Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
precautionary detention was over?

AmyStrange said:
-


-

What I don't understand is why did they let Amanda leave the country if the whole trial process wasn't done?

d

-
Click to expand...
Dave,

Here is a nonlawyer's understanding. Ordinarily defendants are free until and unless their conviction is confirmed by the SCC. Amanda and Raffaele were held under precautionary detention. One of the reasons why precautionary detention is invoked is if there are grave indications of guilt (another is flight risk, IIRC). One can hardly claim that there are grave indications of guilt when the defendants have been declared not guilty.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Dave,

Here is a nonlawyer's understanding. Ordinarily defendants are free until and unless their conviction is confirmed by the SCC. Amanda and Raffaele were held under precautionary detention. One of the reasons why precautionary detention is invoked is if there are grave indications of guilt (another is flight risk, IIRC). One can hardly claim that there are grave indications of guilt when the defendants have been declared not guilty.
Click to expand...

The Italian Constitution actually states that an accused person is presumed innocent until finally sentenced (that is, all appeals are completed).

Thus, those who state that Amanda and Raffaele have been convicted twice are incorrect; they have been provisionally convicted twice.
 
Numbers said:
The Italian Constitution actually states that an accused person is presumed innocent until finally sentenced (that is, all appeals are completed).

Thus, those who state that Amanda and Raffaele have been convicted twice are incorrect; they have been provisionally convicted twice.
Click to expand...

David Camm was convicted twice and overturned twice before finally being acquitted. Being convicted twice does not mean you are guilty.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Dave,

Here is a nonlawyer's understanding. Ordinarily defendants are free until and unless their conviction is confirmed by the SCC. Amanda and Raffaele were held under precautionary detention. One of the reasons why precautionary detention is invoked is if there are grave indications of guilt (another is flight risk, IIRC). One can hardly claim that there are grave indications of guilt when the defendants have been declared not guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the precautionary detentions in the case were a disgrace and followed on from gross breaches of procedural rights. By the time we get to Ricciarelli, but actually before that, the authorities had no cause whatsoever. It took the dodgy forensic work of the 18th December and beyond to build a case with sleight of hand and concealment of evidence.
 
DNA on concentrating devices

Kauffer said:
Yes. But the precautionary detentions in the case were a disgrace and followed on from gross breaches of procedural rights. By the time we get to Ricciarelli, but actually before that, the authorities had no cause whatsoever. It took the dodgy forensic work of the 18th December and beyond to build a case with sleight of hand and concealment of evidence.
Click to expand...
Kauffer,

Obviously I agree, and I would point to Benjamin Sayagh's manuscript for a good discussion of why precautionary detention should not have been applied to Ms. Knox. The arguments that it should have been applied to Mr. Sollecito are even weaker IMO.

On another topic I was just reading the second volume of Butler's textbook tonight. He mentioned that some devices used for concentrating DNA in a centrifuge that were sold by a particular manufacturer contain one particular person's DNA. The person is presumably an employee of the company. This is a different situation from the knife profile (36B), but it is a good cautionary tale nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Kauffer,

Obviously I agree, and I would point to Benjamin Sayagh's manuscript for a good discussion of why precautionary detention should not have been applied to Ms. Knox. The arguments that it should have been applied to Mr. Sollecito are even weaker IMO.

On another topic I was just reading the second volume of Butler's textbook tonight. He mentioned that some devices used for concentrating DNA in a centrifuge that were sold by a particular manufacturer contain one particular person's DNA. The person is presumably an employee of the company. This is a different situation from the knife profile (36B), but it is a good cautionary tale nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Along similar lines, "The Phantom of Heilbronn" came up as background reading for the present case some time ago. And then of course there was Professor Hampikian's knife and soda can experiment and much else besides.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm
 
Kauffer said:
Along similar lines, "The Phantom of Heilbronn" came up as background reading for the present case some time ago. And then of course there was Professor Hampikian's knife and soda can experiment and much else besides.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm
Click to expand...

Do you have a direct link to the experiment?

Edit: I tried to use the phantom as a case to argue with a German poster on another forum but was not having any of it.
 
-

Chris_Halkides said:
Dave,

Here is a nonlawyer's understanding. Ordinarily defendants are free until and unless their conviction is confirmed by the SCC. Amanda and Raffaele were held under precautionary detention. One of the reasons why precautionary detention is invoked is if there are grave indications of guilt (another is flight risk, IIRC). One can hardly claim that there are grave indications of guilt when the defendants have been declared not guilty.
Click to expand...
-

Thanx Chris. I understand that's the way legal works in Italy and I'm not complaining about it, but (and regardless of the legal reasoning behind it), the way this whole Italian process worked this time, it just feels like double jeopardy to me.

The Italian legal process is just weird in that respect. I mean, why take Raffaele's passport, but not hers, or at least start the extradition process at the same time they took his passport? It's just weird to me,

d

-
 
AmyStrange said:
Thanx Chris. I understand that's the way legal works in Italy and I'm not complaining about it, but (and regardless of the legal reasoning behind it), the way this whole Italian process worked this time, it just feels like double jeopardy to me.

The Italian legal process is just weird in that respect. I mean, why take Raffaele's passport, but not hers, or at least start the extradition process at the same time they took his passport? It's just weird to me,
Click to expand...

If I had been Raffaele, I would have been somewhere else, maybe Canada asking for asylum when the verdict came down. :blush:
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

What I don't understand is why did they let Amanda leave the country if the whole trial process wasn't done?

d

-
Click to expand...

Before final conviction there are only three reasons to hold a charged person - or even a provisionally convicted person - in precautionary detention.

1) that they are a flight risk
2) that they may interfere with evidence
3) that they might reasonably be seen as reoffending.​

When they were provisionally convicted by Judge Massei in Dec 2009, Massei still had the option of ordering their release, because the conviction had not been signed off on by Cassazione - indeed, after Massei was the mandatory second-grade appeal, de novo trial.

When Hellmann acquitted them, by definition there was no reason to hold them. None of those three conditions apply to people provisionally acquitted. Both Raffaele and Amanda were free to travel abroad as they wished, and both did.

When the ISC reversed Hellmann's acquittals in March 2013, they also had the option of ordering their detention - because, in effect, the Massei 1st grade provisional conviction stood.

IMO it means something that Cassazione did not order their detention, nor even order Raffaele's passport seized.

It was after the Nencini, Jan 2014 2nd grade conviction that Nencini ordered Raffaele's travel documents seized - not his incarceration. Raffaele was in Austria when he heard of his re-conviction, and immediately returned to the first villa in Italy, where the Carabinieri arrived the next day to seize his travel documents.

Judge Nencini said that Amanda Knox was "legally abroad", and he therefore had no jurisdiction to do anything in relation to her - esp. since Nencini's conviction was still provisional.

Keep in mind that until Cassazione FINALLY signs off on tis case, the only three reasons which apply to precautionary detention mid-process is as above.
 
Last edited:
Interesting paper

DNA transfer by examination tools – a risk for forensic casework?
Bianca Szkutacorrespondenceemail, Michelle L. Harvey, Kaye N. Ballantyne, Roland A.H. van Oorschot
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.02.004

I do not have the full article, but yet another documenting contamination occurring under experimental conditions including transfer of DNA on gloves.
 
RoseMontague said:
So many changes since I was last here. Any big news on the case and is the appeal date still March 25th?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Everyone is on notice for off topic, but do you have anything on Sarah Scazzi? From what I can see it is a lost cause, their appeal is being dismissed. Machiavelli says guilty.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
I realize there has been much discussion over whether the Nencini trial amounts to "double jeopardy" for Knox and Sollecito, and it seemed like the consensus opinion (or at least a common opinion) was that since the Italian trials are a 3 stage process with appeals that Knox/Raf aren't formally acquitted until all 3 phases are exhausted.

But, here's the thing -- it seems like all this is doing is re-defining what double jeopardy means so that we can explain away the process used in Italy. Double jeopardy is the re-trial of someone under the same or similar charges. Hellman acquitted Knox and Sollecito by any reasonable definition of acquittal. The word "acquit" is actually used in his report. That decision was appealed by the prosecution. In the U.S. this is the exact thing that is not allowed because of double jeopardy prohibitions in the Constitution. The only exception to this is if the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place (clearly not the case here).

So the explanation seems to be that Knox/Sollecito were never actually "acquitted" because the appeals process hadn't been exhausted. This is simply re-defining acquittal and double jeopardy so that Italy can potentially skirt the part of the treaty not allowing double jeopardy. Surely Italy can't simply redefine "acquittal" or "double jeopardy" to suit their own purposes in this case. The entire point of double jeopardy prohibitions is to not allow appeals of acquittals. Just because double jeopardy (as defined by the U.S. constitution) is a part of the process in Italy does not make it no longer double jeopardy for purposes of extradition. What am I missing? Is the argument that this isn't "actually" double jeopardy simply political wrangling?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that at one time any acquittal in the three step trial process would be considered final but the law was changed to allow appeals for acquittals.
 
Dan O. said:
Not too far back in this thread, someone was questioning how the Perugian authorities would know about an article published in the Sunday Mirror. Turns out they would learn about it because they intercepted a phone call where Raffael explains giving the interview to a reporter that represented that she worked for Meredith's father. He further says he didn't see how he could refuse that interview.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder if she meant worked with Meredith's father? Could be translation problems again.
 
Samson said:
Yes.
Everyone is on notice for off topic, but do you have anything on Sarah Scazzi? From what I can see it is a lost cause, their appeal is being dismissed. Machiavelli says guilty.
Click to expand...

A lot of similarities in the two cases. From my viewpoint it shows that Italian judges have great imaginations. I am afraid that there is a lack of public outcry that would force the system to actually make a decision based on evidence rather than dreams and convoluted theories not supported by the facts.
 
It would probably be helpful if Jackie would impart some of his newfound "waiver" knowledge to Popper in regard to the Knox's "gift" statement. Popper, as usual, is clueless.
 
Diocletus said:
Hi Rose!

Were you around when all of the lab suppression analysis was posted on the new wiki?
Click to expand...

No, but I have seen it. Just an amazing job. There are so many things I wish I could change about the case discussion. Getting this info to the right people willing to do the work on it far earlier may have really made a difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom