Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Hey Anglo, at the risk of sounding silly, wasn't the Nencini appeal the equivalent of Hellman appeal, as a second level proceeding?

And the fact that Hellman didn't need to reach all the issues the defense had appealed upon, because his analysis had already precluded the finding of guilt, is only relevant to Hellman's verdict?

Once cassation annuls Hellman, isn't it the defense's obligation to raise their defenses to the Nencini court again?

OR, are you saying that cassation didn't hear the 'unheard' defenses raise before Hellman, and that cassation's ruling precluded raising those 'unheard' issues again before Nencini?
If cassation addressed the 'unheard' issues in Hellman, then doesn't that mean the issues have been 'heard' by cassation? And if cassation did not address those 'unheard' issues, then wouldn't the burden be on the defendants to raise those unheard issues again with Nencini? AND, if Nencini declined to hear thsoe 'unheard' issues from Hellman, isn't Nencini declining to hear them basically a 'hearing' AND rejection of those 'unheard' Hellman issues?

Please tell me that paragraph makes sense, and I haven't caught Italian High Florentine Labyrinthine Pros-i-tis. And why are there so many question marks???????

Fear not carbonjam72, I am interpreting your legalese seamlessly! Yes, it's pretty much as in your highlighted paragraph but the thing is the defences made all kinds of applications to Nencini for this or that to be tested and he rejected them all. He rejected audio metric testing of Nara's apartment for example for some stupid reason I posted about before and which I now forget.

 

[Numbers]

Hey Anglo, at the risk of sounding silly, wasn't the Nencini appeal the equivalent of Hellman appeal, as a second level proceeding?

And the fact that Hellman didn't need to reach all the issues the defense had appealed upon, because his analysis had already precluded the finding of guilt, is only relevant to Hellman's verdict?

Once cassation annuls Hellman, isn't it the defense's obligation to raise their defenses to the Nencini court again?

OR, are you saying that cassation didn't hear the 'unheard' defenses raise before Hellman, and that cassation's ruling precluded raising those 'unheard' issues again before Nencini?

If cassation addressed the 'unheard' issues in Hellman, then doesn't that mean the issues have been 'heard' by cassation? And if cassation did not address those 'unheard' issues, then wouldn't the burden be on the defendants to raise those unheard issues again with Nencini? AND, if Nencini declined to hear thsoe 'unheard' issues from Hellman, isn't Nencini declining to hear them basically a 'hearing' AND rejection of those 'unheard' Hellman issues?

Please tell me that paragraph makes sense, and I haven't caught Italian High Florentine Labyrinthine Pros-i-tis. And why are there so many question marks???????

I believe that the defendants submitted appeals to the Nencini court that would have included the substance of the appeals to the Hellmann court, since their lawyers knew they were "starting over" in terms of the appeal process.

I believe that CSC dealt with its perceived issues in Hellmann*, I doubt that it acted as an appeal court on the issues raised by the defense on Massei. Otherwise why bother to send the case back to 2nd level?

ETA: * That is, CSC declared each finding of Hellmann "illogical" and thus void, with the mixed exception of the simple calunnia verdict. For calunnia, the Hellmann reasoning was criticized but the verdict was allowed to stand. I don't remember if there was point-by-point reference to the defense appeal by the CSC.

 

[anglolawyer]

I get what you're saying now. Your set may be bigger than my set after all.

It's the Massei FINDINGS, not merely the defense REQUESTS for admission of evidence, that you're looking at, for the appeal history.

So if a 1st level Finding is appealed, and

1) not addressed by Hellmann and not addressed by Nencini - that is unfair - a reasoned adjudication is needed; or

This is not unfair if the result is acquittal, which it was.

2) not addressed by Hellmann but assumed by Nencini without reasoning - that is unfair; or

Yes

3) not addressed by Hellmann but addressed by Nencini with arbitrary, capricious, or insufficient reasoning - that is unfair.

Yes again.

I had a quick scan of the two appeal summaries (Massei to Hellman) at IIP and nothing leapt out as an obvious choice for this exercise. For instance, neither appeal takes any point about Amanda's phone showing she went out on the night of the 1st. Maybe Massei did not find that she did so, I forget.

Oh, here's one. The *********** lamp! Well sort of. Massei made no finding, therefore the appeals made no reference to it, therefore Hellman disregarded it but back it comes into Nencini as an item of 'undoubted significance'! What the ****! Even so, that is not quite what I was looking for.

Those two appeals btw. are not chock full of applications by the defence teams. Amanda made none, I think, while Raffaele asked for computer testing (mainly to find out how the hard drives were fried but also to re-examine the data with better software) and he also asked for the semen stain to be tested, which is the issue you brought up. On that one, I think Machiavelli is right in saying the defences waited until the last day of Massei before applying for the testing and their application was rejected. I don't know whether Massei said it was too late or an abuse of process or whatever but I don't see any reference to such ruling anywhere and Nencini does not rest his own refusal on Massei's earlier one. What he says is:

With regard to the request for genetic testing of the pillow case that was found in the bedroom where the body of Meredith Kercher was found, the Court shares the judgment of irrelevance that has often been expressed during different stages of the case. The presence of Rudy Hermann Guede in the room where Meredith Kercher was assaulted is definitively established by final judgment, and the behavior of Guede is not the subject of this trial; it is also verified in the facts that the victim had a normal sex life for a young woman of her age; she had a boyfriend with whom she had regular sexual intercourse; finally, it must be observed that the requested expert assessment would never be able to certify any actual connection between the moment when the pillow was stained and the assault of Meredith Kercher. The circumstances referred to above suggest that any indication made by the expert assessment would not have importance for the case;
[p37 PMF translation]

So he considered the point de novo and rejected the application on its own merits. That the reasoning is apparently arbitrary does not mean that the matter has not at least been properly considered from a procedural point of view.

 

[Diocletus]

This is hilarious. Deny them procedural rights. In fact, maintain that these rights do not exist. Force them to confess to a crime they did not commit and lock them up for three years for doing so.

This is unbelievable. Since people who falsely confess are almost always coerced by the cops, what we have here is a law that is designed not only to let cops get away with illegally inducing a crime, but also to punish the innocent object of the cops' ire. This has to be a product of the Mussolini regime.

 

[Numbers]

This is not unfair if the result is acquittal, which it was.
....

Not sure I get what you say in the quote part I highlighted.

If Massei acquitted on part or said no crime committed, and there was no further judgment, there's no defense issue.

But if Massei had an inculpatory finding that was appealed by the defense, and was ignored by Hellmann (because there were other reasons for him to acquit) but then was appealed but not addressed by Nencini, then doesn't the inculpatory finding remain, and support the Nencini conviction?

 

[Diocletus]

According to you the bloody print of the knife is a print of the knife ex Sollecito. So you know it was covered in blood including the handle. I would be very interested how you can explain how all the blood, all the DNA of MK except a single isolated very small amount was removed, but the DNA of Knox (if you believe she did the stabbing and the DNA was deposited at the time of the stabbing) was left in a considerably greater amount than the victim's and more widely distributed.

Why didn't they test the handle area of the knife imprint on the sheet for DNA? It would be game over if they found Knox's or Sollecito's DNA mixed in with the print. Problem is, you know what they would have found on the handle area of the print? Guede's blood.

 

[Numbers]

.....

he also asked for the semen stain to be tested, which is the issue you brought up. On that one, I think Machiavelli is right in saying the defences waited until the last day of Massei before applying for the testing and their application was rejected. I don't know whether Massei said it was too late or an abuse of process or whatever but I don't see any reference to such ruling anywhere and Nencini does not rest his own refusal on Massei's earlier one. What he says is:

With regard to the request for genetic testing of the pillow case that was found in the bedroom where the body of Meredith Kercher was found, the Court shares the judgment of irrelevance that has often been expressed during different stages of the case. The presence of Rudy Hermann Guede in the room where Meredith Kercher was assaulted is definitively established by final judgment, and the behavior of Guede is not the subject of this trial; it is also verified in the facts that the victim had a normal sex life for a young woman of her age; she had a boyfriend with whom she had regular sexual intercourse; finally, it must be observed that the requested expert assessment would never be able to certify any actual connection between the moment when the pillow was stained and the assault of Meredith Kercher. The circumstances referred to above suggest that any indication made by the expert assessment would not have importance for the case;
[p37 PMF translation]

So he considered the point de novo and rejected the application on its own merits. That the reasoning is apparently arbitrary does not mean that the matter has not at least been properly considered from a procedural point of view.

From an ECHR view point, does demonstrating the "ownership" of the semen stain make a difference? I would say yes, because it could show either:

1) someone not Raffaele was committing the crime with Guede; or

2) provide more clearly evidence of Guede's motivation (and thus why would others be involved in the murder/rape).

So from my viewpoint of the ECHR viewpoint, it was unfair to exclude testing the semen stain.

ECHR as far as I have read states that defendants should be given every reasonable opportunity to form their defense. I understand the Italian Constitution in effect says this too.

I believe the same ECHR concept of unfairness if the opportunity for defense is denied applies to the audiometric testing and computer analysis, and other defense requests.

ETA: The defense request for the EDFs should be prominent in the above category.

 

[Diocletus]

From an ECHR view point, does demonstrating the "ownership" of the semen stain make a difference? I would say yes, because it could show either:

1) someone not Raffaele was committing the crime with Guede; or

2) provide more clearly evidence of Guede's motivation (and thus why would others be involved in the murder/rape).

So from my viewpoint of the ECHR viewpoint, it was unfair to exclude testing the semen stain.

ECHR as far as I have read states that defendants should be given every reasonable opportunity to form their defense. I understand the Italian Constitution in effect says this too.

I believe the same ECHR concept of unfairness if the opportunity for defense is denied applies to the audiometric testing and computer analysis, and other defense requests.

I can't see how the echr would ever put itself in the position of saying that it's appropriate to refuse testing of a semen stain at the scene of a sexual assault. It's just too ridiculous and embarrassing everywhere else except Italy.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not sure I get what you say in the quote part I highlighted.

If Massei acquitted on part or said no crime committed, and there was no further judgment, there's no defense issue.

But if Massei had an inculpatory finding that was appealed by the defense, and was ignored by Hellmann (because there were other reasons for him to acquit) but then was appealed but not addressed by Nencini, then doesn't the inculpatory finding remain, and support the Nencini conviction?

I just meant that by the end of the Hellman appeal there was no unfairness at that point in time if he had disregarded something while acquitting them.

 

[anglolawyer]

From an ECHR view point, does demonstrating the "ownership" of the semen stain make a difference? I would say yes, because it could show either:

1) someone not Raffaele was committing the crime with Guede; or

2) provide more clearly evidence of Guede's motivation (and thus why would others be involved in the murder/rape).

So from my viewpoint of the ECHR viewpoint, it was unfair to exclude testing the semen stain.

ECHR as far as I have read states that defendants should be given every reasonable opportunity to form their defense. I understand the Italian Constitution in effect says this too.

I believe the same ECHR concept of unfairness if the opportunity for defense is denied applies to the audiometric testing and computer analysis, and other defense requests.

ETA: The defense request for the EDFs should be prominent in the above category.

I can't see how the echr would ever put itself in the position of saying that it's appropriate to refuse testing of a semen stain at the scene of a sexual assault. It's just too ridiculous and embarrassing everywhere else except Italy.

If it turned out to be Guede's it would falsify his account of what happened even further and make the motive of sexual gratification clearer.

 

[Numbers]

I just meant that by the end of the Hellman appeal there was no unfairness at that point in time if he had disregarded something while acquitting them.

Agreed.

