Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Presumed blood/Presumed semen

Should we not consider that the circumstantial evidence that Guede left his ejaculated semen in Ms Kercher's room is actually must stronger than the circumstantial evidence that Ms Knox left her bloody footprints in the apartment - by several orders of magnitude - despite the absence of testing results for the presumed semen sample?

 

[sept79]

All good points showing that Mach is indeed aligned with and apparently communicating with the prosecutors.

This point should not be overlooked . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

All good points showing that Mach is indeed aligned with and apparently communicating with the prosecutors.

I do not know if that is necessarily true. Like many on the innocence side, Machiavelli could very well be a minor "player", way up in the bleachers, but with a clear view of the field below him.

Still, there have been occasions when he's had foreknowledge of stuff.

Machiavelli is always worth the read.

 

[Bill Williams]

The IIP website is down, apparently the result of a sudden flurry of Spambots.

Me, I tend to be conspiratorial. Should I be blaming the Pro-Guilt PR lobby?

 

[Kauffer]

I do not know if that is necessarily true. Like many on the innocence side, Machiavelli could very well be a minor "player", way up in the bleachers, but with a clear view of the field below him.

Still, there have been occasions when he's had foreknowledge of stuff.

Machiavelli is always worth the read.

That's interesting. What foreknowledge? Which developments?

 

[Numbers]

Should we not consider that the circumstantial evidence that Guede left his ejaculated semen in Ms Kercher's room is actually must stronger than the circumstantial evidence that Ms Knox left her bloody footprints in the apartment - by several orders of magnitude - despite the absence of testing results for the presumed semen sample?

I don't believe any objective onlookers doubt that the putative semen stain is indeed semen and that it was deposited by Guede. The issue is that it was excluded from acknowledged analysis and recognition as inculpatory for Guede and exculpatory for Sollecito in the trial evidence. It helps tell a story - a true story - different from the multiple attacker theory of the prosecution.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's interesting. What foreknowledge? Which developments?

The one I can think of (without getting an argument from the Nemesis himself) is the issue of the kitchen knife form Raffaele's all of a sudden being claimed by the prosecution as a match for the bedsheet stain on Meredith's bed.

Crini made that claim in court in Florence some time in the fall of 2013.

About a week before that, Machiavelli made the same claim in this very thread. Of course he was jumped on by all the innocentisti.... it was a ridiculous claim, and we, then, said that no prosecutor had been crazy enough to make that equivalency. Indeed, the reason why originally Mignini had to go with the two-knife theory, was precisely because the stain-outline on the sheet was no match for the kitchen knife from Raffaele's.

By the time Crini hypothesized it, with no supporting evidence (what else is new!) the findings from the RIS Carabinieri in the fall of 2013 had just been filed with the Florence court abut 36I. 36I was a match for Amanda, so added nothing new about this case. If it had been Meredith's blood-DNA that would have settled it for the guilters.

But with nothing new on that knife, my own view was that Crini (and Machiavelli) was now desperate to keep the kitchen knife in play. The only thing left to make a connection between that knife and Meredith's room was the bedsheet stain.

Once again, only asserted in court, with no supporting forensics. Machiavelli tried subsequently to get out his ruler with claims that perhaps it was not the whole knife, or that the sheet had been folded.... etc., etc., etc., once again.....

...... not stuff ever presented in court, but presented in this thread to defend the prosecutors against themselves!

There are other examples of Machiavelli's foreknowledge, but Machiavelli has hotly protested those with his patented bafflegab and dietrology.

 

[js202]

Indeed, the reason why originally Mignini had to go with the two-knife theory, was precisely because the stain-outline on the sheet was no match for the kitchen knife from Raffaele's.

Well, I thought guilter orthodoxy has always held that a two-knife theory is necessary because the two wounds on MK's throat differ. This is in keeping with a pattern of providing complex explanations for straightforward and simple patterns of evidence, whilst accusing others of conspiracy theories.

The first filter through which a guilter theory must pass: because she is American, and/or the wicked way she smiles, and/or according to Machiavelli (my personal fave for its unblinkered lunacy) because of the way she perhaps smells, Amanda Knox was not only involved in Meredith Kercher's death, she dealt the death blow. Every assessment they make of mere evidence follows from this ineluctable point of departure.

 

[Samson]

It is interesting to see this statement justifying detention on 30 11 2007.

