Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Rose. Welcome back.

It's just a shame all the documents weren't made public 5 years ago. Have you had a look at the new ones yet?
 
I read most of the prison conversations and John Follain has big time altered the one on November 20th between Amanda and Curt Knox where they talk about Guede being discovered. Follain altered half of it and outright made up the other half. Not just by twisting their words but by adding direct quotes to the both of them that are no where to be found in the transcript.

That Hugo over @ .org has a huge man crush on Follain. Death in Perugia is his bible. He probably takes the book to bed with him. I wonder if he'll reassess his opinion about the author and what's in the book learning the guy is a total fraud?
 
MichaelB said:
Here they all are.

Lots of new expert reports from the Hellmann trial, witness statements, Bruno Pellero's phone report, Novelli's report, attorney correspondence etc: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-transcripts/

Missing transcripts have been added here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

Prison and phone interceptions added here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/
Click to expand...

Thanks, lots of reading to do.
 
Greetings, Rose, welcome back.

On double jeopardy as seen by the ECHR: The terminology for them is conviction after acquittal on the same evidence. This is a much less strict definition than the US definition. ECHR uses double jeopardy as a term to apply to a trial which occurs for the same facts after an earlier series of trials is finalized ( Article 3 of Protocol 7 of the Convention).

I searched HUDOC for ("same evidence") and ("conviction" and "acquittal") and found 11 hits. Several of these I have posted on previously here and/or at IIP forum. The most recent case is Vaduva v Romania, 27781/06 25 Feb 2014. Vaduva v Romania has several elements in common (viewed generally) with the Knox - Sollecito case, including suppressed apparently exculpatory evidence of a technological nature (phone intercepts in Vaduva).
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is. But amusingly confident in his position.

I want them all to stick around to the final curtain so we can find out how they are going to rationalise what will happen.
 
MichaelB said:
I read most of the prison conversations and John Follain has big time altered the one on November 20th between Amanda and Curt Knox where they talk about Guede being discovered. Follain altered half of it and outright made up the other half. Not just by twisting their words but by adding direct quotes to the both of them that are no where to be found in the transcript.

That Hugo over @ .org has a huge man crush on Follain. Death in Perugia is his bible. He probably takes the book to bed with him. I wonder if he'll reassess his opinion about the author and what's in the book learning the guy is a total fraud?
Click to expand...

It is my belief that John Follain, in writing "A Death in Italy", simply relied on the cops' own recollections of what was in those recordings.

There's also another factor involved in the Nov 20 statement appearing in Follains book - it's the issue of double-translation. Presumably Amanda/Curt spoke in English and someone transcribed it into Italian. It's my belief that Follain used his unique cop-connections to get an initial Italian (verbal) version of it, which he probably noted again in English for his own purposes.

(It's worth repeating Follain's cop connections were to serve him well. When Curt and Edda were charged with defamation for repeating Amanda's "they hit me" claim, Follain - the author of the newspaper piece in which it was quoted - himself escaped any charges.)

MichaelB - which were the worst of Follain's alterations of the Nov 20 secret recordings?
 
List of bloody items found in Guede's apartment or seized from him:

1. Towel
2. Show Ticket
3. Sink Trap?
4. Spot on floor (luminol)
5. Belt
6. Socks

All test for Guede's DNA or no DNA found.
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
IIUC, he's saying that the Hellman acquittal, as well as the two other convictions, amount to distinct "court trials" as a matter of law, regardless of how Italy may wish to describe them as part of an on-going process with multiple stages and a single as yet undetermined outcome. Each trial counts as a trial on the same acts, facts or conduct, reaching different conclusions.

In other words, double jeopardy is barred by the US-Italy extradition treaty provision itself, even though the ECHR case law has not yet ruled Italy's process to violate ECHR convention against double jeopardy, nor has the US supreme court raised the constitutional issue in regard to double jeopardy, IIUC.

I'm surprised this is causing confusion, I'm not sure I see what the disclarity is here?

