Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

I do like Peter Gill's new name however: "Shoebox guy"

& If you are ever challenged ....

"why are you saying that?"

You can use Dr Gill’s reply

"I do not know,"

 

[Dan O.]

Can you provide an example of where an Italian court has considered the expert opinion of someone who was not called as a witness in any of the various stages of their judicial process.

Silly Italians, why do they bother with judges when they could just use scorekeepers. Judges apparently aren't allowed to use their own personal knowledge of a subject which they might have acquired watching Italian TV. They might of seen something on a TV program that conflicts with what they already know and they surely won't then open a book or query Google to settle the questions. Maybe judges in Italy are just glorified scorekeepers. Or maybe they are real people just like the rest of us with a thirst for knowledge.

Is this the third time CoulsdonUK has posed that same question? Perhaps now he'll move on lest he be accused of spamming.

 

[NancyS]

You find it bizarre that commentators would find it interesting and relevant that an acknowledged world expert in (and founding father of) DNA profiling has publicly expressed his strong opinion - backed by a detailed and reasoned argument that itself is based on proper analysis - that the DNA evidence in this case is fatally flawed?

Frankly, I personally find it utterly bizarre that you find it bizarre. Firstly, you do realise (don't you?) that the debate here is as much about seeking the truth as it is about the narrower issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito will be convicted in the Italian courts. And secondly, you obviously appear ignorant of the salient fact that the opinion of Gill (and others) may very well have an important part to play in the final judicial chapters of this sorry mess.

I totally agree with this - it really is utterly bizarre that evidence can be criticised by so many experts and yet people believe this is irrelevant. Anyone with even the smallest thinking brain, should have some concerns when evidence in a trial is so widely criticised by multiple different experts of considerable reputation. And no, I doubt very much whether Gill will have any influence on the trial result (science seems to have been thrown under the bus in this case), but it should still be of concern to anyone who believes in justice and the right to a fair trial.

And I guess that I can predict the response will be something like "show me a trial where the result has been influenced by outside experts, blah blah blah" - and this sort of comment misses the point by a mile!

 

[platonov]

Silly Italians, why do they bother with judges when they could just use scorekeepers. Judges apparently aren't allowed to use their own personal knowledge of a subject which they might have acquired watching Italian TV. They might of seen something on a TV program that conflicts with what they already know and they surely won't then open a book or query Google to settle the questions. Maybe judges in Italy are just glorified scorekeepers. Or maybe they are real people just like the rest of us with a thirst for knowledge.
Is this the third time CoulsdonUK has posed that same question? Perhaps now he'll move on lest he be accused of spamming.

I'm open to correction but I believe that's Greek women not Italian judges.

 

[Bill Williams]

You find it bizarre that commentators would find it interesting and relevant that an acknowledged world expert in (and founding father of) DNA profiling has publicly expressed his strong opinion - backed by a detailed and reasoned argument that itself is based on proper analysis - that the DNA evidence in this case is fatally flawed?

Frankly, I personally find it utterly bizarre that you find it bizarre. Firstly, you do realise (don't you?) that the debate here is as much about seeking the truth as it is about the narrower issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito will be convicted in the Italian courts. And secondly, you obviously appear ignorant of the salient fact that the opinion of Gill (and others) may very well have an important part to play in the final judicial chapters of this sorry mess.

I totally agree with this - it really is utterly bizarre that evidence can be criticised by so many experts and yet people believe this is irrelevant. Anyone with even the smallest thinking brain, should have some concerns when evidence in a trial is so widely criticised by multiple different experts of considerable reputation. And no, I doubt very much whether Gill will have any influence on the trial result (science seems to have been thrown under the bus in this case), but it should still be of concern to anyone who believes in justice and the right to a fair trial.

And I guess that I can predict the response will be something like "show me a trial where the result has been influenced by outside experts, blah blah blah" - and this sort of comment misses the point by a mile!

Canada has had its share of wrongful convictions - Nyki Kish comes to mind, but also Steven Truscott who in the 1950s as a teenager missed a date with the gallows on the intervention of the federal cabinet; led to the abolishment of capital punishment. Truscott was exonerated in the early 2000s - fortunately, still alive!

So there have been some fairly weird justifications for sending someone to prison on scant/non-existent evidence.

However, I do remember one judge overturning a previous conviction of someone solely on the furore being raised about the case - outside of the court-process. He said something about that this case was calling the judicial system itself to come into disrepute.

