' was so I guess this is supposed to be a 'fact' which somehow speaks for itself. Someone needed to see something with the lamp they could not see without it.

Earlier in the judgment, page 42 of the translation (in which someone might have thought to insert actual page numbers), we read:

The Supreme Court ruling requested of this Court a thorough reassessment of the evidence, on the basis of the following passage expressing the limits of this reexamination: “(omissis) Using the broadest faculty of evaluation, the remanded judge will have to remedy the flaws in argumentation by conducting a uniform and global analysis of the evidence, through which it will have to be ascertained whether the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment. The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan [33] to kill to a change in the plan whose initial aim was only to involve the young English woman in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild *group *erotic *game *that *violently *took *another *course, *getting *out *of *control”. *(Page 73, Supreme Court sentence)

Or, as we would say, the case must be decided on the totality of the evidence. So where in his organic evaluation does Nencini insert the lamp? The answer is: nowhere. It seems to be perfectly OK to just lob random facts into the judgment, sagely ascribe to them 'undoubted importance' and move on.

By the way, I have not highlighted the outrageous steer in the above passage, because we have covered it before, but read the last four lines to yourself slowly. It bears repetition.

ETA Mike - do we have the report of the site inspection?

 

[Diocletus]

Great. What is it?



Unbelievable and egregiously wrong (no evidence the lamp was already in the room, some inferential evidence that it wasn't, overhead light not the only source as there was also Meredith's own lamp etc.). Nencini doesn't seem to get round to saying elsewhere what the 'undoubted importance' was so I guess this is supposed to be a 'fact' which somehow speaks for itself. Someone needed to see something with the lamp they could not see without it.

Earlier in the judgment, page 42 of the translation (in which someone might have thought to insert actual page numbers), we read:



Or, as we would say, the case must be decided on the totality of the evidence. So where in his organic evaluation does Nencini insert the lamp? The answer is: nowhere. It seems to be perfectly OK to just lob random facts into the judgment, sagely ascribe to them 'undoubted importance' and move on.

By the way, I have not highlighted the outrageous steer in the above passage, because we have covered it before, but read the last four lines to yourself slowly. It bears repetition.

ETA Mike - do we have the report of the site inspection?

Well, I guess that since the lamp is owned by Amanda, only she could have put it there. Logic.