(d) outcome of the technical tests carried out on a pair of shoes, N brand, size 42.5, property of S, evidencing a perfect correspondence between the aforesaid footwear and the print found at the location of the homicide, as well as on the door of the Via della P apartment which did not present signs of forced entry;

This is an appalling indictment on the whole case. But the guilters sale past this with all the other evidence of course.

ETA to say there were technical tests is a barefaced lie, yet employed to keep someone in solitary.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I thought guilter orthodoxy has always held that a two-knife theory is necessary because the two wounds on MK's throat differ. This is in keeping with a pattern of providing complex explanations for straightforward and simple patterns of evidence, whilst accusing others of conspiracy theories.

The first filter through which a guilter theory must pass: because she is American, and/or the wicked way she smiles, and/or according to Machiavelli (my personal fave for its unblinkered lunacy) because of the way she perhaps smells, Amanda Knox was not only involved in Meredith Kercher's death, she dealt the death blow. Every assessment they make of mere evidence follows from this ineluctable point of departure.

That very well could be. I know that Machiavelli now defers to the wounds being indicative of two knives....

Still: connected to this is the multiple attacker theory.... remember, 8 of nine experts who reported to Judge Massei's court said that the evidence/autopsy that they saw did not rule out a single attacker.

 

[js202]

That very well could be. I know that Machiavelli now defers to the wounds being indicative of two knives....

Still: connected to this is the multiple attacker theory.... remember, 8 of nine experts who reported to Judge Massei's court said that the evidence/autopsy that they saw did not rule out a single attacker.

Yes, the latter is an integral part of a fog of nonsense the loons have worked so assiduously to create over the course of seven years of tirelessly crazed work on the interwebs...

Andrew Marvell** famously worried that Milton's myth-making powers were on such estimable display in Paradise Lost that he may irrevocably alter the way those who followed thought about scripture. Substitute a disgusting cocktail shaken and proffered by Michael, Ergon, Yummi and Harry Rag, and one gets a similar effect in the Kercher murder case.

**
the argument
Held me a while, misdoubting his intent
That he would ruin (for I saw him strong)
The sacred truth to fable and old song,

 

[Numbers]

The IIP website is down, apparently the result of a sudden flurry of Spambots.

Me, I tend to be conspiratorial. Should I be blaming the Pro-Guilt PR lobby?

IIP and the Wiki (MMK) are back up now. Might have been down for maintenance or upgrade; Bruce had posted about issues & possible interruptions Tuesday Nov. 11.

 

[Numbers]

The US may not be doing as well on Brady (discovery in criminal cases - similar in part to equality of arms) as we would have thought or hoped:

See: http://www.nacdl.org/discoveryreform/materialindifference/

The integrity of the criminal justice system relies on the guarantees made to
the actors operating within it. Critical to the accused is the guarantee of fair
process. For the accused, fair process includes not only the right to put on a
defense, but to put on a complete defense. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the
importance of this guarantee over 50 years ago, in Brady v. Maryland,when it declared
that failure to disclose favorable information violates the constitution when that
information is material.This guarantee, however, is frequently unmet.In courtrooms across the nation, accused persons are convicted without ever having access to, let alone an opportunity to present, information that is favorable to their defense.

 

[sept79]

It is interesting to see this statement justifying detention on 30 11 2007.

(d) outcome of the technical tests carried out on a pair of shoes, N brand, size 42.5, property of S, evidencing a perfect correspondence between the aforesaid footwear and the print found at the location of the homicide, as well as on the door of the Via della P apartment which did not present signs of forced entry;

This is an appalling indictment on the whole case. But the guilters sale past this with all the other evidence of course.

ETA to say there were technical tests is a barefaced lie, yet employed to keep someone in solitary.

'A perfect correspondence' if one considers the ring count of no significance. Maybe the Italians got the placement of their Latin I's and V's mixed up when counting the shoe rings . . .

 

[Machiavelli]

But wasn't that particular piece of BS (highlighted) started as part of the police/prosecution smear campaign? It's hard to say if Mach got that directly from police/prosecution or the general guilter memes.

Mach is not really that well informed on Italian law or the ECHR. That may or may not mean that Mach is close to police/prosecutors, since their knowledge may be imperfect - they don't need to know too much, since they just do as they please with some trickery to cover their unlawful actions.