Then there is the famous quote of the New Jersey based, US federal judge who freed Rubin (Hurricane) Carter:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19851154621FSupp533_11085.xml/CARTER%20v.%20RAFFERTY

The jury was permitted to draw inferences of guilt based solely upon the race of the petitioners, but yet was denied information which may have supported their claims of innocence. To permit convictions to stand which have as their foundation appeals to racial prejudice and the withholding of evidence critical to the defense, is to commit a violation of the Constitution as heinous as the crimes for which these petitioners were tried and convicted.​

What's on trial on March 25, 2015, is if the Italian system holds itself to the same sort of scrutiny - indeed ANY sort of scrutiny outside or otherwise! - or if people like Stefanoni continue to enjoy the courts' protection - just because.

 

[Bill Williams]

Add "Ron Hendry" to your list. Ever read his rèsumè?

Luca Cheli, BTW, has been referred to by Bill Williams as: "Italian author Luca Cheli...".

Now he's just referred to as an "Italian man". Funny.

I do like Peter Gill's new name however: "Shoebox guy"

If you did not have ad hominem to contribute.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Add "Ron Hendry" to your list. Ever read his rèsumè?

Luca Cheli, BTW, has been referred to by Bill Williams as: "Italian author Luca Cheli...".

Now he's just referred to as an "Italian man". Funny.

I do like Peter Gill's new name however: "Shoebox guy"

Does that negate or invalidate any argument made by those people? Or is that just an ad hominem attack to support an agenda?

(Oh and if you're going to bother including written accents on foreign-origin words, it's a good idea to use the correct accents in the correct places..... )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

expert witnesses

Can you provide an example of where an Italian court has considered the expert opinion of someone who was not called as a witness in any of the various stages of their judicial process?

CoulsdonUK,

Should the court listen to experts who were called as witnesses?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Should the court listen to experts who were called as witnesses?

Experts are called for the defence and prosecution. As I recall Raffaele expert witness stated that Meredith throat was slashed by someone standing in front of her, whilst Amanda expert said it was someone standing behind, either way neither experts agreed, go figure.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dusty Springfield

Experts are called for the defence and prosecution. As I recall Raffaele expert witness stated that Meredith throat was slashed by someone standing in front of her, whilst Amanda expert said it was someone standing behind, either way neither experts agreed, go figure.

CoulsdonUK,

Is that a yes or a no? Wishin and hopin...

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Is that a yes or a no? Wishin and hopin...

Neither; it is an illustration that even experts do not always agree.

 

[Numbers]

You are entitled to your point of view on these matters, but you are not fully correct in several respects. The Conti & Vecchiotti report continues to exist in the dossier of the court, as does the letter from Dr. Budowle regarding DNA. While the verdict of the Hellmann court was set aside (annulled) by the CSC, the records of the Hellmann court, including its testimonies and its motivation report, are not somehow destroyed by the annulment. All these dossier materials are extant and may be reviewed by the CSC or, if the murder case reaches it (as a claim against Italy for one or more violations of the Convention), by the ECHR.

Regarding Professor Peter Gill and his recent book, Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Raffaele Sollecito references Chapter 5 of that book in his recent appeal supplement to the CSC. Thus, Dr. Gill and his opinions, as expressed in the book chapter, are indeed before the CSC. He has summarized many of his opinions on the case and DNA analysis in his recent Italian TV interview. For the benefit of those interested, I copy here an English language summary of the part of Mr. Sollecito's appeal supplement relating to Dr. Gill's book. The summary may be found at: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/. {Bold emphasis and text in { } added.}

Ninth Reason:
The Limits of DNA Evidence.

It is fundamental that the judges of the Court of Cassation ask themselves what are the limits found by a judge during the assessment of a scientifically controversial result.

How has a judge to consider forensic evidence when different experts give opposed opinions on it?

What is certain is that the judge has to explain his choice extensively and without contradictions, but it is also certain that the forensic evidence itself must satisfy severe standards, namely that of beyond any reasonable doubt, before being used to convict.

To this end, the judge has to consider that DNA itself is not always a reliable tool, sometimes leading to out and out miscarriages of justice. This is the subject of a recent work by one of the most worldwide renown experts on the forensic use of DNA, Peter Gill.

In his book {Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice} Gill details how wrong conclusions can be drawn from a scientifically improper view of DNA as evidence, how much contamination is important and at the same time underestimated.

Miscarriages of justice may happen when DNA analysis is too concerned in finding matching profiles and neglects how and when the DNA was deposited.

