Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[kwill]

It is an interesting case, and I see some relevance to Amanda's case, in comparing Jay Wilds with Amanda.

When the police tracked Wilds down and interviewed him, he started by saying he knew nothing. Very quickly, however, he cracked.

He said: "OK, I didn't do it, but I know what happened. I was with Syed on the day he did it, and I helped dispose of the body."

Then he led the cops to the victim's car, which had been missing for weeks.

This is what kids do if they are genuinely involved in a serious crime with one or more accomplices. They minimize their own role and blame others who were genuinely involved.

That's how I first realized Amanda was not involved in Meredith's murder. She sweated under the lamp without ever mentioning Guede. Instead, she signed a statement against someone who turned out to have no involvement whatsoever.

Scared, guilty kids do not think that way.

Thanks for that. I've been following Serial too, & wondered what you might make of it based on your experience looking at so many cases.

Over at reddit the comments from people who are certain that the man who was convicted (Adnan Syed) is guilty have a very familiar ring to them. It's all about his behavior when the police questioned him after the victim had been missing for 3 hours. Why was he not more concerned??? Why did he not immediately commit to memory everything he had done earlier that day???

There's also the way a motive for him is invented out of ambiguous scraps, while anything in his behavior that undermines that motive is dismissed as dishonesty.

I find it depressing that so many people are prepared to get online and viciously smear someone they've never met.

 

[anglolawyer]

For the Italian system, the confusion may arise because the de facto trials deviate from de jure constitution and laws.

My (imperfect) understanding is that in the Italian judicial system, for a serious criminal case there are three trial levels:

1. First-level trial before two judges (one of whom is the senior, presiding judge) and six "lay judges". The lay judges are randomly-chosen citizens with at least a middle-school education who are not examined for bias nor otherwise vetted. The facts of the case are heard according to law and procedure.

1.1 By law and constitution, the trial is adversarial before an impartial judge who is independent ("third party position"), defense and prosecution are to have equal conditions, and the defense is entitled to cross-examine all witnesses and to bring forth all evidence in its favor; guilt cannot be established from a witness who legally refuses to be cross-examined [Italian Constitution, Article 111].

1.2 A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed [Italian Constitution, Article 27].

1.3 Reality may differ regarding the statements in (1.1) and (1.2) based on the whims of the judge and the influence of the prosecution.

1.4 There is no attention to precedent as the civil-law system is used.

1.5 Following the verdict, either the defense or prosecution or both may appeal. (Note that in common-law systems, only the defense may appeal, with certain unusual exceptions.)

2. The appeal is heard in a Second-level trial. The structure of two judges and six lay judges is maintained, but the lay judges in the second-level must be high-school graduates.

2.1 Although called an appeal, the trial may be a full trial of facts and review of the application of law and procedure. (Note that this differs from an appeal trial in the US, which consists of a review of the application of law and procedure conducted in a previous "fact" trial.) The judge apparently is free to decide to what degree new evidence may be heard or previously introduce evidence reviewed.

2.2 Again, all the defense rights of statements 1.1 and 1.2 apply.

2.3 Again, all the arbitrary abuses permitted by judge are allowed, as in statement 1.3.

2.4 Again, precedent is ignored in accordance with the civil-law system.

2.5 Following the verdict, either the defense or prosecution or both may appeal.

3.0 The appeal from the second-level trial is directed to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (CSC), the Italian Court of Cassation, sometimes called the Italian Supreme Court (ISC). (Note that the CSC is not a Supreme Constitutional Court; that is a different institution in Italy.) The CSC consists of about 400 judges divided into Criminal and Civil Divisions. Each Division is divided further into a number of functional sections (for example, and approximately, such sections may include one for crimes against the state, another for financial crimes, and another for serious crimes against persons). An appeal trial is conducted by a panel of five judges from the relevant section. For certain complex cases, the appeal trial is held by a United Section panel of nine judges, who are selected from several relevant sections.

3.1 The CSC claims that its sole judicial responsibility is to review the application of law and procedure, and not to review facts.

