Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Another example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244

I remember bringing up the Phantom of Heilbronn with somebody who was pro guilt and it seems like they were unwilling to even think about the possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

 

[Kauffer]

If there are too many words in the earlier post on Salduz and the structure of an ECHR judgment, perhaps concentrating on this key ECHR statement in the Grand Chamber judgment on Salduz will be useful:

[T]he applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer in that his statement to the police was used for his conviction. Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during police custody.

Note the generality of the wording:

"statement to the police" not "confession"

"the defects which had occurred during police custody" not "coercion" or "torture"

There is no indication whether or not the applicant "believed" his "statement" issued during police custody without a lawyer. That is irrelevant. It is relevant that he withdrew the statement once he had a lawyer and was no longer subject to the techniques of the police for extracting "useful" statements.

The primary relevant aspect is that the "statement" issued without counsel of a lawyer during police custody was the substantial evidence used for the applicant's conviction.

After changing the possessive pronoun, the para in bold could be cut and pasted by the court into Ms Knox's judgement

And your last para is correct. The statements used against her were the only evidence.

Interestingly, where did yummi go? Doesn't seem to be posting anywhere and hasn't for some time. He's taken a clattering on the convention - was completely unaware of it's depth and reach.

 

[Diocletus]

Popper from PMF posted this, of which I was totally unaware. I find it difficult to take at face value though, as in a secret ballot for example. If any one has more information, let us know.

Then he should explain nencini's comments about having to straighten out the lay jurors. Anyway, common sense tells us that the professional judges control the process, whether explicitly or implicitly. There's also the fact that Popper is the Baghdad Bob of the guilters, so we can be sure he's full of crap.

 

[Diocletus]

Interestingly, where did yummi go? Doesn't seem to be posting anywhere and hasn't for some time. He's taken a clattering on the convention - was completely unaware of it's depth and reach.

I think he's recovering from a case of indigestion after having bothered to read some echr cases, which it appears were heretofore unknown to any Italian person.

 

[Kauffer]

Then he should explain nencini's comments about having to straighten out the lay jurors. Anyway, common sense tells us that the professional judges control the process, whether explicitly or implicitly. There's also the fact that Popper is the Baghdad Bob of the guilters, so we can be sure he's full of crap.

Yes. The lay judges saw something pro innocent on the telly and it confused them.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes. The lay judges saw something pro innocent on the telly and it confused them.

Nencini's jury was the functional equivalent if the Ferguson grand jury. Well, except for the lack of any meaningful witness testimony.

 

[Samson]

Nencini's jury was the functional equivalent if the Ferguson grand jury. Well, except for the lack of any meaningful witness testimony.

Nencini had decided before he read Amanda's email, as shown by his demeanour. I also suspect Hellmann knew the case backwards before his appeal started.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The persistence of DNA

Another example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244

From your link (highlighting mine), "The following day, the same pair of scissors had been used to cut the nails of the second murder victim. Although the scissors had been cleaned between uses, I couldn't help but wonder whether sufficient genetic material had survived the cleaning process to transfer onto the second victim's nails and then produce a DNA profile in the subsequent analysis."

 

[christianahannah]

From your link (highlighting mine), "The following day, the same pair of scissors had been used to cut the nails of the second murder victim. Although the scissors had been cleaned between uses, I couldn't help but wonder whether sufficient genetic material had survived the cleaning process to transfer onto the second victim's nails and then produce a DNA profile in the subsequent analysis."

I guess you could say (and I see you did in your heading) DNA is persistent whether it is cleaned deliberately during a crime or cleaned to avoid contamination in a lab setting. The difficulty would be that which explains the persistent DNA's existence. And there needs to be a logical trail and/or documentation for either explanation.

 

[Numbers]

I think he's recovering from a case of indigestion after having bothered to read some echr cases, which it appears were heretofore unknown to any Italian person.

