Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

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

'Owned'? In what sense? It was owned by the landlady so … wait a second ...

 

[MDDVS]

It's always the same drill. They decided a priori that there was a clean up. Then they pick any factoid that would help support that theory (more or less strongly). Then ignore any evidence to the contrary. The final conlusion is, unsurprisingly, that there was a clean up.

 

[Welshman]

The factors involved in wrongful convictions include but may not be limited to:
1. Official misconduct (by police and/or prosecutor; rarely the judge)
2. False or misleading forensic evidence
3. Perjury or false accusation
4. Mistaken witness identification
5. False confession
6. Inadequate legal defense

(I borrowed this list from the National Registry of Exonerations:
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx)

Increasing the safety of convictions would seem to require efforts to improve reliability or checks and balances in each of these six factors.

In some ways, improving forensics seems relatively easy, because there should be scientific procedures to judge reliability and technical means for improvement. LCN DNA profiling is generally not accepted in the US, AFAIK.

To combat official misconduct, approaches may include open prosecution case files to prevent violations of Brady (discovery) and perhaps an "Inspector General of Prosecutions" or conviction reliability officer covering each jurisdiction (or group of jurisdictions).

There are techniques for improving witness IDs, relating to police procedures.

To fight against false confessions, the usual suggestion is to video record all police interrogation of suspects, rather than confessions only. In light of recent possible cases of unjustified use of force by police, video recording of all police interaction with suspects or arrestees would be appropriate.

There is room for improvement in the public defender or court appointed defender programs in a number of US jurisdictions.

It is no surprise that misconduct is a feature in wrongful convictions. Misconduct by the police and prosecution is a clear sign of of a weak case and a lack of evidence. Misconduct takes the following forms :-

* Suppression of evidence.

In the case of Amanda and Raffaele, the police refused to hand over CCTV which covered the route between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage, tapes of the interrogation, recordings of the phone conversations between Amanda and Raffaele and the EDFs. When the prosecution suppresses evidence this indicates the evidence does not support the prosecution's case. For instance, the prosecution did not want to release the EDFs because this would show the tests on the knife were not valid.

* Lying.

When the prosecution lie, this indicates the prosecution have a lack of evidence and the evidence does not support the prosecution's case. In the case of Amanda and Raffaele, the prosecution told numerous lies.

* Manufacturing evidence.

When the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing evidence, this indicates they have a lack of evidence. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the bra clasp are highly suspect which has lead to speculation the DNA on the bra clasp was planted.

* Abusing the rights of suspects during interrogations and relying on coerced confessions.

Amanda's confessions was made under duress. A coerced confessions is false evidence. Having to rely on coerced confessions is a sign the police have a lack of evidence because a coerced confession is manufactured evidence and as stated previously, having to rely on manufactured evidence is a sign the police have a lack of genuine evidence they can use.

 

[Diocletus]

'Owned'? In what sense? It was owned by the landlady so … wait a second ...

Oh, right. I meant to say it was pwned by Amanda.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, right. I meant to say it was pwned by Amanda.

But, to be serious, I think your take is correct - that it is judgment by innuendo. The sentence about the 'undoubted importance' of the lamp must be read while picturing a judicial wink. This guy was well chosen.

 

[Numbers]

First this: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=964583&Site=COE

Then, other things: see the Palomar cases.

Thanks for mentioning Palomar - a Google search found an Italian newsletter (they have a disclaimer that they're not a newspaper, and thus NOT subject to certain Italian laws) dealing with legal issues, primarily the judgments of the Italian Constitutional Court.

The Dorigo case is relevant to this one, in terms of what happens in Italy if the ECtHR rules a trial is unfair. Italy apparently does not have a clear legal mechanism (presidential pardon a possible exception) to redress this unfairness. See Palomar #3, 2008 and #15, 2011:

http://www3.unisi.it/dipec/palomar/italy003_2008.html
http://www3.unisi.it/dipec/palomar/italy015_2011.html

The Constitutional Court in the decision n. 129/2008 has eventually declared unfounded all the questions of constitutionality, stating that the constitutional parameters invoked were erroneous and that the incompatibility between the obligation to renew trials in order to enforce a decision of the ECtHR and the lack of instruments in the Italian system had to be resolved by the legislator, and not by the judiciary.

The Constitutional Court could indeed have adopted a decision providing for the addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure of such a provision. However, in one rare example of judicial self-restraint, the Court preferred to stress to the legislator the important of such a reform. This was probably due to two main factors: the wide discretion in choosing the best mechanism for renewal of a trial and the willingness to call underline responsibility to the Parliament.
________

Mr. Dorigo was convicted by the Court of Udine to thirteen years imprisonment for taking part in the Aviano base attack, on the basis of the accusations made by three co-defendants, without the possibility to conduct before the judge a cross-examination of the persons making accusations, as required by art. 6 ECHR.
After the sentence became res iudicata, Mr. Dorigo filed an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights for violation of the right to a fair trial. In 1998 the European Commission stated that the Italian authorities had violated art. 6 ECHR, and the Committee of Ministers adopted the Commission’s statement in its decision of 1999 (such decision, before the entry into force of Protocol no. 11, had the same binding force that a decision of the Court has today).

Following this judgment, the General Prosecutor at the Court of Udine requested the suspension of the execution of the sentence until the evaluation of its legitimacy, in light of the European judgment. In 2007, the Court of Cassation, with decision no. 2800, declared the order of imprisonment invalid and thus ordered the liberation of the convicted, stating the following principle: «the judge of the execution must declare the unenforceability of the sentence if the ECtHR established that the conviction had been issued in violation of the right to fair trial established by art. 6 ECHR and that the convicted shall have the right to the reopening of the proceedings, even if the Legislator has not yet provided for the introduction of a proper possibility of re-examination».

 

[Diocletus]

(they have a disclaimer that they're not a newspaper, and thus NOT subject to certain Italian laws) dealing with legal issues, primarily the judgments of the Italian Constitutional Court.

They seem to have it backwards over there. You know, free press and all that jazz.

The Constitutional Court could indeed have adopted a decision providing for the addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure of such a provision. However, in one rare example of judicial self-restraint, the Court preferred to stress to the legislator the important of such a reform. This was probably due to two main factors: the wide discretion in choosing the best mechanism for renewal of a trial and the willingness to call underline responsibility to the Parliament.

Consequently, nothing at all has been done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Burglars who don't flush and who help themselves to food

"Police say Herrera also took a Coke from the fridge, drank it and left the can along with his DNA."link Believe it or not, the PG-commenters on these threads several years ago questioned that burglars sometimes did these things.

 

[Numbers]

They seem to have it backwards over there. You know, free press and all that jazz.



Consequently, nothing at all has been done.

Yes, apparently nothing has been done for at least six years since the Italian Constitutional Court asked the Italian legislature to take action.

So this shows how consistent a political and judicial system can be.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, apparently nothing has been done for at least six years since the Italian Constitutional Court asked the Italian legislature to take action.

So this shows how consistent a political and judicial system can be.

Seems to be a pretty common situation. . . .When the courts go to the legislature to change the laws, it becomes a stalled issue. Recently, that issue reared its ugly head with the Hobby Lobby case and in India in laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[sept79]

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.

'Differing viewpoints' related to DNA in my opinion approaches reasonable doubt . . .

 

[sept79]

Seems to be a pretty common situation. . . .When the courts go to the legislature to change the laws, it becomes a stalled issue. Recently, that issue reared its ugly head with the Hobby Lobby case and in India in laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

What about laws which trample on religious beliefs ?

 

[Desert Fox]

What about laws which trample on religious beliefs ?

This is not an argument here on religion (I have to be honest, I tend to be pretty dismissive of religious arguments) as related to the issue but that the legislatures could create plugs for the holes but due to political reasons are unlikely to.

 

[Bill Williams]

But, to be serious, I think your take is correct - that it is judgment by innuendo. The sentence about the 'undoubted importance' of the lamp must be read while picturing a judicial wink. This guy was well chosen.