3.2 In reality, the CSC may review facts in certain cases when its panel of judges actually do so. There is apparently no higher review of their action.

3.3 The CSC may accept as final or reject the second-level verdict. If it rejects it, and there is no previous second-level trial, it will order a new second-level trial.

3.4 If there is a previous rejected second-level trial, and the CSC rejects the new second-level trial, the CSC has the option to adopt the previously rejected second-level trial as final.

3.5 For any case, the CSC may reject each second-level trial verdict and order a new second-level trial indefinitely, until the statute of limitations runs out. For some crimes, such as murder, which have no statute of limitations, the CSC can thus indefinitely delay reaching a final verdict. The advantage of this may be to satisfy all political sides among the judiciary, and in principle to avoid the case being brought to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECtHR is in principle allowed to review only finalized cases.

3.5 The verdict is not final until the CSC finalizes a second-level trial verdict.

Thanks Numbers. The only thing I would add to that is a warning about questions of fact and law. Almost anything can be dressed up as a question of law one way or another. Even the assessment of the truthfulness of a witness may be stigmatised as perverse and contrary to the weight of the evidence so as to be such that no reasonable tribunal could have made it. It is thus not surprising that Galati was able to present the prosecution appeal on Hellman's findings of fact as a series of points of law.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks Numbers. The only thing I would add to that is a warning about questions of fact and law. Almost anything can be dressed up as a question of law one way or another. Even the assessment of the truthfulness of a witness may be stigmatised as perverse and contrary to the weight of the evidence so as to be such that no reasonable tribunal could have made it. It is thus not surprising that Galati was able to present the prosecution appeal on Hellman's findings of fact as a series of points of law.

I think that one technique is to state that it was "illogical" for the court to accept certain evidence or the interpretation of certain evidence, and thereby attack the evidence in the appeal.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think that one technique is to state that it was "illogical" for the court to accept certain evidence or the interpretation of certain evidence, and thereby attack the evidence in the appeal.

Agreed. Italy uses the word 'logical' where we use 'reasonable'. In this specific context they are interchangeable although, to my ears, the Italian word sounds pretentious.

 

[bolint]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9248[/qimg]


Who left this bloody wall print?

Rudy.
I believe that it is the origin of Rudy's tale of writing 'AF' on the wall.

This picture appeared in the very early news reports with the heading "The murderer left traces."

Rudy saw the picture and later invented the AF story. (The first two lines with the lower crossing indeed resembles somewhat an A)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks for that. I've been following Serial too, & wondered what you might make of it based on your experience looking at so many cases.

Over at reddit the comments from people who are certain that the man who was convicted (Adnan Syed) is guilty have a very familiar ring to them. It's all about his behavior when the police questioned him after the victim had been missing for 3 hours. Why was he not more concerned??? Why did he not immediately commit to memory everything he had done earlier that day???

There's also the way a motive for him is invented out of ambiguous scraps, while anything in his behavior that undermines that motive is dismissed as dishonesty.

I find it depressing that so many people are prepared to get online and viciously smear someone they've never met.

Interesting. I think Syed is guilty, but not because of his behavior or demeanor.

My thinking is that Wilds led police to the car, so Wilds knows what happened. Witnesses put Wilds and Syed together on the day of the crime. Wilds told a friend that Syed had killed the girl on the day it happened. Cell phone evidence seems to corroborate key elements of Wilds' story. And the story is familiar to me from other cases.

 

[Kauffer]

I'd love to say that those phone calls (9:58, 10:00 and 10:13) mean something and they might. Just that they aren't real evidence. All they allow us to do is speculate.

The 10:13 call probably wasn't made from the cottage but not definitively. The cottage has line of sight to the antenna and it is certainly within range. The real issue is the connectivity to the Piazza Lupatelli tower which is ten time closer. Ordinarily, this is a real slam dunk. At the cottage pretty much all the calls would connect to the closer Piazza Lupatelli tower and that would mean that call almost certainly wouldn't connect to the more distant tower.