The book also stresses the importance of strict controls on every link of the chain of recovery and custody of the evidence and also of a complete documentation, while in these proceedings we are still waiting for the Raw Data Files pertaining to the original 2007-2008 tests.

Therefore a judge cannot accept a given test result without having before ascertained the quality of the evidence, with a particular attention to determine “how, where and when” a given DNA was laid down.

Chapter Five of Gill’s work deals with the DNA in the Kercher case and his analysis fully supports the conclusions of the defense with respect to the lack of evidentiary value against the defendant of the DNA evidence collected and analyzed in this case.

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion someone who was never called as a witness in court.

I would imagine that a legal summary of this case has already been prepared along with submitted appeals from both defence teams and this will form the deliberations of court of cassation judges, so no it is not set in stone, but I do believe it is absurd to believe Dr Gill appearance on Italian TV last week will have any impact on deliberations next week.

Gosh; so you believe the judges assigned to deliberate this case next week have been (are) wading through dossier after dossier reading letters from Dr Budowle or extracts from Dr Gill’s book?

You could be right.

However, given the thousands of third level trials per year I believe it is just as likely that summaries are prepared for the deliberating judges; Italian Supreme Court researchers, lawyers and possible other judges prepare summaries including defence appeals, this is one of a thousands of cases that will be heard this year.

I’d be surprised if the defence is given more than an hour to argue their case.

But hey, I could be completely wrong, we’ll find out next week.

I will try to help the readers here understand what might happen in or as a result of the CSC hearing on March 25, 2015.

The CSC panel will conduct the hearing and subsequent activities more or less in accordance with procedures laid down in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures (CPP), in particular, CPP Articles 606 to 628. Among those articles there are requirements that the panel deliberate. There are no requirements that any document or dossier material must be read, and no reference to the summary material which you suggest has been prepared for the judges.

CPP Article 615 Deliberation and publication states (in part, paraphrased): 1. The CSC shall hand down the judgment in closed sessions immediately after the open-court hearing is concluded, unless the President of the bench {decides otherwise} due to the high number or importance of the issues to be decided.

There are several possible outcomes of the CSC deliberation and judgment: 1. The judgment of the last trial court (Nencini court) is fully upheld; 2. The judgment of the Nencini court is partially upheld and partially annulled; 3. The judgment of the Nencini court is fully annulled. For (2) and (3), the CSC may or may not refer any annulled Nencini court judgment back to a new (3rd) 2nd-level court for retrial, or it may institute a United Sections panel, which has authority to address issues, according to CPP Article 610, para. 2, when such "issues raised are particularly relevant or when conflicts among the decisions of individual chambers need to be solved."

While the CSC is obligated to render judgment based on law and not an evaluation of evidentiary facts per se, the provisions of CPP Article 606 para. 1.e essentially allows evaluation of evidence if "the grounds of the [appealed] judgment are lacking, contradictory, or manifestly illogical".

It is an accepted practice for the Italian courts to refer in their motivation reports to scholarly articles, legal or otherwise, external to the case file. The motivation report is, of course, generally provided some time after the actual judgment is handed down.

Again, the CSC will do, include read or not read, what its panel of judges decides without necessarily attending to our posts or even to the texts of the appeals. There is a level of evaluation beyond the CSC, the European Court of Human Rights, which may eventually review the CSC actions, if claims of violations of the Convention rights of the defendants are lodged against Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

Does that negate or invalidate any argument made by those people? Or is that just an ad hominem attack to support an agenda?

(Oh and if you're going to bother including written accents on foreign-origin words, it's a good idea to use the correct accents in the correct places..... )

It does in the pro-guilt world, where if you attach an infantile nickname to them, you don't have to pay attention to them. Either that, or you can hold your hands over your ears and chant "nah nah nah I can't hear you".

 

[TruthCalls]

& If you are ever challenged ....

"why are you saying that?"

You can use Dr Gill’s reply

"I do not know,"

Could you please provide a cite for this? I mean other than a UK tabloid. Thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Neither; it is an illustration that even experts do not always agree.

Is THAT what you were on about? You will not engage in any critical thinking beyond THAT!?

I think the pro-innocence side had better throw in the towel.....

ETA - strangely this was Judge Massei's reasoning in 2009 for not allowing an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA evidence. Massei said in his 2010 motivations that the independent analysis would only side with one side or the other, and he'd still have to decide which was right. So, hence, no independent review. (This is the level of judicial thinking which leads to convictions in Italy.)