Everybody has been arguing over whether double jeopardy would apply because of Hellman's acquittal. Prof Bassioumi seems to be saying yes, but in accordance with the extradition treaty itself, rather than direct recourse to the US constitution, or ECHR case law, or Italian constitutional law (which also bars double jeopardy - and I believe was raised by Carlo Della Venova as an appeal issue for Amanda to cassation in March).
Click to expand...

cj,
The discrepancy is that, while Prof Bassioumi is reading the treaty as one can deny extradition if the accused is placed in double jeopardy (full stop -- he is saying it doesn't matter where the accused is tried. Italy or U.S.), we are reading it as the accused cannot be placed in jeopardy in the requested country - in this case, the U.S. - and then extradited. In other words, we are reading it as the treaty allows double jeopardy (or, at least, does not explicitly give this as grounds for denying extradition). It disallows (i.e. we could deny extradition) if the situation were such that the accused is put on trial in the requested country to be extradited later. So it would only apply if Amanda had been tried in the U.S. then Italy requested extradition. Since she was tried in Italy it doesn't apply, and Italy can try her as many times as they want (going by the wording of the treaty).

The question I have is will the U.S. government extradite someone whose constitutional rights were violated by the country putting the accused on trial. Which is a weird question in itself since obviously Italy doesn't abide by the U.S. Constitution, but it is trying a U.S. citizen, so the U.S. may (should?) have some obligation to protect the accused in some way if it views the treatment as a fundamental rights violation according to their own code.

This, imo, is all secondary to all the procedural screw-ups from a forensic science perspective, and the irrationality on display by the judges. But there is nothing in the treaty saying we can deny extradition if the judges and forensic technicians are stupid and incompetent.... So, I'm still curious on what grounds the U.S. can deny extradition if it's not explicitly outlined in the treaty.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
cj,
The discrepancy is that, while Prof Bassioumi is reading the treaty as one can deny extradition if the accused is placed in double jeopardy (full stop -- he is saying it doesn't matter where the accused is tried. Italy or U.S.), we are reading it as the accused cannot be placed in jeopardy in the requested country - in this case, the U.S. - and then extradited. In other words, we are reading it as the treaty allows double jeopardy (or, at least, does not explicitly give this as grounds for denying extradition). It disallows (i.e. we could deny extradition) if the situation were such that the accused is put on trial in the requested country to be extradited later. So it would only apply if Amanda had been tried in the U.S. then Italy requested extradition. Since she was tried in Italy it doesn't apply, and Italy can try her as many times as they want (going by the wording of the treaty).

The question I have is will the U.S. government extradite someone whose constitutional rights were violated by the country putting the accused on trial. Which is a weird question in itself since obviously Italy doesn't abide by the U.S. Constitution, but it is trying a U.S. citizen, so the U.S. may (should?) have some obligation to protect the accused in some way if it views the treatment as a fundamental rights violation according to their own code.

This, imo, is all secondary to all the procedural screw-ups from a forensic science perspective, and the irrationality on display by the judges. But there is nothing in the treaty saying we can deny extradition if the judges and forensic technicians are stupid and incompetent.... So, I'm still curious on what grounds the U.S. can deny extradition if it's not explicitly outlined in the treaty.
Click to expand...

I would phrase it like this: Will the US government extradite someone, if the extradition would result in the person being subjected to a judicial process that would constitute unconstitutional "double jeopardy" if it occurred in the US?

There are cases in which the US has been willing to do this, but are there any limiting factors, i.e., the person has been declared actually innocent in the requesting jurisdiction and/or the requesting jurisdiction has itself previously refused to extradite to the requested jurisdiction on the basis of asserted national constitutional rights.
 
Novelli's calls with respect to the Y chromosomal data

Google translation of a portion of the Novelli report that deals with the Y-chromosomal results of the bra clasp: "Again the consultant believes that the technical approach more appropriate to interpret the genetic profile of markers located on the Y chromosome to the track 165B and to avoid subjective interpretations is to "call" and then consider all alleles with RFU> 50 . Below is the genetic profile for the whole Y chromosome according to this interpretation (Wolf et al., 2005)."