Your statement that I am "not well informed" about Italian Law is quite flabbergasting, if you consider how far-fetched from any jurisprudence your "knowledge" is.
As for ECHR, I am indeed not as knowledgable about international law as much as about Italian law, but I know enough to tell about areas of Italian law that have been checked and ECHR-proof, and informed enough to tell when some claim may be grounded from what is manifestly delusional.

 

[Machiavelli]

This sounds like what Commodi meant when she said, 'we decide what's relevant'.

So if the prosecution decides that the downstairs crime scene isn't relevant, or the semen stain isn't relevant, or even the exculpatory elements of the forensic test they do perform - like negative TMB confirmatory blood tests or missing DNA files and lab documents that would invalidate the results that they do submit - then the defense can't use any of it?

How could any trial be considered fair under these circumstances?

I don't think thats actually the law in Italy. One of the appeal points Amanda's lawyers raised was that the courts were supposed to allow testing of evidence if the defense requests it, and that this was denied. So what's the actual law, and how the law is applied in this or other cases, may not be the same.

This is not exactly "the law" in Italy. But the term "adversarial" (Italian: contraddittorio) is meant foremost as refered to within a specific procedure, which is the incidente probatorio (in this case).
There is an adversarial principle of equality of arms thoughout the whole trial. But this principle is believed to be met in this case. This principle does not provide a "right" of a party to access or to present any evidence they want at whatever stage. For example, I remind that, the prosecution did not present the evidence that Amanda Knox had contacts with drug dealers, because it would have been an irregular step since this evidence was late.
The impossiblity to present "complete" evidence may come as effect of the rules of the game for both parties, accusation parties as well as defence parties. There is no right to "absolute" access to any evidence source at any stage.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vinci report

Should we not consider that the circumstantial evidence that Guede left his ejaculated semen in Ms Kercher's room is actually must stronger than the circumstantial evidence that Ms Knox left her bloody footprints in the apartment - by several orders of magnitude - despite the absence of testing results for the presumed semen sample?

Kauffer,

The Vinci report provides a good discussion of both the stain that has the shoe print and the one that does not. IIRC, I posted a machine translation of a portion of it some months ago, and it is available at IIP.

My own take on it is that if it is Guede's semen, it makes clear that his involvement in the crime was very substantial. It also suggests to me one reason why he might have killed Meredith, which is to keep her from being a witness against him in a rape case. On the other hand, a theory that assigns Ms. Knox as the wielder of the knife has a problem in shoe-horning in Mr. Guede's sexual assault.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

open discovery

The US may not be doing as well on Brady (discovery in criminal cases - similar in part to equality of arms) as we would have thought or hoped:

See: http://www.nacdl.org/discoveryreform/materialindifference/
SNIP
In courtrooms across the nation, accused persons are convicted without ever having access to, let alone an opportunity to present, information that is favorable to their defense.

Numbers,

Some legal scholars (Mostellar Robert P, "Exculpatory Evidence, Ethics, and the Road to the Disbarment of Mike Nifong," George Mason Law Review, 2008, 257, 292) have argued that Brady does not go far enough. Fortunately, some states have open discovery laws, which mean that the prosecutor must turn over everything, whether he or she thinks it is exculpatory or not. Some prosecutors do a dance around open discovery, but sometimes they trip themselves up, as Mr. Nifong did in the Duke lacrosse case.

In "DNA Profiling," a chapter in the book Race to Injustice, Paul Giannelli wrote, "The National Academy of Sciences recommended extensive discovery in DNA cases: 'All data and laboratory records generated by analysis of DNA samples should be made freely available to all parties. Such access is essential for evaluating the analysis.'" This article is also available on the web, although its title may be different.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is an extraordinary response even by your standards. You refer to my 'claim' with regard to Italian law being the opposite of what the law is. It is not my claim; I have merely stated the provisions in the law, which are in stark contrast to what you say and what you have been saying.

Consider, the baffling contradiction in your post - one sentence directly contradicting the previous one:

"the judge has no discretion power to dismiss or prevent the admission of evidence. The refusal to admit may only be reserved to evidence that is manifestly superfluous or irrelevant."

I also quoted further from Article 190, as follows:

"Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties." You chose not to comment on this or indeed on the articles I reproduced.

These rules of evidence cover both what should not be admitted but also what should be admitted.

So, the onus is now on you to explain why, given these provisions, a court should be permitted to refuse to order the testing and to admit the results of the presumed semen sample between Ms Kercher's legs, given the sexual element of the crime. Similarly, you must now agree, presumably that the electronic data files should have been admitted into evidence. Or, alternatively, explain why this evidence, the semen and the files, is "manifestly superfluous or irrelevant."

Actually, I believe the procedure code is self-evidence. The code basically says, there is no discretional power of the judge on evidence admission.
There are only exceptions in evidence admissions, a marginal set of circumstances which are relegated to: some specific situations provided by the code (for example some testimonies or recordings) and to to the cases of manifest irrelevance or superfluousness (which anyway can be inpugned before the SC).
As for the refusal to test a semen stain, the ground for the refusal seems obvious: because it is manifestly irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it can either be Sollecito's DNA, or Guede's, ore someone else's, of may be not semen at all. All outcomes would be irrelevant insofar they would not change the outcome of a trial against Knox/Sollecito: if there is already sufficient evidence agaisnt Sollecito, his semen would be superfluous evidence. Only if the evidence against Sollecito was insufficient then the testing would be potential relevant evidence against him; but if the Appeal Judge (bear in mind: we are talking about Appeal) already assesses that the evidence picture is valid beyond reasonable doubt, a collection of further evidence is superfluous.
If it's Guede's stain than it would be irrelevant since Guede is not a defendant in this case and his guilt has been already settled. If it's a third person, there would be no further evidence to build a scenario that relates such third person to the murder. If it's not semen it would be irrelevant to the outcome too.
As for the files, a similar reasoning could be made. Either there is a convincing reason presented by the defence for a re-opening of the trial discussion about the DNA findings, or there isn't. Bringing in electronic files would mean re-open the evidence examination phase on the DNA evidence (whenever you introduce further evidence information you re-open a session). The judge may have come to the conclusion that the examination was thorough and delievetred a conclusive set of experts opinions, that there is no compelling reason for re-opening the discussion. This is perfectly reasonable, since arguments against contamination were already unfold by Novelli who had testified after examining the electronic data at Stefanoni's lab and found no instance of Meredith's DNA or contamination pattern. Actually, this was probably reasonable even since the first instance trial, since the defence did not request the raw data (if we call that one a "request") until after the closure of the evidence examination session.

 

[Samson]

Actually, I believe the procedure code is self-evidence. The code basically says, there is no discretional power of the judge on evidence admission.
There are only exceptions in evidence admissions, a marginal set of circumstances which are relegated to: some specific situations provided by the code (for example some testimonies or recordings) and to to the cases of manifest irrelevance or superfluousness (which anyway can be inpugned before the SC).
As for the refusal to test a semen stain, the ground for the refusal seems obvious: because it is manifestly irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it can either be Sollecito's DNA, or Guede's, ore someone else's, of may be not semen at all. All outcomes would be irrelevant insofar they would not change the outcome of a trial against Knox/Sollecito: if there is already sufficient evidence agaisnt Sollecito, his semen would be superfluous evidence. Only if the evidence against Sollecito was insufficient then the testing would be potential relevant evidence against him; but if the Appeal Judge (bear in mind: we are talking about Appeal) already assesses that the evidence picture is valid beyond reasonable doubt, a collection of further evidence is superfluous.
If it's Guede's stain than it would be irrelevant since Guede is not a defendant in this case and his guilt has been already settled. If it's a third person, there would be no further evidence to build a scenario that relates such third person to the murder. If it's not semen it would be irrelevant to the outcome too.
As for the files, a similar reasoning could be made. Either there is a convincing reason presented by the defence for a re-opening of the trial discussion about the DNA findings, or there isn't. Bringing in electronic files would mean re-open the evidence examination phase on the DNA evidence (whenever you introduce further evidence information you re-open a session). The judge may have come to the conclusion that the examination was thorough and delievetred a conclusive set of experts opinions, that there is no compelling reason for re-opening the discussion. This is perfectly reasonable, since arguments against contamination were already unfold by Novelli who had testified after examining the electronic data at Stefanoni's lab and found no instance of Meredith's DNA or contamination pattern. Actually, this was probably reasonable even since the first instance trial, since the defence did not request the raw data (if we call that one a "request") until after the closure of the evidence examination session.

Thank you Machiavelli, this statement of yours is now in the file I use to explain to people why it is so certainly a miscarriage of justice. The appeal to authority works on most people who find it difficult to believe there is no fire behind the smoke, but saying the testing of a semen stain for its owner is irrelevant when considering incarcerating Sollecito for a sex crime is perfect for my file.