The real issue is how the cottage is constructed. How thick is the stone and how does that effect the radio signal? There is no window opening facing the close Piazza Lupatelli tower antenna and there is a window opening next to Meredith's desk facing the more distant tower. If Meredith was sitting at her desk it is possible that the call might connect to that tower. But there is no way to know this without testing from inside Meredith's bedroom.

So, as much as I think PQ is full of it usually, he could be right if that was the only evidence.

You will forgive me, but I think the real issues have nothing to do with all the cell tower stuff. It is inconclusive. The real issues are the lack of consistency of Ms Kercher's actions with her prior behaviour that night and behaviour patterns generally, and her stated intention when she left Ms Purton - the fact she never called her mother back and she didn't go to bed.

Contextually, the phone activity makes no sense whatsoever - if Ms Kercher was the source. Real investigators would have concluded that she was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home, very smartly indeed, started looking for a burglar, got the forensics done, caught Guede and properly closed the case quite uncontroversially before November was over.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am also baffled by Italy's appeal system. Here, in E & W, we basically have 'review' and 'rehearing'. The latter is simply a re-trial of the same case in a higher court. Convictions of criminal charges in the magistrates court (the lowest criminal court) are appealable as of right to the crown court where the whole thing is 'reheard' as if the earlier trial had never taken place. There is a similar corresponding civil appeal from the lowest level (trial by District Judge) to the next one up (Circuit Judge) when, again, the whole thing is heard afresh.

An appeal by way of review will generally address itself to the question: did the lower court go wrong? It is an examination of the lower court's handling of the claim and rarely involves consideration of new evidence or hearing live testimony.

Italy's appeals, from Assize Court to the Court of Appeal, seem to be neither one thing nor the other. The appeal court judges seem to be able to pick and mix whatever they want without heeding defence points of appeal. One consequence seems to be that whole areas of enquiry end up getting ignored. The 'remand' to Nencini was not a re-run of Hellman either but a sort of directed hearing within parameters set by the ISC. You would think Nencini would have come right out and said as much when rejecting all those defence requests at the outset, but he didn't, which leaves me puzzled as to quite what is going on.

What I always hope from the pro-guilt lobby is that they will post something that actually clears up these kinds of puzzlements. IMO they never do.

What is most puzzling to a reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed person (who can read, albeit not in the original Italian) - is how Nencini also doesn't seem bound by the parameters that ISC sets for him.

You have to agree, this is a double-edged sword for the likes of you and me. Our claim is that Nencini is bound by ISC to the point of having ISC direct the finding to be found..... but Nencini also departs from ISC, too.

As you say, "which leaves me puzzled as to quite what is going on."

Usually in these situations, I would counsel that our side be a little more humble. Yet.......

...... reading Nencini's report offers no solace - even a report translated by the pro-guilt-lobby itself; people who themselves try to help-out Nencini, by translating "osmotica" as "organic" and not "osmotic".

For instance.... and here I go again...... did the Massei trial deal with, or did the Massei motivations report at all deal with the identity of ALL the surplus Y-haplotypes on the bra-clasp? No. The Massei trial, and the Massei motivations report acknowledges that perhaps there may have been extra haplotypes......

...... but it was not until the Hellmann trial in 2011, and the appointment of independent DNA analysts (Conti-Vecchiotti) that the world (much less the courts) learns about the peculiarly male nature of those extra Haplotypes. Y-haplotypes.

The ISC (I think) only ordered a review of 36I, which was done, but seemed to strike down Hellmann's acquittals on the basis that contamination must be proven to have happened, and particularly that the method of contamination must be demonstrated. In a strange reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly Conti-Vecchiotti's report was called into question on that basis.

How does Nencini deal with this? Did Prosecutor Crini make any submissions on this? When the defence wanted a further DNA test of the bra clasp....

Nencini summarizes it this way, first saying why the Massei court was right to deny defence motions to have an independent evaluation of Stefanoni's work to begin with.....

the First Instance Court overruled objections related to the alleged infringement of the right of defense with trial underway, and in the hearing of 9 October 2009 the Defense asked for an expert opinion as per article 507 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.​

.... the overruled objections of which Nencini says are justified in his next 6 pages. It appears that in reading those six pages, Nencini's rationale for supporting Massei's court in overruling defence objections is "just because".