The table that follows in his report (pp. 17-18) thus appears to be the calls that Novelli himself made with respect to the sixteen loci sampled in YSTR testing. Five loci have three contributors (potentially Sollecito and two more); seven loci have two contributors, and four have one contributor. Of course if one uses the same cutoff as was used for the knife (about 15 RFU), then the number of contributors increases. I have not yet found Novelli's conclusion with respect to the additional contributors; it does not seem to be in the text that follows. In other words, even Novelli does not deny that the peaks are there.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Google translation of a portion of the Novelli report that deals with the Y-chromosomal results of the bra clasp: "Again the consultant believes that the technical approach more appropriate to interpret the genetic profile of markers located on the Y chromosome to the track 165B and to avoid subjective interpretations is to "call" and then consider all alleles with RFU> 50 . Below is the genetic profile for the whole Y chromosome according to this interpretation (Wolf et al., 2005)."

The table that follows in his report (pp. 17-18) thus appears to be the calls that Novelli himself made with respect to the sixteen loci sampled in YSTR testing. Five loci have three contributors (potentially Sollecito and two more); seven loci have two contributors, and four have one contributor. Of course if one uses the same cutoff as was used for the knife (about 15 RFU), then the number of contributors increases. I have not yet found Novelli's conclusion with respect to the additional contributors; it does not seem to be in the text that follows. In other words, even Novelli does not deny that the peaks are there.
Click to expand...

Chris - can you put this into the context of what Nencini thought he was accounting for.... Meredith's, Raffaele's, and possibly Meredith's boyfriend, and possibly two further "amica".

Why would Nencini go so far as to try to guess the identities of the three further Y-chromosomal profiles?

And I need this in language suitable for the simpleton that I am around this stuff.

Start from Stefanoni, go through Novelli, then C&V and then Nencini.... but type-slowly so that I understand!
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
List of bloody items found in Guede's apartment or seized from him:

1. Towel
2. Show Ticket
3. Sink Trap?
4. Spot on floor (luminol)
5. Belt
6. Socks

All test for Guede's DNA or no DNA found.
Click to expand...


Does anyone know if any of the downstairs roommates lived in or near Rome?
 
Novelli's fast footwork

Google translation of what Novelli says: "Comment: Similar to what was stated in the previous paragraph, the consultant notes that the experts were limited to disagree on the interpretation criteria without coming to any conclusion own. In particular, the experts consider that the profile of DNA on the Y chromosome extrapolated from the track 165B should consider a greater number of alleles. However, this second interpretation does not exclude the presence of trace DNA of Raffaele Sollecito who is also the majority contributor to the track itself."

IMO Novelli is saying that the presence of additional alleles does not change the existence of Sollecito's putative profile. He does not attempt to identify the additional contributors, nor does he admit that their presence might affect the interpretation of the YSTR results. I recall checking one particular locus in which there are clearly three contributors, namely DYS390. The two alleles that Sollecito did not contribute were also not contributed by Guede. My interpretation is that once one acknowledges the existence of the extra alleles and realizes that there are not enough possible male perpetrators to account for the DNA, then it should be game over with respect to the bra clasp. If the people who contributed the extra DNA did not participate in the attack, then how can one conclude that Sollecito did participate on the basis of the DNA that he contributed. Novelli's argument is a deflection away from this conundrum. It is fast footwork but nothing more.
ETA
There are PG commenters who claim that the extra alleles are stutter or are not real for some other reason. Novelli believes otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Bad omens.

Desert Fox said:
If I had been Raffaele, I would have been somewhere else, maybe Canada asking for asylum when the verdict came down. :blush:
Click to expand...


Canada sounds like a terrible idea. The last time a loser involved in this case [Frank S] went that route it ended up in a drunken late night ‘Deliverance’ scene with the cops involved and the Italian having to make a break for the border. AIUI.
Throw in RS’s penchant for introducing knives into sexual scenarios ...........

No – Canada is out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom