Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Another Lawyer Solves the Kercher Case

TomM

Quote:

Yes. it was Marcus Wesson. While that trial was pending, one of the attorneys in the law firm in which I practiced had a background in criminal law from the public defenders office. He did all the criminal work that came our way and we were good friends. The law office was very collegial, and the attorneys that were not engaged elsewhere customarily lunched together within walking distance of our downtown office. Several times while the Wesson trial was taking place, the two public defenders came for lunch in the same place we were lunching, and came over to talk with my then, their former, colleague about the case.

It was certainly tragic, and there wasn't much doubt that he had sex with his own children. Whether he killed them or not, I can't say for sure, but I think that he probably did. There were more reasons to believe he didn't than reasons to believe that Guede was the sole killer

 

[Numbers]

This is interesting. I have always been skeptical about the allegation and disapproving about those who post and say that the Kercher family were involved in the online harassment of Sollecito and Knox.

Mach who probably does have knowledge of the pro-guilt web sites says that the documents they have posted come from the Kercher family lawyers, The Kercher family lawyers would only release these documents with the active encouragement of their clients.

I now have to reverse my opinion, and accept that the Kercher family are actively supporting pro-guilt web sites. Therefore they are actively pursuing a pro-guilt PR campaign.

This shows the problems of tying the civil case for pecuniary damages into the criminal case. Although it would be contrary to ECHR provision of a fair trial for prosecutors authorities to leak these documents, this does not apply to interested parties.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Interesting questions here. If the leaked documents are indeed not to be released to the public, and they are prejudicial, then whether the Italian prosecutor releases them or one of the civil parties to the law suit in Italy releases them, Italy would IMO be in violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Italy must constrain the civil parties from prejudicing the trial; otherwise, the State can accomplish a prejudicial leak by proxy (through a civil party). Of course, the violation and any individual or general measures will be only directly with respect to the State, but may be indirectly with the non-State civil party. A general corrective measure would be, for example, for Italy to pass a law to disqualify the civil party which has leaked prejudicial material from continuance in the law suit, perhaps with imposition of a fine.

 

[Planigale]

Yes, I can identify it as the person named "Lorenzo".



Evidence was that Ms. Knox had sex with Federico, another drug dealer, a friend of Lorenzo. Court testimonies and her own diaries are evidence of that.



Yes, I linked at least three local newspaper articles in the past dealing with the news. Those are 2010 articles, if I remember correctly. They mention the names of the three defence attorneys, three known Perugian lawyers. There was no denial of this news at the time, and it is not reasonable to assume that local newspapers are making up stuff, because it would require a rather big conspiracy to use the names of three actual lawyers in the news.
In addition, there is a photography of a police informativa to the Procura of 2008, which has been reported by several magazines. That document looks authentic under any point of view, neither Knox nor Sollecito sued the magazines for publishing a fake document and it would be not so easy and rather dangerous to fabricate a fake one. That one was only an investigation document and not a trial paper, thoug.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Interesting questions here. If the leaked documents are indeed not to be released to the public, and they are prejudicial, then whether the Italian prosecutor releases them or one of the civil parties to the law suit in Italy releases them, Italy would IMO be in violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Italy must constrain the civil parties from prejudicing the trial; otherwise, the State can accomplish a prejudicial leak by proxy (through a civil party). Of course, the violation and any individual or general measures will be only directly with respect to the State, but may be indirectly with the non-State civil party. A corrective measure would be, for example, for Italy to disqualify the civil party which has leaked prejudicial material from continuance in the law suit, perhaps with imposition of a fine.

I suspect that most of these documents would be 'public' as they have been presented in court, or are transcriptions of public proceedings. But I have not looked through to check. They may be deceptive if 'cut' not presented with suitable information about limits of interpretation or mis translated. But that is a separate issue.

 

[MichaelB]

Regarding #DocumentGate

The fake wiki has hidden a few of the Nencini transcripts as well. Where's the defense closing arguments? Just forgot?

November 25, 2013 - Prosecution Closing Arguments

November 26, 2013 - Prosecution Closing Arguments, Civile Parte Patrick Lumumba's Closing Arguments, Civile Parte Magnini's Closing Arguments

December 17, 2013 - Amanda Knox's Email

 

[Numbers]

This is interesting. I have always been skeptical about the allegation and disapproving about those who post and say that the Kercher family were involved in the online harassment of Sollecito and Knox.

Mach who probably does have knowledge of the pro-guilt web sites says that the documents they have posted come from the Kercher family lawyers, The Kercher family lawyers would only release these documents with the active encouragement of their clients.

I now have to reverse my opinion, and accept that the Kercher family are actively supporting pro-guilt web sites. Therefore they are actively pursuing a pro-guilt PR campaign.

This shows the problems of tying the civil case for pecuniary damages into the criminal case. Although it would be contrary to ECHR provision of a fair trial for prosecutors authorities to leak these documents, this does not apply to interested parties.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Interesting questions here. If the leaked documents are indeed not to be released to the public, and they are prejudicial, then whether the Italian prosecutor releases them or one of the civil parties to the law suit in Italy releases them, Italy would IMO be in violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Italy must constrain the civil parties from prejudicing the trial; otherwise, the State can accomplish a prejudicial leak by proxy (through a civil party). Of course, the violation and any individual or general measures will be only directly with respect to the State, but may be indirectly with the non-State civil party. A general corrective measure would be, for example, for Italy to pass a law to disqualify the civil party which has leaked prejudicial material from continuance in the law suit, perhaps with imposition of a fine.

I suspect that most of these documents would be 'public' as they have been presented in court, or are transcriptions of public proceedings. But I have not looked through to check. They may be deceptive if 'cut' not presented with suitable information about limits of interpretation or mis translated. But that is a separate issue.

Another interesting point. If the documents are public, there would be no issue. However, if they are altered so at to misrepresent the actual records in a prejudicial fashion, then there could still be an ECHR issue.

Now ECHR only judges States. But it can hold a State responsible (in terms of violations of human rights) for actions the State takes, or doesn't take, with respect to the actions of persons or organizations. For example, if a person commits a crime such as murder or rape, and the State does not effectively investigate the crime in a timely fashion, the State can be held to have violated Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in their procedural aspects.

It seems to me if a party to a law suit in a State were to take a public document and distort it to make it prejudicial to the defendant, the State must take action or be in violation. But what if the distortion is done by someone arguably independent of the civil party, and possibly not even within the jurisdiction of the State? That is a more difficult question. Is the State obligated to attempt by legal means to prevent publication and distribution of a prejudicial document derived from a public trial document? Or is the State obligated to issue some public disclaimer that the document has been altered and has been rendered prejudicial? I would think the ECHR might judge according to either one of these or a similar alternative, but I am unaware of any case-law dealing directly with the issue.

ETA: Possibly, the ECHR position could be that the prejudicial document was issued by a private party unrelated to the case, and thus not a credible source (depending what representations were made, who was quoted, etc.) and therefore a violation of the presumption of innocence issue did not arise.

 

[carbonjam72]

Another interesting point. If the documents are public, there would be no issue. However, if they are altered so at to misrepresent the actual records in a prejudicial fashion, then there could still be an ECHR issue.

Now ECHR only judges States. But it can hold a State responsible (in terms of violations of human rights) for actions the State takes, or doesn't take, with respect to the actions of persons or organizations. For example, if a person commits a crime such as murder or rape, and the State does not effectively investigate the crime in a timely fashion, the State can be held to have violated Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in their procedural aspects.

It seems to me if a party to a law suit in a State were to take a public document and distort it to make it prejudicial to the defendant, the State must take action or be in violation. But what if the distortion is done by someone arguably independent of the civil party, and possibly not even within the jurisdiction of the State? That is a more difficult question. Is the State obligated to attempt by legal means to prevent publication and distribution of a prejudicial document derived from a public trial document? Or is the State obligated to issue some public disclaimer that the document has been altered and has been rendered prejudicial? I would think the ECHR might judge according to either one of these or a similar alternative, but I am unaware of any case-law dealing directly with the issue.
ETA: Possibly, the ECHR position could be that the prejudicial document was issued by a private party unrelated to the case, and thus not a credible source (depending what representations were made, who was quoted, etc.) and therefore a violation of the presumption of innocence issue did not arise.

Might that be one possible explanation of the Italian state police investigation of the anti-knox hate sites, posted a bit up-thread?

 

[LondonJohn]

Regarding #DocumentGate

The fake wiki has hidden a few of the Nencini transcripts as well. Where's the defense closing arguments? Just forgot?