Read those pages for yourself. Is there something I have missed in the text?

Nencini variously justifies this by sentences like.....

The results of the investigations carried out by the Scientific Police were severely criticized by the Defense’s expert consultants, and the First Instance Court gave a full accounting of those objections.....

On the basis of such critical evaluations, the Defense put forward investigation requests (to the Hellmann court), in particular that genetic investigations be repeated on seized exhibits.

The Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, accepting the request for such investigation, decided to partially repeat evidence taking, arrange for new [9] genetic expert opinion, and hear some of the witnesses specified by the parties.​

I am not sure I am in agreement with Nencini that the Massei court gave a "full accounting of those objections", only in the sense that despite the Massei motivations report listing what the objections were, the standard of proof that Massei used in "accounting for the objections" was this: if Stefanoni said it, then it must be true.

But remember the issue is this: Did Prosecutor Crini in the 2013 Florence trial make any submissions on this? When the defence wanted a further DNA test of the bra clasp or a firther independent analysis of the reasons why ISC would overturn Hellmann, partially on the C-V Report.....

..... what did Nencini do with those requests?

This was the request as recorded by Nencini:

Within the same memorandum, the Sollecito Defense also requested a reopening of the investigation, asking that the Court arrange for.....:

- Additional genetic testing on the Exhibit 165B (bra clasp);​

And his answer was this:

this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;​

Nencini uses Conti & Vecchiotti's own report to buttress this decision, citing the very competence of C&V as independent experts who themselves noted the corroded nature of the clasps, themselves.

Nencini then simply reverts to Stefanoni's testimony at the Massei trial 4 1/2 years previous, to establish that Sample 165B contains evidence of Meredith, as well as Y-Haplotype evidence of Raffaele - however, this time without the modifier Nencini had used previously in his report in relation to Guede, that Y-haplotype is not individual-specific. (In relation to Guede's Y-Haplotypes found, Nencini always notes that this haplotype would be found in all male members of that person's family. Suddenly, Nencini makes it specific to Raffaele only as it relates to 165B which is not the entire story and misleading.)

Nencini then turns to debunking the Conti-Vecchiotti report.... on page 241 listing the 5 reasons why C&V said Stefanoni could not be trusted..... one of which was, "there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome." Nencini then goes about to try to debunk that particular claim.

Nencini has argued himself into a box. He reverts back to Stefanoni to prove that Raffaele's Y-haplotype is on the clasp, but now accepts that extra haplotypes must be accounted for - because, as you will see, Nencini goes about trying to account for them! Does Nencini really believe that C&V got it wrong when they said that in reviewing Stefanoni's work: ""there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome."" The "erroneous interpretation" of Stefanoni caused C&V to suggest contamination. So which is it?

Incredibly - and I am in repeat mode here - Nencini accepts something that the Massei never heard.... that there are extra Haplotypes other than Raffaele's, but Nencini misses that the data shows that the extra ones are also Y-Haplotypes; in C&V's mind suggesting contamination.

And Nencini in explaining this away....... and with NO evidence presented to ANY court, not to the Massei court, not to the Hellmann court, nor to even his own court (through either Crini or through some ordered independent study.....

...... because please remember he ordered against the Solletico request for further analysis of 165B, and the informal request from the Kertcher family themselves that ALL testing be done.....

- one of the extra Y-haplotypes was probably Meredith's boyfriend's
- the others were probably from Meredith's "amica"​

So here's the summary. Nencini accepts C&V at times, and defers to Stefanoni at others: all with no further evidence. It is a mystery to me why Nencini would not want a further test of 165B, or at least some evidence brought to his court why C&V should be struck down.

As relates to further testing of 165B - Stefanoni destroyed it through improper storage. That Nencini then continues as if nothing is amiss is nothing short of incredible (on this point alone).

As relates to further, independent analysis of Stefanoni's work, Nencini simply denies that as well, and substitutes his own "thought experiment", using data only known because of C&V - namely the extra Y-haplotypes other than Raffaele's.

What is most puzzling to a reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed person - is how Nencini also doesn't seem bound by the parameters that ISC sets for him, and can simply do his own thought experiments devoid also of any evidence before him.

I wish someone with the pro-guilt lobby would explain this.

 

[acbytesla]

You will forgive me, but I think the real issues have nothing to do with all the cell tower stuff. It is inconclusive. The real issues are the lack of consistency of Ms Kercher's actions with her prior behaviour that night and behaviour patterns generally, and her stated intention when she left Ms Purton - the fact she never called her mother back and she didn't go to bed.

Contextually, the phone activity makes no sense whatsoever - if Ms Kercher was the source. Real investigators would have concluded that she was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home, very smartly indeed, started looking for a burglar, got the forensics done, caught Guede and properly closed the case quite uncontroversially before November was over.

I undersand Kauffer and can appreciate your line of reasoning. However, do we really know enough about Meredith's prior behavior to say that she had a dependable behavior pattern? And so what? Just because you do something the same way usually, it doesn't mean that you always do it that way.

I don't believe in any way that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this crime. That said, I see your line of reasoning to be speculation. Pretty much like I see the entire prosecution case....speculation. No real evidence. While I agree that your speculation makes more sense, I don't think anyone can prove it or disprove it based on the evidence.

 

[Samson]

I'd love to say that those phone calls (9:58, 10:00 and 10:13) mean something and they might. Just that they aren't real evidence. All they allow us to do is speculate.

The 10:13 call probably wasn't made from the cottage but not definitively. The cottage has line of sight to the antenna and it is certainly within range. The real issue is the connectivity to the Piazza Lupatelli tower which is ten time closer. Ordinarily, this is a real slam dunk. At the cottage pretty much all the calls would connect to the closer Piazza Lupatelli tower and that would mean that call almost certainly wouldn't connect to the more distant tower.

The real issue is how the cottage is constructed. How thick is the stone and how does that effect the radio signal? There is no window opening facing the close Piazza Lupatelli tower antenna and there is a window opening next to Meredith's desk facing the more distant tower. If Meredith was sitting at her desk it is possible that the call might connect to that tower. But there is no way to know this without testing from inside Meredith's bedroom.

So, as much as I think PQ is full of it usually, he could be right if that was the only evidence.

If the signal diminishes as the square of the distance, and the phone was found close to the distant tower, I think PQ is obviously wrong, but I am not a researcher in this field. You must have technical knowledge about plausibility I don't.

 

[Desert Fox]

I undersand Kauffer and can appreciate your line of reasoning. However, do we really know enough about Meredith's prior behavior to say that she had a dependable behavior pattern? And so what? Just because you do something the same way usually, it doesn't mean that you always do it that way.

I don't believe in any way that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this crime. That said, I see your line of reasoning to be speculation. Pretty much like I see the entire prosecution case....speculation. No real evidence. While I agree that your speculation makes more sense, I don't think anyone can prove it or disprove it based on the evidence.

Some speculation, when back by solid evidence is fine
The speculation that Meredeth died early, around the 21:00 to 21:30 time frame is fine for example.
The speculation that if more than more individual were involved in the assault against Meredeth, there should have been far more evidence in the room where the murder took place.
The speculations which are not solidly grounded in some sort of evidence, I have a problem with.

 

[carbonjam72]

Nencini's machinations...

What I always hope from the pro-guilt lobby is that they will post something that actually clears up these kinds of puzzlements. IMO they never do.

..... (snip)...

What is most puzzling to a reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed person - is how Nencini also doesn't seem bound by the parameters that ISC sets for him, and can simply do his own thought experiments devoid also of any evidence before him.

I wish someone with the pro-guilt lobby would explain this.

Well Bill, I'm obviously not from the pro-guilt lobby, but I'll take a crack at it.

You may recall legal principles regarding a fair trial and the right to cross examine the accused, from Number's wonderful postings of voluminous cases from ECHR, and also a review of Cassation's options when dealing with two previous opposing appeal cases (they get to take their choice).

And, recall previous speculation (myself in this camp), that Nencini may well have created an motivation loaded with dog crap precisely to make it easy to overturn if cassation wanted to go that way.

ISC reversed Hellman, and suggested the sex game gone wrong needed to be explored further.

Nencini did, and flatly rejected that scenario, because Meredith was 'almost puritanical'.

ISC demanded the untested DNA sample on the knife be tested. Nencini did that, and it was not inculpatory, as it was Amanda's DNA. If that test was a crucial test, it must mean the existing DNA evidence was not sufficient on its own to determine whether that knife was involved in the murder.

Now Nencini's motive for the escalating fight leading to a murder is a 'fight over money'. But the ONLY source of that testimony, is Rudy Guede, WHOM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE.

Nencini, by resting his motivation, and the obligation the ISC mandated for putting together an osmotic analysis that tells a story of guilt, on an element of evidence which the defense is entitled to exclude on the basis of not having had the ability to cross examine the witness, Nencini has;

1. performed the tasks ISC requested,
2. Rejected the sex game scenario ISC suggested
3. tested the DNA evidence the ISC said was crucial, and it supports innocence
4. Relied solely on testimony from Guede, not cross examined, that must be rejected according to the Italian constitution and ECHR.

Nencini has provided a perfect runway for the ISC to reject Nencini's verdict on the basis on insufficient evidence, and reluctantly reaffirm Hellman's original acquittal. And if ECHR rules on the calumnia charge, ISC could overturn Hellman on the Calumnia conviction so as not to give Judge Hellman too good of a day.

Nencini may have deliberately screwed the conviction in a foolproof manner to insure it will be overturned, by relying solely on Rudy Guede for his theory of motive, and the escalation of events. (Along with the dozens of other obvious errors Nencini wove into his masterpiece).

So, not from a pro-guilter, but that's my two cents (or pence, for Anglo).

 

[Bill Williams]

Let me answer, me being someone who does not buy for a minute that Nencini purposely wrote his motivations report to give the ISC an excuse to throw this back to yet another 2nd grade trial. That is the height of lunacy..... yet this whole thing has reached such dizzying heights of incomprehensibility, you can probably say why you are right and I am wrong.

Well Bill, I'm obviously not from the pro-guilt lobby, but I'll take a crack at it.

You may recall legal principles regarding a fair trial and the right to cross examine the accused, from Number's wonderful postings of voluminous cases from ECHR, and also a review of Cassation's options when dealing with two previous opposing appeal cases (they get to take their choice).

And, recall previous speculation (myself in this camp), that Nencini may well have created an motivation loaded with dog crap precisely to make it easy to overturn if cassation wanted to go that way.

I can read Numbers's posts, but in all honesty, I cannot really understand them except for the very general points he's claiming. Also, as indicated, it is beyond comprehension that Nencini would purposely fill his motivations report with "dog crap."

ISC reversed Hellman, and suggested the sex game gone wrong needed to be explored further.

Nencini did, and flatly rejected that scenario, because Meredith was 'almost puritanical'.

Yet Nencini says that one of the Y-haplotypes found on the bra-clasp was Meredith's boyfriend's, because she had a normal sex-lie.... being in Perugia (and sexually active) for about the same length of time as Amanda. Nencini may "believe" that there is a moral difference between Meredith and Amanda, but there's no evidence, really, that the two of them thought this about each other. For heaven's sake, they borrowed condoms from each other!

ISC demanded the untested DNA sample on the knife be tested. Nencini did that, and it was not inculpatory, as it was Amanda's DNA. If that test was a crucial test, it must mean the existing DNA evidence was not sufficient on its own to determine whether that knife was involved in the murder.

I note the double negative.... yes, one would think that, that the ordering of the testing of 36I means that all the other DNA stuff was, without 36I, not fulfilling beyond a reasonable doubt.... that something else from the DNA-forensics was needed.

But..... here's the but: it proves that this was NOT about the evidence, to begin with. The ordering of 36I was because the ISC found that the Hellmann court had erred in letting Conti & Vecchiotti to make the de facto juridical decision..... the ISC found that Hellmann erred in law by letting the experts make the decision for him, which he simply accepted.

So, the issue of 36I was not directed at the paucity of evidence, not that the ISC meant anyway. Although, logically you are right: it does.

The ISC may have won that one - that, see!!!!!!, Hellmann was wrong both in science and in law for letting Vecchiotti make the de facto juridical decision.

But you are also right. On that point, Nencini heard evidence from the RIS Carabinieri which, are you ready for it, adds nothing to the guilt or innocence of Knox, except that it remains as it was when Hellmann implied - that knife has nothing to do with the murder; at least not that any prosecutor or forensic DNA lab has shown.

The testing of 36I, and the results, imply that Hellmann's result, though arrived at through one mistake of a juridical nature, is still valid.

Now Nencini's motive for the escalating fight leading to a murder is a 'fight over money'. But the ONLY source of that testimony, is Rudy Guede, WHOM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE.

Nencini, by resting his motivation, and the obligation the ISC mandated for putting together an osmotic analysis that tells a story of guilt, on an element of evidence which the defense is entitled to exclude on the basis of not having had the ability to cross examine the witness, Nencini has;

1. performed the tasks ISC requested,
2. Rejected the sex game scenario ISC suggested
3. tested the DNA evidence the ISC said was crucial, and it supports innocence
4. Relied solely on testimony from Guede, not cross examined, that must be rejected according to the Italian constitution and ECHR.

Nencini has provided a perfect runway for the ISC to reject Nencini's verdict on the basis on insufficient evidence, and reluctantly reaffirm Hellman's original acquittal. And if ECHR rules on the calumnia charge, ISC could overturn Hellman on the Calumnia conviction so as not to give Judge Hellman too good of a day.

Nencini may have deliberately screwed the conviction in a foolproof manner to insure it will be overturned, by relying solely on Rudy Guede for his theory of motive, and the escalation of events. (Along with the dozens of other obvious errors Nencini wove into his masterpiece).

So, not from a pro-guilter, but that's my two cents (or pence, for Anglo).

On the issue of motive along, I don't see this. The ISC may say that motive, alone, is not enough to rule that a judge has got it wrong, because motive by itself is not essential, nor is getting motive wrong by itself is no reason to overturn a judicial decision.

What is worrisome, though, is the WAY Nencini builds his case for motive, and the WAY Nencini builds his case for interpreting evidence the way he does.

Nencini just invents things. Without even evidence brought to trial, and further by denying the defence the ability to enter it's own narrative - Nencini just invents thing: perhaps one Y-haplotype is Meredith's boyfriend's, and perhaps the rest are Meredith's "amica."

But thanks for taking a crack at the puzzle. I just don't buy that Nencini did what he did "on purpose", to guarantee a further set of reversals.

He's dumb all on his own. And that's a puzzle.

 

[acbytesla]

Some speculation, when back by solid evidence is fine
The speculation that Meredeth died early, around the 21:00 to 21:30 time frame is fine for example.
The speculation that if more than more individual were involved in the assault against Meredeth, there should have been far more evidence in the room where the murder took place.
The speculations which are not solidly grounded in some sort of evidence, I have a problem with.

The digestive evidence IMO is by far the most compelling evidence that supports the early TOD. The phone calls, the wash, Meredith not calling her mother, not taking off her jacket does support that early TOD, but it is anecdotal at best. (Still, it beats Nara and Curatolo)

 

[anglolawyer]

I would like to know what thinking lay behind the defence request for further analysis of 165B. Given C-V reported the clasp was not re-testable and no one demurred I wonder whether what they actually wanted was a review of the associated e-grams and EDFs. A translation of the memorandum recording the defence applications would be helpful.

 

[kwill]

Interesting. I think Syed is guilty, but not because of his behavior or demeanor.