 

[Numbers]

I will try to help the readers here understand what might happen in or as a result of the CSC hearing on March 25, 2015.
....

Again, the CSC will do, include read or not read, what its panel of judges decides without necessarily attending to our posts or even to the texts of the appeals. There is a level of evaluation beyond the CSC, the European Court of Human Rights, which may eventually review the CSC actions, if claims of violations of the Convention rights of the defendants are lodged against Italy.

For completeness, I will add that the ECHR has ruled trials unfair - a violation of Convention Article 6, and thus requiring retrial if desired by the defendants or plaintiffs - cases in which a motivation report was not sufficiently reasoned or was "manifestly unreasoned". Such "manifest unreasoning" may include the motivation report not addressing an important defense argument, or not addressing an important defense argument in a manner that met standards of logic and probity.

 

[TruthCalls]

Neither; it is an illustration that even experts do not always agree.

What a cop-out. Of course experts don't always agree, and of course expert opinion is still opinion. However, when multiple experts of impeccable credentials all say essentially the same thing, wise people take notice. How many DNA experts have found the LCN DNA in this case as reliable and beyond reproach? How many have not? How many experts concluded the injuries were consistent or compatible with a lone attacker? How many felt it had to had to be multiple attackers? You seeing a trend here? These aren't clueless internet bloggers, these are experts in their field. And while the injuries were perhaps insufficient to prove one way or another what direction the attack came from, when six of seven -who testified in court- claim the injuries are consistent or compatible with a lone attacker and yet the court rules it had to be multiple attackers anyway, I suggest Cassation pay attention to the contradiction. Similarly, if the father of LCN analysis says how this case was handled renders the results unreliable the court should pay attention. That's certainly more credible than Cassation not agreeing with Hellmann's logic wrt Curatolo or Quintavalle.

 

[Desert Fox]

What a cop-out. Of course experts don't always agree, and of course expert opinion is still opinion. However, when multiple experts of impeccable credentials all say essentially the same thing, wise people take notice. How many DNA experts have found the LCN DNA in this case as reliable and beyond reproach? How many have not? How many experts concluded the injuries were consistent or compatible with a lone attacker? How many felt it had to had to be multiple attackers? You seeing a trend here? These aren't clueless internet bloggers, these are experts in their field. And while the injuries were perhaps insufficient to prove one way or another what direction the attack came from, when six of seven -who testified in court- claim the injuries are consistent or compatible with a lone attacker and yet the court rules it had to be multiple attackers anyway, I suggest Cassation pay attention to the contradiction. Similarly, if the father of LCN analysis says how this case was handled renders the results unreliable the court should pay attention. That's certainly more credible than Cassation not agreeing with Hellmann's logic wrt Curatolo or Quintavalle.

To use evolution. . . . .
You have many thousands of biologists who argue that evolution is real.
On the other side, you have the Discovery Institute and a handful of others arguing against it.

 

[Bill Williams]

To use evolution. . . . .
You have many thousands of biologists who argue that evolution is real.
On the other side, you have the Discovery Institute and a handful of others arguing against it.

In fact, in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, the Discovery Institute DID try to portray Intelligent Design as supported by "experts", trying to turn the case into an, "our experts are just as expert as your expert," case.

The problem was - they could only find one genuine, peer reviewed scientist to be their expert at trial. The under cross-examination he had to admit his methodology surrounding intelligent Design would also mean that astrology should be deemed a science.

When the parents' lawyer sat down after savaging the "expert" his partner at the table said, "Savour this moment. .... you don't get many like this!"

It's hard to take the argument seriously in this case that it is simply an argument among equal experts.

On one side Stefanoni. On the other the father of LCN DNA analysis.

 

[Desert Fox]

In fact, in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, the Discovery Institute DID try to portray Intelligent Design as supported by "experts", trying to turn the case into an, "our experts are just as expert as your expert," case.

The problem was - they could only find one genuine, peer reviewed scientist to be their expert at trial. The under cross-examination he had to admit his methodology surrounding intelligent Design would also mean that astrology should be deemed a science.

When the parents' lawyer sat down after savaging the "expert" his partner at the table said, "Savour this moment. .... you don't get many like this!"

It's hard to take the argument seriously in this case that it is simply an argument among equal experts.

On one side Stefanoni. On the other the father of LCN DNA analysis.

It actually does not matter if she could have argued something coherently.
I would like to believe that a good pro guilt argument could sway my position.