November 25, 2013 - Prosecution Closing Arguments

November 26, 2013 - Prosecution Closing Arguments, Civile Parte Patrick Lumumba's Closing Arguments, Civile Parte Magnini's Closing Arguments

December 17, 2013 - Amanda Knox's Email

I'm still trying to figure out why the lawyer acting for the Kercher family would be supplying documents to the likes of PMF. What would be the motivation for doing so? Do the Kercher family or their lawyer have an active interest in influencing the online debate? If so, why?

Interesting indeed..........

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm still trying to figure out why the lawyer acting for the Kercher family would be supplying documents to the likes of PMF. What would be the motivation for doing so? Do the Kercher family or their lawyer have an active interest in influencing the online debate? If so, why?

Interesting indeed..........

Worth remembering that John Kercher made express reference to TJMK in his book but no reference to either of the 'Perugia Murder File'/'Placing Meredith First' sites (the one title ridiculously pretentious and the other cloying and mawkish). I always find it amusing to recall how discussion of the book stopped immediately at dot org once Peggy realised her happy band of weirdos didn't rate a mention by 'Meredith's' father (despite all the pictures of her and placing her first and everything - call that gratitude? ).

Where was I? Oh yes. I hope they all go to jail in Italy but on condition they retain internet access so we can read about their experiences. Michael won't notice any difference to his basement, I suspect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

best evidence

The failure of a prosecutor to provide the original, best evidence in a case results in a finding of an unfair trial by the ECHR, Violation of Article 6.3d - failure to allow examination of a witness for the defense, or 6.3b - failure to provide adequate facilities to the defense, with Violation of Article 6.1, failure to provide a fair trial.

Numbers,

Good post. In response to a question of mine some time ago Marc Taylor wrote, “We have discovered numerous manipulations of the data analysis or the actual physical analysis of the evidence by reviewing the electronic data…The electronic data is clearly the ‘best evidence’ in the legal system.”

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

“If you’re not protected from that, then the more vulnerable forensic scientists are going to report cases wrongly. I’m absolutely convinced this is happening now. You can’t put forensic science solely in police hands. It would be disastrous.”[/HILITE]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...would-be-disastrous-warn-experts-9991356.html

Kauffer,

Thanks for the quote from Peter Gill. This is an issue that was raised by the National Academies of Science in their 2009 report. IIRC they recommended splitting forensic labs away from the police and attaching the labs to universities.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm still trying to figure out why the lawyer acting for the Kercher family would be supplying documents to the likes of PMF. What would be the motivation for doing so? Do the Kercher family or their lawyer have an active interest in influencing the online debate? If so, why?

Interesting indeed..........

Amanda Knox's first mistake in this whole sorry affair was to choose a roommate whose family members are lunatics. She probably also should have gone to school in Vienna.

 

[Numbers]

Kauffer,

Thanks for the quote from Peter Gill. This is an issue that was raised by the National Academies of Science in their 2009 report. IIRC they recommended splitting forensic labs away from the police and attaching the labs to universities.

There is a bill, S2022, intended to strengthen forensic sciences in the US that was moving through Congress last year (113th Congress):

Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2014

This bill was introduced on April 9, 2014, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. The text of the bill below is as of Dec 8, 2014 (Reported by Senate Committee). .....

I don't know what the prospects of the bill are in the new, 114th, Congress.

One way to track bills is with the GovTrack.us site, which can provide email updates.

 

[Numbers]

Amanda Knox's first mistake in this whole sorry affair was to choose a roommate whose family members are lunatics. She probably also should have gone to school in Vienna.

I would have suggested Copenhagen or anyplace in Denmark.

Not only do they have a fine record for human rights, but where else has a company that makes beer (Carlsberg) through its foundation helped to create an outstanding physics institute?

 

[Numbers]

Another interesting point. If the documents are public, there would be no issue. However, if they are altered so at to misrepresent the actual records in a prejudicial fashion, then there could still be an ECHR issue.

Now ECHR only judges States. But it can hold a State responsible (in terms of violations of human rights) for actions the State takes, or doesn't take, with respect to the actions of persons or organizations. For example, if a person commits a crime such as murder or rape, and the State does not effectively investigate the crime in a timely fashion, the State can be held to have violated Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in their procedural aspects.

It seems to me if a party to a law suit in a State were to take a public document and distort it to make it prejudicial to the defendant, the State must take action or be in violation. But what if the distortion is done by someone arguably independent of the civil party, and possibly not even within the jurisdiction of the State? That is a more difficult question. Is the State obligated to attempt by legal means to prevent publication and distribution of a prejudicial document derived from a public trial document? Or is the State obligated to issue some public disclaimer that the document has been altered and has been rendered prejudicial? I would think the ECHR might judge according to either one of these or a similar alternative, but I am unaware of any case-law dealing directly with the issue.

ETA: Possibly, the ECHR position could be that the prejudicial document was issued by a private party unrelated to the case, and thus not a credible source (depending what representations were made, who was quoted, etc.) and therefore a violation of the presumption of innocence issue did not arise.

Was there an uptick in prejudicial activity and statements against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on the Internet (including at TJMK and PMG sites) after the acquittal by the Hellmann court? Evidence of a correlation (wouldn't need to be very quantitative) would be an indication of possible coordination between the sites and the civil plaintiffs or the prosecution. And it would be evidence of a violation of Convention Article 6.2, right to the presumption of innocence.

 

[Wannaknow]

Amanda Knox's first mistake in this whole sorry affair was to choose a roommate whose family members are lunatics. She probably also should have gone to school in Vienna.

Why are you so agressive ?

I am the only one who is of the opinion that calling the victims family members "lunatic" is not acceptable ?


Greetings

 

[Wannaknow]

Also, how come there was no Amanda's DNA under Meredith's fingernails?

How did it occur that no DNA of Guede was under Meredith's fingernails ?

By the way, why should there be Amandas DNA under Meredith's fingernails, if Guede held Meredith and Amanda stabbed her ?

Greetings

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda Knox's first mistake in this whole sorry affair was to choose a roommate whose family members are lunatics. She probably also should have gone to school in Vienna.

Why are you so agressive ?

I am the only one who is of the opinion that calling the victims family members "lunatic" is not acceptable ?

Whether money is involved or not, often families believe somebody is guilty even if the evidence is poor. The parents and husband of Michelle Moore Bosko, for example. Several family members of the murdered children with the Norfolk Four as well.

On the other side, the family member of the defendant usually believe the defendant even if the evidence is fairly is reasonably solid for guilt.

 

[Desert Fox]

How did it occur that no DNA of Guede was under Meredith's fingernails ?

By the way, why should there be Amandas DNA under Meredith's fingernails, if Guede held Meredith and Amanda stabbed her ?

Many of people wonder if some DNA evidence of Guede was suppressed. I do not know as far as that issue.
I will however argue myself that it has been argued that Amanda was scratched / clawed by Meredeth on the chin. I don't think there is any "evidence" that he was scratched by Meredeth. As such, there is reason why their should be evidence of Amanda under her nails if she got clawed.

 

[Desert Fox]

-
You and me may think it's bad evidence, but it's still evidence,

And don't forget, a lot of science now-a-days is statistical science. For example, a lot of cancer research is statistical in nature and thus doesn't have to be accurately (100%) repeatable for it to not still be considered good science,

Now that's a real strawman arguement. Ha ha,

If you want to consider if shorthand where I argue "no evidence" as "no good evidence", that is fine.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers,

Good post. In response to a question of mine some time ago Marc Taylor wrote, “We have discovered numerous manipulations of the data analysis or the actual physical analysis of the evidence by reviewing the electronic data…The electronic data is clearly the ‘best evidence’ in the legal system.”

Convention Article 36 allows for 3rd-parties, at the invitation of the President of the Court, to make written submissions or presentations regarding a case. This apparently is the equivalent of the US "amicus curiae" = friend of the court. I suggest the possibility that experts (perhaps as a panel) in forensic DNA and its legal aspects submit friend of the court information to the ECHR if the Knox-Sollecito case relating to those issues goes forward to the ECHR.

Prior exposure of ECHR to DNA issues seems to relate primarily to questions of privacy for DNA databases and paternity cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

An amicus curiae (also amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae, literally "friend of the court") is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.

The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman law.[1] Starting in the 9th century,[citation needed] it was incorporated into English law, and it was later extended to most common law systems. Later, it was introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights....Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights....

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer

ARTICLE 36

Third party intervention

1. In all cases before a Chamber or the Grand Chamber, a
High Contracting Party one of whose nationals is an applicant
shall have the right to submit written comments and to take part in
hearings.

2. The President of the Court may, in the interest of the proper
administration of justice, invite any High Contracting Party which
is not a party to the proceedings or any person concerned who
is not the applicant to submit written comments or take part in
hearings.

3. In all cases before a Chamber or the Grand Chamber, the
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights may submit
written comments and take part in hearings.