Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

These are good points that you have made.

The ECHR may hesitate to let Italy do a friendly settlement. In some of the ECHR documents I have seen that the Court may insist on continuing a case if there are human rights issues it feels the need to address by judgment.

One thing not clear to me is the timing between communication to the respondent State and publication that there has been such communication in HUDOC. Would notice of communication be delayed in certain cases?

Yes you're right in para 2 - the court might demand to proceed with the case as you suggest.

And yes again on communication - it seems a bit vague as to timings of announcements. There would appear to be some latitude.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The Italian judicial "schism" is perhaps the only thing everyone agrees upon! Also I believe it's spelled "calunnia" or "calumny".

Careful, though.... you were close to expressing an opinion.

How dare you!

I was referring to the point I think Kauffer was making which was the schism between that Italian government responding to Calunnia (thank you) application and the Italian judiciary.

 

[Kauffer]

All ECHR applications start with the admissibility phase, I have not seen a citation from anyone here who can categorically confirm that the caluunia application has even started this phase of the process yet, given its submission date and the logistical backlog of ECHR applications it doesn't seem unreasonable conclude it has not. If the application has passed the admissibility phase then I would agree with your description of the process. However, I doubt there will be the Italian schism you suggest; maybe the Raffaele’s latest trial might be an indicator of the Italian judicial intentions, maybe not.

It can be more complex, Coulsdon, with admissability and merit taken together.

Consider Rule 54A:

1. When giving notice of the application to the respondent Contracting Party pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b), the Chamber may also decide to examine the admissibility and merits at the same time in accordance with Article 29 § 1 of the Convention. The parties shall be invited to include in their observations any submissions concerning just satisfaction and any proposals for a friendly settlement. The conditions laid down in Rules 60 and 62 shall apply, mutatis mutandis. The Court may, however, decide at any stage, if necessary, to take a separate decision on admissibility.
2. If no friendly settlement or other solution is reached and the Chamber is satisfied, in the light of the parties’ arguments, that the case is admissible and ready for a determination on the merits, it shall immediately adopt a judgment including the Chamber’s decision on admissibility, save in cases where it decides to take such a decision separately.

Not sure why you've referred to a schism; the contracting states not their judiciaries are parties to treaties. Why would Italy seek to defend rights violations in representations to the ECHR?

 

[Dougm]

While I don't make predictions in this case (because I have no idea what others, in other countries, with their own lives agendas, etc. will do), after reading several posts above I get a feeling. It feels like the thing that makes the most sense is for the ISC to find a way to kick the can down the road. Meaning find some way to keep this thing going, and the most logical way would be to reject the Nencini verdict, and send it back for a 3rd second level trial. There are other options, and that may or may not be good for AK and RS, but it makes some sense, because:

* It keeps it "in house"
* If the ISC decides they want to endorse the convictions, I find it hard to believe they want to do it using the Nencini verdict, or even the last ISC ruling. Even they must realize how those are going to look to the ECHR and/or the world once they are finalized
* Although delaying a final decision for a year, or several, keeps the families and all others involved in a continual limbo, I think that is the least of their concerns. The Italian system has long had the issue of very long trials, with the requisite financial and emotional damage for families, and that never stopped them before.

Or, as Diocletus would say, they could "double down on stupid", and confirm Nencini, but that seems like the least likely outcome at the moment. I am not predicting that, just feels kind of like what the Italian judiciary would do, based on past history.

 

[carbonjam72]

While I don't make predictions in this case (because I have no idea what others, in other countries, with their own lives agendas, etc. will do), after reading several posts above I get a feeling. It feels like the thing that makes the most sense is for the ISC to find a way to kick the can down the road. Meaning find some way to keep this thing going, and the most logical way would be to reject the Nencini verdict, and send it back for a 3rd second level trial. There are other options, and that may or may not be good for AK and RS, but it makes some sense, because:

* It keeps it "in house"
* If the ISC decides they want to endorse the convictions, I find it hard to believe they want to do it using the Nencini verdict, or even the last ISC ruling. Even they must realize how those are going to look to the ECHR and/or the world once they are finalized
* Although delaying a final decision for a year, or several, keeps the families and all others involved in a continual limbo, I think that is the least of their concerns. The Italian system has long had the issue of very long trials, with the requisite financial and emotional damage for families, and that never stopped them before.