My thinking is that Wilds led police to the car, so Wilds knows what happened. Witnesses put Wilds and Syed together on the day of the crime. Wilds told a friend that Syed had killed the girl on the day it happened. Cell phone evidence seems to corroborate key elements of Wilds' story. And the story is familiar to me from other cases.

I'm in the who-the-hell-knows category, mostly because the key elements of Wilds' story seem to have been crafted to match some of the cell phone evidence rather than being corroborated by it. He told it several different ways (where the murder happened, where he was shown the body, how the grave was dug, etc.)

I haven't seen anything that looks convincing in terms of motive for either of them, and especially Syed. He's a good suspect as a former boyfriend, but wow. The descriptions of him provided by other students and teachers who knew him well are far more like Amanda than like a violent & bitter ex.

The only person who claimed that Syed really wanted Hae Lee dead was Wilds -- the guy who also knew where and how she was buried and where her car had been left.

I trust your instincts, so I'm a little surprised. It all seems pretty sketchy to me. And the Kercher case has taught me that stringing together behavioral "evidence" to construct a motive is sometimes an act of cruelty.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would like to know what thinking lay behind the defence request for further analysis of 165B. Given C-V reported the clasp was not re-testable and no one demurred I wonder whether what they actually wanted was a review of the associated e-grams and EDFs. A translation of the memorandum recording the defence applications would be helpful.

If ISC requires contamination to be proven, then could the negative controls also be of any help?

 

[Bill Williams]

I would like to know what thinking lay behind the defence request for further analysis of 165B. Given C-V reported the clasp was not re-testable and no one demurred I wonder whether what they actually wanted was a review of the associated e-grams and EDFs. A translation of the memorandum recording the defence applications would be helpful.

The Nencini report certainly assumes they were asking for a retesting of 165B, which Nencini then turns around and says is not logical since it no longer exists. It almost sounds like Nencini is being sarcastic - he says that anyone asking for a "retesting" should consult Conti&Vecchiotti, and given that C&V acknowledge that 165B is no longer, any suggestion otherwise would impugn C&V's professionalism.

7) With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;​

Is Nencini going for sarcasm with this reason to refuse "testing" on 165B? Did the defence request a re-analysis of Stefanoni's results?

 

[acbytesla]

The Nencini report certainly assumes they were asking for a retesting of 165B, which Nencini then turns around and says is not logical since it no longer exists. It almost sounds like Nencini is being sarcastic - he says that anyone asking for a "retesting" should consult Conti&Vecchiotti, and given that C&V acknowledge that 165B is no longer, any suggestion otherwise would impugn C&V's professionalism.

​

Is Nencini going for sarcasm with this reason to refuse "testing" on 165B? Did the defence request a re-analysis of Stefanoni's results?

Going for sarcasm in a legal document sound moronic and unprofessional. But you may be right given what we have already seen.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I'm in the who-the-hell-knows category, mostly because the key elements of Wilds' story seem to have been crafted to match some of the cell phone evidence rather than being corroborated by it. He told it several different ways (where the murder happened, where he was shown the body, how the grave was dug, etc.)

I haven't seen anything that looks convincing in terms of motive for either of them, and especially Syed. He's a good suspect as a former boyfriend, but wow. The descriptions of him provided by other students and teachers who knew him well are far more like Amanda than like a violent & bitter ex.

The only person who claimed that Syed really wanted Hae Lee dead was Wilds -- the guy who also knew where and how she was buried and where her car had been left.

I trust your instincts, so I'm a little surprised. It all seems pretty sketchy to me. And the Kercher case has taught me that stringing together behavioral "evidence" to construct a motive is sometimes an act of cruelty.

Haha - I thought the same thing. I too was surprised Charlie thought he was probably guilty. I started a thread on this case but the mods moved it over to the Movies and Entertainment section where it doesn't get any traffic. I think it has become such a phenomenon it belongs in the SI&CE section, but what do I know. The case does have several things in common with the Kercher case, including the lack of forensic evidence placing the accused at the scene, as well as the behavioral evidence you point out.