The dis-ease you refer to is called Convention-itis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no logical trail

I guess you could say (and I see you did in your heading) DNA is persistent whether it is cleaned deliberately during a crime or cleaned to avoid contamination in a lab setting. The difficulty would be that which explains the persistent DNA's existence. And there needs to be a logical trail and/or documentation for either explanation.

What is the logical trail in the Farah Jama case, which has a one-day gap? What is the logical trail in the Jaidyn Leskie Case, which has a two-day gap? What is the logical trail in the contaminations seen in the Mixer case (contaminated with DNA from John Ruelas and Gary Leiterman) or in the Jane Durrua case?

"We worked for a year trying to establish one way or another (whether any of the evidence was cross-contaminated). Unfortunately we weren't able to determine whether it (Durrua's evidence) was or wasn't contaminated," he said. link See also this link. Yet Bellamy was freed.

There is a plausible (but to the best of my knowledge unproven) link in the Lukis Anderson case, which is an oxygen sensor. The only case of contamination where the trail is known is the Adam Scott case. The Scott case, however, is less helpful to the PG position than it might be IMO. The forensic scientists also ignored a positive result in a negative control. In the Jane Mixer case the forensic scientists even testified falsely about this result. Therefore, the forensic scientists cannot be counted upon to give accurate testimony, and the defense must have access to this information as part of discovery IMO.

In the present case, there are several plausible routes by which Meredith's DNA might have shown up in sample 36B. Likewise for the DNA that is probably from Raffaele on the bra clasp. One problem with asserting that Meredith's DNA is on the knife despite its being cleaned is that there is no blood. The results from Peel and Gill (2004) don't support the idea that one can clean a knife of blood but not of DNA.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
No offense, but where have you been the last few hundred posts?

I've posted (too extensively) from the ECHR judgments. They are terse, often perhaps 2 or 3 pages long, probably few are longer than 10 pages. Each paragraph is numbered. They follow a rigid but useful format - it may remind one of science lab reports one did in high school, or scientific papers, in that respect.

For example, the Grand Chamber judgment in Salduz v Turkey consists of 80 numbered paragraphs, followed by the "For these reasons" summing up, which consists of 4 numbered sentences, followed by the signatures and the list of concurring opinions (there were no dissenting opinions in that case).

Here is the structure of the judgment report (for years they've followed the same format):

Absolutely no offense taken..... truly, I am not a lawyer not do I have a legal mind.

I am following in the grand tradition here of griffinmill, Vibio or any of the other guilters (which I am not in conclusion....) of relying more on the smell test than the intricacies of these documents.

Where I am right now is this: both Massei and Nencini provided long and protracted reasons for judgement which followed (loosely) a format - but which, to stretch the phrase too much, went sideways as far as their conclusions were concerned.

So I will leave it up to you, Numbers...... if the ECHR goes sideways in some unpredictable manner..... to parse the relevant formatted decision (and perhaps for us folks way up here in the cheap seats condense it to a couple of paragraphs).

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in even suspecting AK and RS.

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in arresting AK and RS.

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in detaining AK and RS for a year while assembling bogus evidence, once the arresting-evidence collapsed.

There are those who believe that the Massei court went sideways in convicting AK and RS at the first grade trial.

There are those who believe that Cassazione went sideways in reversing the acquittals of AK and RS..... and on and on and on.

 

[Bill Williams]

And Numbers.......

I would feel a lot better if you were an ECHR judge.

 

[Numbers]

And Numbers.......

I would feel a lot better if you were an ECHR judge.

Bill,

Thanks for your questions.

The ECHR judgments are written in a terse style; they are dense with words and legal citations, making them slow going (I myself typically look closely at those cites - they're usually locked up in parentheses - only on a second reading).

I posted paragraphs 56 - 63, the details of the judgment section "application of principles" relating to denial of a lawyer during interrogation & police custody from the Salduz Grand Chamber report, with some explanation, which may help clarify the ECHR's direction.