Or, as Diocletus would say, they could "double down on stupid", and confirm Nencini, but that seems like the least likely outcome at the moment. I am not predicting that, just feels kind of like what the Italian judiciary would do, based on past history.

IIUC, the easiest thing for the ISC section 5 panel to do in March 2015, would be to refer the case to a united sections panel of 9 judges, as opposed to the regular panel of 5 judges. (I think this adds another 1-2 years roughly to the decision process).

I'm not positive, but I think that action would not require them taking a position on Nencini at this time, but simply asking the united sections reconcile the contradictory verdicts of the Hellman and Nencini appeals courts, or to rule on constitutional questions like using the outcome of Guede's fast track trial against the defendants in a separate trial, allowing Guede's testimony as a basis for a conviction when Guede was not available for cross examination, and the issue of over-ruling the previous cassation ruling over-turning Hellman - while creating an anti-scientific standard that "contamination must be proven" (an anti-scientific judicial standard for DNA evidence obviously can't be sustained for long anywhere, or at least in the ECHR).

I'm not sure one section 5 cassation panel can simply overturn or negate a previous cassation panel ruling, I think it may be the case that only a united sections or constitutional court can overturn a cassation ruling? (But I may be wrong about that).

At any rate, sending the case on to a united section seems the easiest way to buy more time, while keeping ALL of their options on the table.

Eventually though, I expect Amanda and Raf will be discharged (charges dismissed for insufficient evidence), if not fully exonerated (because they are actually innocent). As does the rational world, let's face it.

 

[Bill Williams]

IIUC, the easiest thing for the ISC section 5 panel to do in March 2015, would be to refer the case to a united sections panel of 9 judges, as opposed to the regular panel of 5 judges. (I think this adds another 1-2 years roughly to the decision process).

I'm not positive, but I think that action would not require them taking a position on Nencini at this time, but simply asking the united sections reconcile the contradictory verdicts of the Hellman and Nencini appeals courts, or to rule on constitutional questions like using the outcome of Guede's fast track trial against the defendants in a separate trial, allowing Guede's testimony as a basis for a conviction when Guede was not available for cross examination, and the issue of over-ruling the previous cassation ruling over-turning Hellman - while creating an anti-scientific standard that "contamination must be proven" (an anti-scientific judicial standard for DNA evidence obviously can't be sustained for long anywhere, or at least in the ECHR).

I'm not sure one section 5 cassation panel can simply overturn or negate a previous cassation panel ruling, I think it may be the case that only a united sections or constitutional court can overturn a cassation ruling? (But I may be wrong about that).

At any rate, sending the case on to a united section seems the easiest way to buy more time, while keeping ALL of their options on the table.

Eventually though, I expect Amanda and Raf will be discharged (charges dismissed for insufficient evidence), if not fully exonerated (because they are actually innocent). As does the rational world, let's face it.

First of all, Hellmann and Nencini verdits are not contradictory as far as Cassazione is concerned. Cassazione has **annulled** the Hellmann verdict.

To declare the contradictory, Cassazione would have to first un-annul Hellmann. Nencini's report now sits un-contradicted.

Further to this, though, it is unclear what the status of some of the findings of Hellmann currently are. For instance, the March 2103 version of Cassation was less critical of Conti-Vecchiotti, as it was of Hellmann for farming out his de jure judicial authority to Conti-Vecchiotti in relation to sample 36I. IIRC Cassazione said that Hellmann erred in allowing Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto decision about sample 36I's testing.

In a way,this may be one of the few things Cassazione in March 2013 got right.... because as it turned out, when the RIS Carabinieri (in the fall of 2013) actually did test it following Nencini's order, there actually was enough to test.....

...... except that it added nothing to the case once tested. If it had been Meredtih's DNA that would have been game-over for Knox and Sollecito. Yet it was Amanda's DNA, and adds nothing to the case - for any rational person, that kitchen knife could not have been used in the murder, and probably never left Raffaele's knife draw back at the apartment.

All the other questions are germane, carbonjam72 - who really knows what a single section of Cassazione can or cannot do, except that they do seem prone to institutional inertia.