 

[Numbers]

If it turned out to be Guede's it would falsify his account of what happened even further and make the motive of sexual gratification clearer.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Yes. And the Italian courts didn't pursue this because it would call the results of the "judicial truth" of Guede's fast-track trial - with an alleged conspiracy, and named (AK & RS) co-conspirators - into question.

 

[Numbers]

Why didn't they test the handle area of the knife imprint on the sheet for DNA? It would be game over if they found Knox's or Sollecito's DNA mixed in with the print. Problem is, you know what they would have found on the handle area of the print? Guede's blood.

Probably Guede's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.

It is a bit surprising that the sheet knife-handl blood wasn't officially DNA tested.

Did the defense ever request testing?

Any indication it was DNA profiled and the results suppressed?

 

[anglolawyer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Yes. And the Italian courts didn't pursue this because it would call the results of the "judicial truth" of Guede's fast-track trial - with an alleged conspiracy, and named (AK & RS) co-conspirators - into question.

Ain't it funny the guilters don't demand that stain be tested? It might be Raf's semen. Why not? Were all the blood stains on the pillow case tested btw? I actually would like to know about all the stains in that room. Was every single one tested? Guede cut his hand. His blood should be there. Now if only Stef hadn't stored the towels incorrectly …. Oh, never mind. As Mach said, she's from Naples.

 

[Numbers]

ECHR Judgments Relevant to the Amanda Knox / Raffaele Sollecito Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/e...t-to-the-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case/

The above article may be of interest.

 

[Numbers]

Ain't it funny the guilters don't demand that stain be tested? It might be Raf's semen. Why not? Were all the blood stains on the pillow case tested btw? I actually would like to know about all the stains in that room. Was every single one tested? Guede cut his hand. His blood should be there. Now if only Stef hadn't stored the towels incorrectly …. Oh, never mind. As Mach said, she's from Naples.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Now you ask.

Weren't you supposed to be helping Stef back in 2007?

Oh, my mistake, that was PM Guiliano Mignini, the great and renowned prosecutor.

 

[anglolawyer]

ECHR Judgments Relevant to the Amanda Knox / Raffaele Sollecito Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/e...t-to-the-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case/

The above article may be of interest.

That reads extremely well. I hope you or somebody is making sure it finds its way to the defence teams for later reference. Great work, Numbers.

 

[Numbers]

Ain't it funny the guilters don't demand that stain be tested? It might be Raf's semen. Why not? Were all the blood stains on the pillow case tested btw? I actually would like to know about all the stains in that room. Was every single one tested? Guede cut his hand. His blood should be there. Now if only Stef hadn't stored the towels incorrectly …. Oh, never mind. As Mach said, she's from Naples.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Now you ask.

Weren't you supposed to be helping Stef back in 2007?

Oh, my mistake, that was PM Guiliano Mignini, the great and renowned prosecutor.

The police didn't need to test the blood stains for DNA because Giobbi had noticed that Amanda Knox had allegedly wiggled her hips when putting on shoe covers, and was therefore, in his professional opinion, a suspect in the murder.

 

[anglolawyer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Now you ask.

Weren't you supposed to be helping Stef back in 2007?

Oh, my mistake, that was PM Guiliano Mignini, the great and renowned prosecutor.

Yes, my role in the investigation is one of the least explored aspects of the whole affair. It was I who brought the lamp in and then decided to lie about it rather than find myself in trouble. I also circulated the untruthful story about the bleach receipts. Aside from that I helped the journalist scour the city for useful witnesses but I only came up with Kokomani who I coached for the trial. I thought the whole thing about bin liners, olives and such would relieve the tedium of the trial with a little levity.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, my role in the investigation is one of the least explored aspects of the whole affair. It was I who brought the lamp in and then decided to lie about it rather than find myself in trouble. I also circulated the untruthful story about the bleach receipts. Aside from that I helped the journalist scour the city for useful witnesses but I only came up with Kokomani who I coached for the trial. I thought the whole thing about bin liners, olives and such would relieve the tedium of the trial with a little levity.

Did Kokomani collect the olives after he threw them so that food would not be wasted? If not, a clear criminal offense.