Then I "deconstructed" the first sentence of paragraph 58 in another post, to show how general the language is. I hope that shows that the ECHR was not simply focused on the Salduz case when they wrote their judgment. In many of their judgments, they are intentionally expanding the interpretation of the Convention to cover legal issues that were not detailed in the original language of the Convention document.

That is their job, as spelled out in the Convention. Thus, they act like a constitutional court (such as the US Supreme Court) not simply as a court of cassation (a final appeal court). And, as the Convention points out, they are NOT an appeal court - they don't directly consider whether or not someone charged with a crime and convicted is guilty or innocent; they are judging whether or not a respondent State has committed violations of the Convention.

ETA: Having established precedent, the ECHR cannot readily reverse it, since their case-law becomes the new "constitutional" Convention interpretation. And they are not mixed up in whatever are the politics of the Italian judiciary, or of any CoE national court system.

 

[Numbers]

Absolutely no offense taken..... truly, I am not a lawyer not do I have a legal mind.

I am following in the grand tradition here of griffinmill, Vibio or any of the other guilters (which I am not in conclusion....) of relying more on the smell test than the intricacies of these documents.

Where I am right now is this: both Massei and Nencini provided long and protracted reasons for judgement which followed (loosely) a format - but which, to stretch the phrase too much, went sideways as far as their conclusions were concerned.

So I will leave it up to you, Numbers...... if the ECHR goes sideways in some unpredictable manner..... to parse the relevant formatted decision (and perhaps for us folks way up here in the cheap seats condense it to a couple of paragraphs).

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in even suspecting AK and RS.

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in arresting AK and RS.

There are those who believe that the PLE went sideways in detaining AK and RS for a year while assembling bogus evidence, once the arresting-evidence collapsed.

There are those who believe that the Massei court went sideways in convicting AK and RS at the first grade trial.

There are those who believe that Cassazione went sideways in reversing the acquittals of AK and RS..... and on and on and on.

Yes, you are pointing out all the strangeness and arbitrariness and despotism in the Italian police, prosecution, and judicial system that were evident in this case. There are no doubt underlying dysfunctions in the Italian judicial system that foreigners cannot readily comprehend, but my suspicion is that it rests on a foundation of thought and practice dating back to the Inquisition and warped further by Fascism.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, you are pointing out all the strangeness and arbitrariness and despotism in the Italian police, prosecution, and judicial system that were evident in this case. There are no doubt underlying dysfunctions in the Italian judicial system that foreigners cannot readily comprehend, but my suspicion is that it rests on a foundation of thought and practice dating back to the Inquisition and warped further by Fascism.

I think that a big part of it is that there is a lack of a system of checks and balances. The judiciary has too much unchecked power. Too much power leads to corruption.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, you are pointing out all the strangeness and arbitrariness and despotism in the Italian police, prosecution, and judicial system that were evident in this case. There are no doubt underlying dysfunctions in the Italian judicial system that foreigners cannot readily comprehend, but my suspicion is that it rests on a foundation of thought and practice dating back to the Inquisition and warped further by Fascism.

I think that a big part of it is that there is a lack of a system of checks and balances. The judiciary has too much unchecked power. Too much power leads to corruption.

As the pro-guilt lobby often points out, there ARE checks and balances in the Italian system. For one thing, in practise anyone charged with a crime gets two trials. Also, unless it can be shown that someone is either a flight risk, able to tamper with evidence, or is likely to reoffend, they are not held in custody for the time-frame of these painfully labourious and long-winded processes.

So there are safeguards. Another safeguard is the motivations reports. Without them we would not know that all the courts rejected major elements of Mignini's initial case - to the point where what Nencini convicted AK and RS of is almost unrecognizable, really.

Raffaele is free and Nencini had full opportunity to order his incarceration. Nencini said that Knox was legally abroad. So even as bizarre as Nencini's handling of evidence is - in some respects even Nencini represents a libralized treatment of defendants.

