Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

ECHR has updated its statistics for pending cases. The total is now reduced to 78,000 as of 01 Nov 2014; it had been 85,000 as of 30 Sep 2014.

Italy is still in the lead, with 14,900 (19.1%) followed by
Ukraine, with---------------- 14,650 (18.8%)
Russia, ---------------------- 10,250 (13.1%)
Turkey, ---------------------- 10,100 (12.9%)

The next six states in order of decreasing number of applications are:
Romania, Serbia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, and Slovenia.
The remaining 37 states have 13,950 applications pending (17.9%).
See: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_month_2014_BIL.pdf

 

[Numbers]

For comparison, here are summaries of the number of ECHR cases for the UK and Italy from 1959 to 1 Jan 2011. The UK and Italy each had a population of about 60 million in 1990; since then the UK pop. has increased to about 64 million, Italy remains at about 60 million.

From FactSheets: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Country_Factsheets_1959_2010_ENG.pdf

United Kingdom
The Council of Europe
Accession: 5 May 1949
The Convention
Signature: 4 November 1950
Ratification: 8 March 1951
First judgement
Golder v. the United Kingdom
(21 February 1975)
The Court and the United Kingdom
on 1 January 2011
Total number of judgments: 443
Violation judgments: 271
No violation judgments: 86
Other judgments: 86
Inadmissibility decisions: 14 029
Pending applications: 3 172

Italy
The Council of Europe
Accession: 5 May 1949
The Convention
Signature: 4 November 1950
Ratification: 26 October 1955
First judgement
Artico v. Italy
(13 May 1980)
The Court and Italy on 1 January 2011
Total number of judgments: 2121
Violation judgments: 1617
No violation judgments: 51
Other judgments: 453
Inadmissibility decisions: 9 675
Pending applications: 10 208

 

[anglolawyer]

Numbers (I am beginning to understand why you chose your online name btw.)

I want to have another go on the luminol thing. Evidence does not have to be perfect or 100% certain, right? The standard of proof (BRD) applies to the totality of the evidence, not individual pieces of it (broadly, not always, true but good enough for this comparison). Take ID evidence. Witnesses aren't always certain of their identification and its known anyway that witnesses who claim to be certain can be wrong. But even uncertain ID evidence is still evidence. If you don't believe me then bone up on the case of Nyki Kish.

In the same way, while luminol does not give certainty that blood has been found, it can suggest a probability. If I can arrange the facts any way I want then I can probably come up with a scenario in which even you would agree the luminol showed blood. It's pretty easy actually.

But, in our case, the Knox/Sollecito case, uncertain evidence was capable of bein rendered certain. We don't only have the luminol. We also have negative TMB, lies about TMB and negligent failure to carry out a confirmatory test. So we chuck out the luminol evidence. No problem.

The analogy with uncertain (or even certain) ID evidence would be if the cops had, but suppressed, evidence which proved their ID witness was wrong. Or as in 12 Angry Men it turned out the main eye witness had poor eyesight.

So, I'm going back to my argument that luminol by itself could be evidence of probative value but only in the right context and absent the contrary indicators we have here.

 

[Dan O.]

Mach has provided a vey thrilling time line of the actual murder, with possibly enough detail to infer some of the events outside the actual killing. And Mach has taken many of the objections of evidence into his, excuse me Mach, - 'somewhat fanciful account'. I'm reposting it below, and highlighting some of the gems I find within -

I'm afraid Mach is off rebooting again since I called him on the trousers being reversed. It's a pity nobody take the time to critique their own scenarios before making themselves look foolish in public.

The way Mach presented his scenario made it seem like Meredith was left in the initial position for hours. But there is so much evidence that this isn't so. There was blood pooling in the initial position but not for hours, only minutes while the perp (Rudy) backs off from the initial shock of what he's done, drops the knife on the bed (note RW how it bounced slightly) and steady's himself by putting his hand out to the wall (Rudy himself admits to writing on the wall). Rudy then fetches the first towel from Meredith's bathroom to wipe the blood off his hands and returns to reposition the body.

Meredith's blue jacket is removed (it's covered in blood and pulled off in a way that reverses the sleeves), her tee shirts are pushed up over her breasts, her bra is grabbed and removed as I have explained earlier leaving Rudy's DNA on the back band and she is laid on her back while she is still alive as evidenced from the blood spray. (This isn't certain, it is possible that the spray was the result of Rudy raping Meredith's corps. But Rudy the lier claims Meredith was alive when he left her.)

Maybe Meredith was still alive when Rudy covered her naked body with the duvet. Meredith's right arm is bent at the elbow and there is no real explanation for this. Rigor mortis would not set in for a couple of hours and Meredith's hand would have fallen to the floor if it were not being held up. I see the possibility that Meredith raised her right hand in front of her face as an automatic reaction to keep from being suffocated when the duvet is tossed over her. The duvet held her arm in that position as she died. Rigor mortis gradually dissipates from approximately 24 hours after death so the arm would have begun to straighten even before the slow Italian police uncovered her body.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers (I am beginning to understand why you chose your online name btw.)

I want to have another go on the luminol thing. Evidence does not have to be perfect or 100% certain, right? The standard of proof (BRD) applies to the totality of the evidence, not individual pieces of it (broadly, not always, true but good enough for this comparison). Take ID evidence. Witnesses aren't always certain of their identification and its known anyway that witnesses who claim to be certain can be wrong. But even uncertain ID evidence is still evidence. If you don't believe me then bone up on the case of Nyki Kish.

In the same way, while luminol does not give certainty that blood has been found, it can suggest a probability. If I can arrange the facts any way I want then I can probably come up with a scenario in which even you would agree the luminol showed blood. It's pretty easy actually.

But, in our case, the Knox/Sollecito case, uncertain evidence was capable of bein rendered certain. We don't only have the luminol. We also have negative TMB, lies about TMB and negligent failure to carry out a confirmatory test. So we chuck out the luminol evidence. No problem.

The analogy with uncertain (or even certain) ID evidence would be if the cops had, but suppressed, evidence which proved their ID witness was wrong. Or as in 12 Angry Men it turned out the main eye witness had poor eyesight.

So, I'm going back to my argument that luminol by itself could be evidence of probative value but only in the right context and absent the contrary indicators we have here.

Suppose there is a luminol-triggering patch on a floor. It's not a sign of blood, by TMB and antigen-antibody test. Is it probative? That depends.

If there was a murder or assault in the room and it's likely that blood deposited on the floor, then one should look for additional indications.

Swirling marks visible in the luminol CL would be an indication of a clean-up, for example. And if one was convinced that blood had to have been deposited on the floor, then it seems likely that the blood was cleaned-up and the luminol is being triggered by cleaning chemical residue. It would be desirable to test for such residue.

But if one cannot say with some high degree of probability that the luminol CL is from a clean-up of blood, it could be from a clean-up of some innocent substance, such as spaghetti sauce. Or it could be a deposit left by rusty water. Or there was mold on the floor, and bleach was used as a clean-up.

So I think one needs to be very careful about concluding that a presumptive test is probative. "All the other evidence" has to be convincing, IMO, otherwise one falls into the logical fallacies we see with the guilters, the prosecutors, and some of the courts in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach has provided a vey thrilling time line of the actual murder, with possibly enough detail to infer some of the events outside the actual killing. And Mach has taken many of the objections of evidence into his, excuse me Mach, - 'somewhat fanciful account'. I'm reposting it below, and highlighting some of the gems I find within -Mach has provided a vey thrilling time line of the actual murder, with possibly enough detail to infer some of the events outside the actual killing. And Mach has taken many of the objections of evidence into his, excuse me Mach, - 'somewhat fanciful account'. I'm reposting it below, and highlighting some of the gems I find within -

I'm afraid Mach is off rebooting again since I called him on the trousers being reversed. It's a pity nobody take the time to critique their own scenarios before making themselves look foolish in public.

Okay, it bears repeating one thing Machiavelli is NOT rebooting on.

His insinuation that Wladimiro De Nunzio, presidente della Corte d'appello di Perugia, is a criminal conspirator to all this.

Here we are 7 years to the day of the beginning of the wrongful prosecution/conviction and Machiavelli continues with the Pro-guilt lobby as if the case against AK and RS needed help.

He may have missed it - so far Mignini and the ISC is winning.

 

[Dan O.]

In the same way, while luminol does not give certainty that blood has been found, it can suggest a probability. If I can arrange the facts any way I want then I can probably come up with a scenario in which even you would agree the luminol showed blood. It's pretty easy actually.

I can even give you an example from the current case. The Luminol tract in the hall showing the characteristic rings of the shoe print. If this tract had not been previously analyzed and even if there had been no TMB and DNA tests from this Luminol tract, because this tract is part of a continuous trail from the murder room where the substance creating the shoe print was in fact identified as Meredith's blood, it can be stated as fact that this tract is also blood BARD.

If the Luminol spray had been continued into the living room and kitchen and the continuation of the shoe print marks were discovered that were not directly visible I would also concur that they were blood.

Why was Luminol not sprayed in the living room and kitchen? The clear answer is that they were only looking for evidence that would incriminate Amanda so they were only looking where she said she walked barefoot after stepping out of the shower onto the bloody bathmat. And they were only recording tracts that looked like bare footprints and ignoring the tracts that looked like Rudy's bloody shoe prints. This bias in the evidence collection should result in the evidence and those collecting it being thrown out.

 

[anglolawyer]

Suppose there is a luminol-triggering patch on a floor. It's not a sign of blood, by TMB and antigen-antibody test. Is it probative? That depends.

If there was a murder or assault in the room and it's likely that blood deposited on the floor, then one should look for additional indications.

Swirling marks visible in the luminol CL would be an indication of a clean-up, for example. And if one was convinced that blood had to have been deposited on the floor, then it seems likely that the blood was cleaned-up and the luminol is being triggered by cleaning chemical residue. It would be desirable to test for such residue.

But if one cannot say with some high degree of probability that the luminol CL is from a clean-up of blood, it could be from a clean-up of some innocent substance, such as spaghetti sauce. Or it could be a deposit left by rusty water. Or there was mold on the floor, and bleach was used as a clean-up.

So I think one needs to be very careful about concluding that a presumptive test is probative. "All the other evidence" has to be convincing, IMO, otherwise one falls into the logical fallacies we see with the guilters, the prosecutors, and some of the courts in this case.

I agree with all that. What I disagree with is the idea (not necessarily yours) that each item of evidence in a criminal case must cross some preliminary threshold of reliability before it gains admission. What it must not do is encounter refutation, like a dishonestly suppressed negative TMB test, but assuming it's relevant and admissible then it goes in, even if it's weak. IOW Italy is wrong if its jurisprudence has systemised such a preliminary test.

By the way, I speak from some experience here. If I want to prove something I'll generally lob in everything I can find, weak or not. In practise you never know what will swing it. That does not mean using obviously bad or flawed evidence. Weak is OK but bad is just bad.

 

[kwill]

Maybe Meredith was still alive when Rudy covered her naked body with the duvet. Meredith's right arm is bent at the elbow and there is no real explanation for this. Rigor mortis would not set in for a couple of hours and Meredith's hand would have fallen to the floor if it were not being held up. I see the possibility that Meredith raised her right hand in front of her face as an automatic reaction to keep from being suffocated when the duvet is tossed over her.

That poor girl.

 

[anglolawyer]

I can even give you an example from the current case. The Luminol tract in the hall showing the characteristic rings of the shoe print. If this tract had not been previously analyzed and even if there had been no TMB and DNA tests from this Luminol tract, because this tract is part of a continuous trail from the murder room where the substance creating the shoe print was in fact identified as Meredith's blood, it can be stated as fact that this tract is also blood BARD.

If the Luminol spray had been continued into the living room and kitchen and the continuation of the shoe print marks were discovered that were not directly visible I would also concur that they were blood.

Why was Luminol not sprayed in the living room and kitchen? The clear answer is that they were only looking for evidence that would incriminate Amanda so they were only looking where she said she walked barefoot after stepping out of the shower onto the bloody bathmat. And they were only recording tracts that looked like bare footprints and ignoring the tracts that looked like Rudy's bloody shoe prints. This bias in the evidence collection should result in the evidence and those collecting it being thrown out.

Thank you Dan. For luminol-only to be said to be assisting in proving a fact it must not be the case that the fact is already proved without it. What I am looking for is a case where the luminol itself, maybe with other facts, proves the presence of blood. Your first paragraph gives an example. Your second and third are important parts of the overall context in which the luminol evidence should be judged. There are many reasons for throwing out the luminol evidence. Nencini solved this problem by ignoring them wholesale in his bogus 'global evaluation' which turned out to be nothing of the kind and is exactly what we would expect to find in a motivation supporting a guilty verdict in this case. It can't otherwise be done.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thank you Dan. For luminol-only to be said to be assisting in proving a fact it must not be the case that the fact is already proved without it. What I am looking for is a case where the luminol itself, maybe with other facts, proves the presence of blood. Your first paragraph gives an example. Your second and third are important parts of the overall context in which the luminol evidence should be judged. There are many reasons for throwing out the luminol evidence. Nencini solved this problem by ignoring them wholesale in his bogus 'global evaluation' which turned out to be nothing of the kind and is exactly what we would expect to find in a motivation supporting a guilty verdict in this case. It can't otherwise be done.

Can you agree that legal systems are often far too willing to accept poor evidence of guilt than they should be? They often also are far too willing to exclude exculpatory evidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

Can you agree that legal systems are often far too willing to accept poor evidence of guilt than they should be? They often also are far too willing to exclude exculpatory evidence?

I am not in a position to agree (or disagree) with either proposition. It is true that the same problems are evident everywhere but there are extra elements in Italy that you would not find here. Maybe we have issues they don't, I don't know.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not in a position to agree (or disagree) with either proposition. It is true that the same problems are evident everywhere but there are extra elements in Italy that you would not find here. Maybe we have issues they don't, I don't know.

I feel like wrongful convictions in the United States seem to have a different flavor than they do in Italy. Trying to actually explain the specifics however is difficult.

 

[anglolawyer]

I feel like wrongful convictions in the United States seem to have a different flavor than they do in Italy. Trying to actually explain the specifics however is difficult.

Well, in the US you have elected judges and DAs who might have reason to pander to the law and order crowd and also may pay a price for being wrong. Over here, demoralising the police by rejecting their perjured evidence was anathema but I'm not so sure that's a big factor anymore. Italy seems to be a basket case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I feel like wrongful convictions in the United States seem to have a different flavor than they do in Italy. Trying to actually explain the specifics however is difficult.

Canada mostly gets it right, but can get it way, way wrong. Mention these names: David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall Jr., James Driskell, Steven Truscott and Gregory Parsons and you will not get much opposition to the reality of wrongful convictions here.

see: http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf​

Nyki Kish's is one that many claim is a result of the quite-well studied phenomenon when things go wrong here:

Since 1986, six full public commissions of inquiry have been held in Canada following cases where wrongful convictions for murder were confirmed. Although each of the commissions reported to and were funded by the government, they were independent of government:

(Common factors):

- a multitude of inappropriate actions by a number of people

- problems, themes and mistakes arise time and time again not confined to proceedings in the courtroom, but relate also to the conduct of police, Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges and forensic scientists.

- Key factors are tunnel vision, mistaken eyewitness identification and testimony, false confessions, in-custody informers, DNA evidence, forensic evidence and expert testimony, and lack of education

- there are environmental or predisposing circumstances that can allow immediate causes to arise, such as public pressures to convict, intense media assaults, and the culture of a game approach to the adversarial system.​

Canada’s public inquiry process has been cited repeatedly by American legislators, scholars and jurists as being worthy of adoption in the United States.

 

[Numbers]

I agree with all that. What I disagree with is the idea (not necessarily yours) that each item of evidence in a criminal case must cross some preliminary threshold of reliability before it gains admission. What it must not do is encounter refutation, like a dishonestly suppressed negative TMB test, but assuming it's relevant and admissible then it goes in, even if it's weak. IOW Italy is wrong if its jurisprudence has systemised such a preliminary test.

By the way, I speak from some experience here. If I want to prove something I'll generally lob in everything I can find, weak or not. In practise you never know what will swing it. That does not mean using obviously bad or flawed evidence. Weak is OK but bad is just bad.

But what is obviously bad or flawed evidence? What is the standard of reliability? What should not be admitted, and what should be admitted and subject to vigorous challenge?

Suppose one considers bullet markings (left by contact between the bullet and high points in the barrel during the bullet's travel down the barrel).

The prosecutor will claim that the markings are from the defendant's gun. There will be a control firing by the police with that gun for a comparison bullet. How closely should the two sets of markings match to be considered showing that the fatal bullet was fired from the same weapon as the control?
How many other guns of the same caliber, possibly from the same manufacturer, would also produce similar or even identical markings?

Now one could argue that all of the bullet evidence should be admitted, but also the defense must know the conditions of obtaining the control and how the comparison was done. The defense should have the right to conduct its own control firing, IMO. Furthermore, the prosecution needs to answer the question of the relative uniqueness of the markings and the defense should be able to counter with its own evidence.

What about evidence in which the chain of custody has been broken? Should that be eligible for introduction into a court's evidence? What about evidence that has been collected in a manner that compromised it? IMO, NO, for both questions.

But what about a test such as DNA profiling, or mass spectrometry or other test to identify the chemical constituents of some drug or presumed poison? Such tests are far more complex and subject to error, contamination, and even manipulation. So discovery of the methods, equipment, and material are essential. Furthermore, the validity of the test must be established by the prosecution. If the test has no history of reliability that can establish its validity, perhaps since it was just developed, it should not be admitted, IMO. Any appearance of a result against the defendant would be prejudicial, unless perhaps the jury was composed of individuals both skeptical and capable of understanding the complexity of the scientific issues of the test. So that is one example of the issue of reliability and introduction of evidence. Generally in the US, LCN DNA testing is not even attempted for forensics, AFAIK, because of concerns about reliability and validation. The FBI has a publication including requirements for laboratory validation:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/qas_testlabs

Here is an excerpt from the validation section:

Standard 8.1

The laboratory shall use validated methodologies for DNA analyses. There are two types of validations: developmental and internal.

Standard 8.2

Developmental validation shall precede the use of a novel methodology for forensic DNA analysis.
8.2.1 Developmental validation studies shall include, where applicable, characterization of the genetic marker, species specificity, sensitivity studies, stability studies, reproducibility, case-type samples, population studies, mixture studies, precision and accuracy studies, and PCR-based studies. PCR-based studies include reaction conditions, assessment of differential and preferential amplification, effects of multiplexing, assessment of appropriate controls, and product detection studies. All validation studies shall be documented.

8.2.2 Peer-reviewed publication of the underlying scientific principle(s) of a technology shall be required.

Standard 8.3 Except as provided in Standard 8.3.1.1, internal validation of all manual and robotic methods shall be conducted by each laboratory and reviewed and approved by the laboratory’s technical leader prior to using a procedure for forensic applications.

So if the lab doesn't meet some minimum requirements, there isn't validation, and the lab doesn't have QA or contamination control, don't bother to admit its alleged evidence. And if by error it had been admitted, toss the case on appeal.

 

[Diocletus]

I am not in a position to agree (or disagree) with either proposition. It is true that the same problems are evident everywhere but there are extra elements in Italy that you would not find here. Maybe we have issues they don't, I don't know.

We should have put Italians in charge of the Warren Commission. That would have been friggin' awesome.

 

[Numbers]

Canada mostly gets it right, but can get it way, way wrong. Mention these names: David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall Jr., James Driskell, Steven Truscott and Gregory Parsons and you will not get much opposition to the reality of wrongful convictions here.

see: http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf​

Nyki Kish's is one that many claim is a result of the quite-well studied phenomenon when things go wrong here:

There are a variety of reasons for wrongful convictions in the US.
Some of the most outrageous are those that involve official misconduct.
Some of these cases are ones where police and prosecutor are too hurried and have preconceived notions and so cheating seems acceptable. Others I believe the police and sometimes prosecutor simply always cheat; it their standard operating procedure.

There have been quite a few US cases where the police select a person, generally someone young, fearful or overly respectful of authority, and perhaps otherwise vulnerable - and through coercive interrogation including indoctrinating the "suspect" with details of the crime - produce a credible false confession. Then, after a day or two, the "suspect" renounces the confession, but it's too late; judge and jury will give credence to the confession because it contains some accurate detail. Exculpatory DNA testing after conviction has helped reveal this type of official misconduct.

 

[anglolawyer]

But what is obviously bad or flawed evidence? What is the standard of reliability? What should not be admitted, and what should be admitted and subject to vigorous challenge?

Suppose one considers bullet markings (left by contact between the bullet and high points in the barrel during the bullet's travel down the barrel).

The prosecutor will claim that the markings are from the defendant's gun. There will be a control firing by the police with that gun for a comparison bullet. How closely should the two sets of markings match to be considered showing that the fatal bullet was fired from the same weapon as the control?
How many other guns of the same caliber, possibly from the same manufacturer, would also produce similar or even identical markings?

Now one could argue that all of the bullet evidence should be admitted, but also the defense must know the conditions of obtaining the control and how the comparison was done. The defense should have the right to conduct its own control firing, IMO. Furthermore, the prosecution needs to answer the question of the relative uniqueness of the markings and the defense should be able to counter with its own evidence.

What about evidence in which the chain of custody has been broken? Should that be eligible for introduction into a court's evidence? What about evidence that has been collected in a manner that compromised it? IMO, NO, for both questions.

But what about a test such as DNA profiling, or mass spectrometry or other test to identify the chemical constituents of some drug or presumed poison? Such tests are far more complex and subject to error, contamination, and even manipulation. So discovery of the methods, equipment, and material are essential. Furthermore, the validity of the test must be established by the prosecution. If the test has no history of reliability that can establish its validity, perhaps since it was just developed, it should not be admitted, IMO. Any appearance of a result against the defendant would be prejudicial, unless perhaps the jury was composed of individuals both skeptical and capable of understanding the complexity of the scientific issues of the test. So that is one example of the issue of reliability and introduction of evidence. Generally in the US, LCN DNA testing is not even attempted for forensics, AFAIK, because of concerns about reliability and validation. The FBI has a publication including requirements for laboratory validation:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/qas_testlabs

Here is an excerpt from the validation section:

Standard 8.1

The laboratory shall use validated methodologies for DNA analyses. There are two types of validations: developmental and internal.

Standard 8.2

Developmental validation shall precede the use of a novel methodology for forensic DNA analysis.
8.2.1 Developmental validation studies shall include, where applicable, characterization of the genetic marker, species specificity, sensitivity studies, stability studies, reproducibility, case-type samples, population studies, mixture studies, precision and accuracy studies, and PCR-based studies. PCR-based studies include reaction conditions, assessment of differential and preferential amplification, effects of multiplexing, assessment of appropriate controls, and product detection studies. All validation studies shall be documented.

8.2.2 Peer-reviewed publication of the underlying scientific principle(s) of a technology shall be required.

Standard 8.3 Except as provided in Standard 8.3.1.1, internal validation of all manual and robotic methods shall be conducted by each laboratory and reviewed and approved by the laboratory’s technical leader prior to using a procedure for forensic applications.

So if the lab doesn't meet some minimum requirements, there isn't validation, and the lab doesn't have QA or contamination control, don't bother to admit its alleged evidence. And if by error it had been admitted, toss the case on appeal.

What should and should not be admitted is an enormous question demanding an answer so complex I would not dream of attempting to answer it. The English answer is: you'll know when you see it (of course, there's more to it than that) while Italy claims to be able to refer the question to a systematised corpus of principles which can be relied on to spew out the right answer for all occasions. I simply don't believe it. From the ISC down its a bunch of pretentious fools either spouting invalid crap or enunciating perfectly sensible rules (in an excessively complicated way) and then ignoring them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, in the US you have elected judges and DAs who might have reason to pander to the law and order crowd and also may pay a price for being wrong. Over here, demoralising the police by rejecting their perjured evidence was anathema but I'm not so sure that's a big factor anymore. Italy seems to be a basket case.

An important note is even if the United States, or United Kingdom, has problems with wrongful convictions does not mean that is a valid excuse for Italy.

As well, I notice that it is very difficult to get the pro guilt side to admit that Italy ever has had wrongful convictions. I think if they admit it, they have to accept that at least might be the case with Amanda and Raff.