Are "judicial winks" either common or wise? Peggy Ganong's bunch have just finished an English rendering of Nencini's report..... just how is a "judicial wink" translated?

When Judge Nencini refers to Rudy Guede as a professional burglar, professional enough to not sully his PLE-known reputation with a break-in through Filomena's window..... is that another example of a "judicial wink"?

You are right. Judge Nencini WAS well chosen. I do not see how Cassation CAN sign off on this report, except it probably will. Then winking will be enshrined into Italian legal practise!

 

[Kauffer]

'Differing viewpoints' related to DNA in my opinion approaches reasonable doubt . . .

I'm not sure that this statement cuts it. It's really about the quality of the science not simply whether there is an opposing view. There will always be an opposing view in an adversarial process.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's always the same drill. They decided a priori that there was a clean up. Then they pick any factoid that would help support that theory (more or less strongly). Then ignore any evidence to the contrary. The final conlusion is, unsurprisingly, that there was a clean up.

After three years of reading about this, I think you have just provided the best definition of "osmosis" that I can see.

It's never been really answered. Is "osmosis" a term regularly used in Italian legal decisions? Is it some sort of standard?

Is it or is it not a translation-fudge for Peggy Ganong's translators to render it as "organic"?

 

[codyjuneau]

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

.
Does a picture of Hekuran Kokomani without a disguise exist? Could the name Hekuran Kokomani be a cover or alias? If he is from Albania he should have a passport, is that publicly available?

It would be interesting to see if the Tow Truck driver recognizes him from the evening of Meredith's murder.

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

'Differing viewpoints' related to DNA in my opinion approaches reasonable doubt . . .

I'm not sure that this statement cuts it. It's really about the quality of the science not simply whether there is an opposing view. There will always be an opposing view in an adversarial process.

I think I agree with sept79 on this. I am a scientific layperson, who can perhaps blurt out three science-like sentences on just about anything, but if asked for a fourth sentence, I'd rather change the subject.

If I was on a 12 person jury, though, and was told by a judge that I was 1/12th of a trier of fact......

...... wildly differing "expert" opinions would look like reasonable doubt to me.

True, there will always be opposing views. It's why I offered up John Oliver's demonstration upthread about global warming. In the case of the Massei/Hellmann/Nencini trials and the veracity of the DNA evidence that prosecutors want to use to send two people away for almost 30 years.....

..... I'd say that the weight of the DNA evidence does not support doing that. And that's even before considering that one police office, and one only, supports a guilt version of the DNA. Everyone else who has looked at it (not just those allowed to address a jury) says the DNA evidence against the two is bogus.

That looks like (at least) reasonable doubt to me!

 

[codyjuneau]

But Willingham had family, no? Don't they have a right to know, and have it be known, that their loved one was an innocent man?

What's missing is accountability. It shouldn't be an option to not admit a mistake has been made. And there should be a regularized process fro recognizing such errors.

I agree there should be no capital punishment, anywhere. It's a barbarous relic from the past. The least restrictive response to crime necessary to prevent recurrence, is best, and least costly (obviously imo).

People make mistakes. Both prosecutors and the prosecuted. There are true criminals. But we don't have to be.

.
I was Googling Clive Stafford Smith who SuperCal referenced (surprisingly). Clive seems like an extremely genuine, compassionate, insightful, and intelligent person. I would love it if SuperCal could convince Clive to participate in this forum. I definitely would value the opinion of someone like him. I doubt very much he would believe Raf and Amanda were guilty, but if he did I would listen earnestly to his arguments.

Anyway, back to the part of your post that I highlighted, it reminded me of one of Clive's YouTube videos I found when I was Googling his name. It is a rather interesting take on people's mistakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udkET7_iVRI

Cody
.

 

[Diocletus]

Is it or is it not a translation-fudge for Peggy Ganong's translators to render it as "organic"?

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows that blueberries and things from Vermont are organic (except Phish, they're not organic).

Italian judicial opinions and "reasonings" are not organic . . . unless the judge had just eaten a whole bunch of seeds and berries before he laid that steaming pile.