There was a discussion in this thread months ago about who had authority to bump the whole mess to a United Sections. A guilter here claimed that the decision had already been made,witnessed by Section 5 being assigned the case for review.

It seems though that the proper procedure is that this is something that the single section itself can decide. So it appears a reasonable option for March 25, that Section 5 kicks it upstairs to a United Sections decision; with the obligatory further delay.

Meanwhile the Kerchers are left hanging. All of this is completely unjust for them, not to mention others. Even with a Section 5/Cassazione unqualified support of Nencini, Italy simply has booted this case badly. As ECHR or the continuing scandal will prove.

 

[Dougm]

IIUC, the easiest thing for the ISC section 5 panel to do in March 2015, would be to refer the case to a united sections panel of 9 judges, as opposed to the regular panel of 5 judges. (I think this adds another 1-2 years roughly to the decision process).

I'm not positive, but I think that action would not require them taking a position on Nencini at this time, but simply asking the united sections reconcile the contradictory verdicts of the Hellman and Nencini appeals courts, or to rule on constitutional questions like using the outcome of Guede's fast track trial against the defendants in a separate trial, allowing Guede's testimony as a basis for a conviction when Guede was not available for cross examination, and the issue of over-ruling the previous cassation ruling over-turning Hellman - while creating an anti-scientific standard that "contamination must be proven" (an anti-scientific judicial standard for DNA evidence obviously can't be sustained for long anywhere, or at least in the ECHR).

I'm not sure one section 5 cassation panel can simply overturn or negate a previous cassation panel ruling, I think it may be the case that only a united sections or constitutional court can overturn a cassation ruling? (But I may be wrong about that).

At any rate, sending the case on to a united section seems the easiest way to buy more time, while keeping ALL of their options on the table.

Eventually though, I expect Amanda and Raf will be discharged (charges dismissed for insufficient evidence), if not fully exonerated (because they are actually innocent). As does the rational world, let's face it.

Years of following this case has led me to expect a non-rational decision. IMO, there has yet to be a rational decision yet, including Hellmann (the calunnia piece made no sense). I agree it would be great if some of what you say came to pass, because it would mean they actually want to get to the truth. But I think it is more likely that whatever decision they make will be either a) more of the same irrationality; or b) ass covering.

 

[Bill Williams]

While I don't make predictions in this case (because I have no idea what others, in other countries, with their own lives agendas, etc. will do), after reading several posts above I get a feeling. It feels like the thing that makes the most sense is for the ISC to find a way to kick the can down the road. Meaning find some way to keep this thing going, and the most logical way would be to reject the Nencini verdict, and send it back for a 3rd second level trial. There are other options, and that may or may not be good for AK and RS, but it makes some sense, because:

* It keeps it "in house"
* If the ISC decides they want to endorse the convictions, I find it hard to believe they want to do it using the Nencini verdict, or even the last ISC ruling. Even they must realize how those are going to look to the ECHR and/or the world once they are finalized
* Although delaying a final decision for a year, or several, keeps the families and all others involved in a continual limbo, I think that is the least of their concerns. The Italian system has long had the issue of very long trials, with the requisite financial and emotional damage for families, and that never stopped them before.

Or, as Diocletus would say, they could "double down on stupid", and confirm Nencini, but that seems like the least likely outcome at the moment. I am not predicting that, just feels kind of like what the Italian judiciary would do, based on past history.

Who knows, really.

The issue is not what will probably happen. The issue is that if Section 5 simply signs off and approves Nencini's verdict, then that presents the political folks in Italy with a huge problem.

Does Italy really want to reap THAT whirlwind?

 

[Numbers]

IIUC, the easiest thing for the ISC section 5 panel to do in March 2015, would be to refer the case to a united sections panel of 9 judges, as opposed to the regular panel of 5 judges. (I think this adds another 1-2 years roughly to the decision process).

I'm not positive, but I think that action would not require them taking a position on Nencini at this time, but simply asking the united sections reconcile the contradictory verdicts of the Hellman and Nencini appeals courts, or to rule on constitutional questions like using the outcome of Guede's fast track trial against the defendants in a separate trial, allowing Guede's testimony as a basis for a conviction when Guede was not available for cross examination, and the issue of over-ruling the previous cassation ruling over-turning Hellman - while creating an anti-scientific standard that "contamination must be proven" (an anti-scientific judicial standard for DNA evidence obviously can't be sustained for long anywhere, or at least in the ECHR).

I'm not sure one section 5 cassation panel can simply overturn or negate a previous cassation panel ruling, I think it may be the case that only a united sections or constitutional court can overturn a cassation ruling? (But I may be wrong about that).

At any rate, sending the case on to a united section seems the easiest way to buy more time, while keeping ALL of their options on the table.

Eventually though, I expect Amanda and Raf will be discharged (charges dismissed for insufficient evidence), if not fully exonerated (because they are actually innocent). As does the rational world, let's face it.

I agree that if there is a predominance of rationalists on the 5-judge CSC panel (which IIUC initially will review the case), the case will be sent to a 9-judge United Sections panel. That panel will examine the issues you raise, but questions about the DNA evidence including how it was collected and how it was analyzed, including Stef's never-validated LCN methodology. One question to be addressed is whether international standards of forensic DNA methodology may be ignored arbitrarily.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In a way,this may be one of the few things Cassazione in March 2013 got right.... because as it turned out, when the RIS Carabinieri (in the fall of 2013) actually did test it following Nencini's order, there actually was enough to test.....

...... except that it added nothing to the case once tested. If it had been Meredtih's DNA that would have been game-over for Knox and Sollecito. Yet it was Amanda's DNA, and adds nothing to the case - for any rational person, that kitchen knife could not have been used in the murder, and probably never left Raffaele's knife draw back at the apartment.

Bill Williams,

Yes, the sample could be amplified, but that is not to say that this was a reliable result forensically. It is low template, with all of the problems thereunto appertaining. Moreover, it could have arisen from DNA that started on the handle and was transferred during packaging and transport (link). In my opinion, the SCC should not have called this test "decisive" if they didn't mean it, which obviously they didn't. Finally, when the Carabinieri said that at least two amplifications were needed, it should have been game over for the knife.
EDT
By Gubbiotti's actions and by the knife's being tested in an ordinary DNA facility, the knife had already been hopelessly compromised for low template work by 2011. The paper by Goray et al., indicates that at least two transfers of DNA may take place after an item is collected as evidence. That doesn't count the number of transfers that took place previously. The authors wrote, "While the biological material collected from a crime scene exhibit is usually the result of primary transfer [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13], in some instances the evidence collected is a result of secondary, tertiary or further transfer."

 

[Dougm]

Who knows, really.

The issue is not what will probably happen. The issue is that if Section 5 simply signs off and approves Nencini's verdict, then that presents the political folks in Italy with a huge problem.

Does Italy really want to reap THAT whirlwind?

This is interesting. Of course, to those of us who don't live in Italy, it all looks terribly irrational. Yet they have pressed on, so I have to believe that many of the judges, jurors, PMs, cops, etc. actually think they have been doing the right thing all this time.

Yet, there has to become a point where someone realizes this is all heading for a huge political problem, as you said. The question is, how long do they keep insisting that the way the system works there is OK? If the judiciary wants to keep their system as is, and resist change, does it make more sense to get this case resolved, effectively making it go away, or to dig in their heals and insist this is the way it should be? If the judiciary digs in, do the political types weigh in and find a way to make it go away? That seems much more difficult. Maybe they would want it to go to the ECHR -- that would let them wash their hands of it and let the ECHR tell everyone what the problems are.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree that if there is a predominance of rationalists on the 5-judge CSC panel (which IIUC initially will review the case), the case will be sent to a 9-judge United Sections panel. That panel will examine the issues you raise, but questions about the DNA evidence including how it was collected and how it was analyzed, including Stef's never-validated LCN methodology. One question to be addressed is whether international standards of forensic DNA methodology may be ignored arbitrarily.

on the highlighted, I think that's the key question. Cassation's finding that contamination must be proven is an anti-scientific stance, as out of step as the conclusion that scientists are guilty for not predicting an earthquake.

Unlike the intriguing Italian proposition that women in tight jeans cannot be raped, or that pedophiles cannot be criminals if their victims have true feelings, science is a somewhat more objective based endeavor.

If cassation is wrong that contamination must be proved, then the DNA evidence gets excluded due to C&V, and what's left to convict on? Rudy (who was not cross ex'd)? Or. Curatolo (who only claims he saw them outside the cottage, either when the murder occurred, or on a different day)?

So what court or panel has the power to overturn the previous cassation ruling on 'DNA must be proven'? I think that's one of the questions that must be answered. But I'm guessing they will answer all of the questions when this finally gets straightened out.

I'm guessing it gets kicked to a united sessions in March, 2015. But who really knows. The lead judge in the section 5 panel has approved/confirmed guilt in one of those crazy Italian zero evidence cases in the past - of a philosophy student who committed a shooting murder by using his philosophy training to "commit the perfect crime" - by leaving no evidence.

Truthfully, I don't know what to think anymore. I still keep hoping that 'the universe arcs towards justice', even in Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

The lead judge in the section 5 panel has approved/confirmed guilt in one of those crazy Italian zero evidence cases in the past - of a philosophy student who committed a shooting murder by using his philosophy training to "commit the perfect crime" - by leaving no evidence.

Vulcan mind meld, no doubt.

That said, there is a difference between, on the one hand, a decision based on erroneous fact-finding and the application of ill-advised evidentiary standards (i.e., contamination must be proved), and on the other hand, a decision dependent upon clear violations of law (e.g., using Guede's trial to determine Knox/Sollecito's guilt).

The Italian courts can probably get away with the former, because no matter how stupid the decisions seem, they don't contravene the ECHR. True ECHR issues, however, leave the hands of the Italian courts and are decided by strangers--not so easy for the Italian judges to have their way.

 

[codyjuneau]

First of all, Hellmann and Nencini verdits are not contradictory as far as Cassazione is concerned. Cassazione has **annulled** the Hellmann verdict.

To declare the contradictory, Cassazione would have to first un-annul Hellmann. Nencini's report now sits un-contradicted.

Further to this, though, it is unclear what the status of some of the findings of Hellmann currently are. For instance, the March 2103 version of Cassation was less critical of Conti-Vecchiotti, as it was of Hellmann for farming out his de jure judicial authority to Conti-Vecchiotti in relation to sample 36I. IIRC Cassazione said that Hellmann erred in allowing Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto decision about sample 36I's testing.

In a way,this may be one of the few things Cassazione in March 2013 got right.... because as it turned out, when the RIS Carabinieri (in the fall of 2013) actually did test it following Nencini's order, there actually was enough to test.....

...... except that it added nothing to the case once tested. If it had been Meredtih's DNA that would have been game-over for Knox and Sollecito. Yet it was Amanda's DNA, and adds nothing to the case - for any rational person, that kitchen knife could not have been used in the murder, and probably never left Raffaele's knife draw back at the apartment.

All the other questions are germane, carbonjam72 - who really knows what a single section of Cassazione can or cannot do, except that they do seem prone to institutional inertia.

There was a discussion in this thread months ago about who had authority to bump the whole mess to a United Sections. A guilter here claimed that the decision had already been made,witnessed by Section 5 being assigned the case for review.

It seems though that the proper procedure is that this is something that the single section itself can decide. So it appears a reasonable option for March 25, that Section 5 kicks it upstairs to a United Sections decision; with the obligatory further delay.

Meanwhile the Kerchers are left hanging. All of this is completely unjust for them, not to mention others. Even with a Section 5/Cassazione unqualified support of Nencini, Italy simply has booted this case badly. As ECHR or the continuing scandal will prove.

.
Everybody is left hanging, except Meredith's lone murderer Rudy.

If the police had been patient they would have waited for the forensic test results which showed that a well known burglar named Rudy Guede was in Meredith's room when she was murdered. They would have understood that the broken window and the climb up the railing for entry was the same as the method of entry at the lawyer's office who's computer and cell phone Rudy was found in possession of. They would have realized that Rudy had broken in while Meredith was visiting her English friends, that she had come home while he was still there, and that he had murdered her. His explanation of having a date with Meredith and being in the bathroom when some man sneaked in and murdered Meredith would have been recognized for the absurd and cowardly excuse it was.

The police would not have had to make up or support their own story. The police would not have had to count running shoe tread rings incorrectly. They would not have had to bully a statement from Amanda that implicated the innocent Patrick Lumumba. They would not have needed to pick a lone random kitchen knife at Raffaele's house and then use a scientifically invalid and unrepeatable test in order to to find a minuscule amount of Meredith's DNA.

The police would not have needed to hide, to this very day, forensic test results. They would not have needed to destroy evidence like the bra clasp. They would not have needed to hide the interrogation recordings of Amanda and Raffaele and Patrick. They would not have had to destroy multiple computer hard drives. They would not have had to hide 39 bugged telephone conversation recordings. They would not have had to leak lies and misinformation to the media. Mignini would not have had to make up multiple and contradictory excuses for why he did not record any of the interrogations of A,R,&P. He would not have had to make up the absurd story of acting like a Notary during the interrogations. The ISC would not have had to make an ass of itself based on some back room misinformation from people that think like Machiavelli.

And importantly, the Kerchers would never have had the slightest reason to think that Meredith's friend and roommate Amanda had anything to do with Meredith's murder, for the simple and blindingly obvious reason that she did not.

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

.
Everybody is left hanging, except Meredith's lone murderer Rudy.

If the police had been patient they would have waited for the forensic test results which showed that a well known burglar named Rudy Guede was in Meredith's room when she was murdered. They would have understood that the broken window and the climb up the railing for entry was the same as the method of entry at the lawyer's office who's computer and cell phone Rudy was found in possession of. They would have realized that Rudy had broken in while Meredith was visiting her English friends, that she had come home while he was still there, and that he had murdered her. His explanation of having a date with Meredith and being in the bathroom when some man sneaked in and murdered Meredith would have been recognized for the absurd and cowardly excuse it was.

The police would not have had to make up or support their own story. The police would not have had to count running shoe tread rings incorrectly. They would not have had to bully a statement from Amanda that implicated the innocent Patrick Lumumba. They would not have needed to pick a lone random kitchen knife at Raffaele's house and then use a scientifically invalid and unrepeatable test in order to to find a minuscule amount of Meredith's DNA.

The police would not have needed to hide, to this very day, forensic test results. They would not have needed to destroy evidence like the bra clasp. They would not have needed to hide the interrogation recordings of Amanda and Raffaele and Patrick. They would not have had to destroy multiple computer hard drives. They would not have had to hide 39 bugged telephone conversation recordings. They would not have had to leak lies and misinformation to the media. Mignini would not have had to make up multiple and contradictory excuses for why he did not record any of the interrogations of A,R,&P. He would not have had to make up the absurd story of acting like a Notary during the interrogations. The ISC would not have had to make an ass of itself based on some back room misinformation from people that think like Machiavelli.

And importantly, the Kerchers would never have had the slightest reason to think that Meredith's friend and roommate Amanda had anything to do with Meredith's murder, for the simple and blindingly obvious reason that she did not.

Cody
.

In reading this, I thought that maybe translator Anna Donnino is perhaps the only one who probably did not lie at all. She was up front that she did not act like a translator, that what she regularly does is mediate - she seems to know well that by the time she arrives at some random interrogation, things are already routinely out of hand; thus requiring her "intervention", rather than her job - translating so that two parties understand one another.

Even Machiavelli, now not posting so much here, defends Anna Donnino in abandoning her role as a translator....

"But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused."​

What is weird is that those who support Mignini et al., don't even seem to want to hide what actually went wrong, and who contributed what to this wrongful conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams,

Yes, the sample could be amplified, but that is not to say that this was a reliable result forensically. It is low template, with all of the problems thereunto appertaining. Moreover, it could have arisen from DNA that started on the handle and was transferred during packaging and transport (link). In my opinion, the SCC should not have called this test "decisive" if they didn't mean it, which obviously they didn't. Finally, when the Carabinieri said that at least two amplifications were needed, it should have been game over for the knife.
EDT
By Gubbiotti's actions and by the knife's being tested in an ordinary DNA facility, the knife had already been hopelessly compromised for low template work by 2011. The paper by Goray et al., indicates that at least two transfers of DNA may take place after an item is collected as evidence. That doesn't count the number of transfers that took place previously. The authors wrote, "While the biological material collected from a crime scene exhibit is usually the result of primary transfer [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13], in some instances the evidence collected is a result of secondary, tertiary or further transfer."

I am the last person in the world to be commenting on the technicalities associated with this kind of analysis, but......

Whatever it was that the RIS Carabinieri found, and given any technical criticism of how they found it..... the end point is the same: that knife and the test the RIS Carabinieri did added nothing to this case, added nothing to trying to shoehorn that knife into the crime.

Reardless of low template, the number of transfers, or that it had been compromised by 2011, the RIS Carabinieri told the Nencini court that sample 36I belonged to Amanda Knox.

So to add to your list of your forensic objections to anyone who claimed the use of that knife in this crime; is the RIS Carabinieri saying that Sample 36I buttresses the claim that Meredith herself was probably never in the knife's vicinity, ever.

That should have been the "judicial fact" Nencini arrived at. Instead, Nencini told tales and simply made stuff up. He surmised (with NO evidence at all presented by ANY prosecutor) that the knife in question probably was freely transported from apartment to cottage for routine cooking purposes. Nencini abandoned Massei's, "Amanda carried it for protection" theme, equal to Nencini's theme only in its complete inventiveness, and disconnect to ANY evidence.

So, your forensic objections added to the RIS Carabinieri's conclusion that the knife still displayed no connection to Meredith (granted, the judicial conclusion of that point is up to Nencini to make), added to both Massei's and Nencini's tendency to simply make things up out of thin air......

Remind me again where we are in this case? Oh wait.... those two young people are two and a half months' away from conviction!

 

[Antony]

Antony,

Good to see you commenting again. I have a few more entries at my blog, some of which cover other cases but are relevant to this one.

Thanks for the welcome. I've taken a break from JREF for many months, and when I come back it's all been moved!

I can't ever hope to be as knowledgeable as others here, but it's good to feel part of the team. My own confidence in the innocence side is from seeing the typical patterns from miscarriages of justice right from the start, rather than deep knowledge about DNA or legal niceties.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks for the welcome. I've taken a break from JREF for many months, and when I come back it's all been moved!

I can't ever hope to be as knowledgeable as others here, but it's good to feel part of the team. My own confidence in the innocence side is from seeing the typical patterns from miscarriages of justice right from the start, rather than deep knowledge about DNA or legal niceties.

To me, the similarities between this case and the Norfolk Four struck home

 

[Kauffer]

Meredith Kercher's locked door

So this is Ms Knox, in interview:

"Her door was locked. That was strange. She didn't normally lock her door. It happened at various times, but it wasn't the usual thing"

She says much the same in her book. And these idiots in hindsight couldn't see that she was aiming for precision - the whole truth. It's not that it wasn't strange, it's just that it wasn't off the charts strange, as Romanelli maintained.

It's little bits and pieces like this - nonsense really, made something when there's nothing, to be added together like ingredients in the dietrologia cauldron. So much for being rigorous, as Ms Knox was. It just got her into trouble.

http://youtu.be/OGHWMS8xnIU

 

[anglolawyer]

While I don't make predictions in this case (because I have no idea what others, in other countries, with their own lives agendas, etc. will do), after reading several posts above I get a feeling. It feels like the thing that makes the most sense is for the ISC to find a way to kick the can down the road. Meaning find some way to keep this thing going, and the most logical way would be to reject the Nencini verdict, and send it back for a 3rd second level trial. There are other options, and that may or may not be good for AK and RS, but it makes some sense, because:

* It keeps it "in house"
* If the ISC decides they want to endorse the convictions, I find it hard to believe they want to do it using the Nencini verdict, or even the last ISC ruling. Even they must realize how those are going to look to the ECHR and/or the world once they are finalized
* Although delaying a final decision for a year, or several, keeps the families and all others involved in a continual limbo, I think that is the least of their concerns. The Italian system has long had the issue of very long trials, with the requisite financial and emotional damage for families, and that never stopped them before.

Or, as Diocletus would say, they could "double down on stupid", and confirm Nencini, but that seems like the least likely outcome at the moment. I am not predicting that, just feels kind of like what the Italian judiciary would do, based on past history.

I hope like hell you're right, Doug, but when you look at the directions given to Nencini by the CSC itself ('conduct these two further, irrelevant enquiries to make it look as though you are doing something and then find them guilty') it is difficult to believe the same body will have the front to call the judge a moron. Still, it is Italy