It's just that it seems that no court, and no independent body, is allowed to criticize the prosecutor or any of the agencies working for the PM. Despite listing in his motivations reports all the reasons (and other experts) to throw Stefanoni's work into the dumpster (not to mention jail her!), Massei concludes all sorts of issues with, "I believe Stefanoni simply on her say-so."

Weird.

I hope y'all are correct about the ECHR. Yet, to once again channel my inner-CoulsdonUK, it also sounds like Italy can simply ignore things from that quarter, and all this will prove is that Italy is as dysfunctional judicially as everyone knows it is! I mean, there's all sorts of other outstanding idiot-syncrasies of the relationship between Italy/ECHR which Italy seems not in a hurry to fix!

What does the ECHR have to coercively enforce its rulings? Harsh language? (CoulsdonUK - where are you? Back me up on this!!!!)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leskie and Tapp (Gesah) contamination cases

More on DNA contamination from this link; "ASSOC. PROFESSOR JEREMY GANS: In this case, the contamination happens because two pieces of clothing were in the same room on the same day. We don't know whether they came into contact with each other, or whether there was transference via a desk or a person or through the air. But what we really don't know is how many contaminations could happen in even broader circumstances."

It seems as if Professor Gans is referring to the Russell Gesah case (murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp here, but the passage is slightly ambiguous in this regard, because there is also reference to the earlier Jaidyn Leskie case. I found the acknowledgment that contamination can happen through the air to be helpful.

With respect to the Leskie case, "Commenting on this in his October 2006 Leskie inquest findings, Coroner Graeme Johnstone concluded: 'Clearly, contamination occurred somewhere in the laboratory process. Precisely how and where this has occurred in the laboratory has not been able to be determined.'"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

failures in the application of the precautionary detention statute

As the pro-guilt lobby often points out, there ARE checks and balances in the Italian system. For one thing, in practise anyone charged with a crime gets two trials. Also, unless it can be shown that someone is either a flight risk, able to tamper with evidence, or is likely to reoffend, they are not held in custody for the time-frame of these painfully labourious and long-winded processes.

Bill Williams,

Respectfully, I would put it differently. There are some good checks in theory, but they do not seem to work in practice, at least not always. It is incomprehensible to me why Raffaele was held under precautionary detention. He did not fit under the statute, as I understand it. The evidence against him was shown to be incorrect (so much for grave indications of guilt), and he was held in solitary part of that time. I cannot recall whether Sabrina Misseri and her mother were held under precautionary detention.

 

[Bill Williams]

As the pro-guilt lobby often points out, there ARE checks and balances in the Italian system. For one thing, in practise anyone charged with a crime gets two trials. Also, unless it can be shown that someone is either a flight risk, able to tamper with evidence, or is likely to reoffend, they are not held in custody for the time-frame of these painfully labourious and long-winded processes.

Bill Williams,

Respectfully, I would put it differently. There are some good checks in theory, but they do not seem to work in practice. It is incomprehensible to me why Raffaele was held under precautionary detention. He did not fit under the statute, as I understand it. The evidence against him was shown to be incorrect (so much for grave indications of guilt), and he was held in solitary part of that time.

That is what I was trying to say - that there seems to be a very large gap between theory and practise in Italy.

And the proof? Consider this.....

Why was Raffaele detained (first 6 months in solitary confinement) even before he'd been charged.....

..... yet in 2014 when the Nencini court re-convicted them, Nencini did not order Raffaele's incarceration, namely on the same grounds he was initially incarcerated without charge!?

When anyone in the pro-guilt lobby can answer that......

Massei also had the option in Dec 2009, exercised by Nencini in Jan 2014, to let Amanda and Raffaele go, pending the confirmation of his conviction by a 2nd grade trial and Cassazione?

Why did Massei rule one way and Nencini the other?

When anyone in the pro-guilt lobby can answer that......