Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Technically correct, it's not necessary in order to make a defensive use of it; but tends to be necessary in order to make such defensive use be effective.

Did massei or nencini affirmatively decide that she was NOT hit?

Hellman did not decide the issue as I recall, although he did decide that she had been treated miserably.

 

[acbytesla]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Wow!!! And what are your qualifications Eric in forensics or DNA analysis. It is laughable that you have the stones to dismiss the work of on of the most respected scientists commenting on his own field of expertise.

 

[Kaosium]

Readers here may not see the contradiction in the Italian system of claiming that multiple trials, brought about by allowing the prosecution to appeal as well as the defense, are "one trial". If the prosecution had not been allowed by Italian law to appeal the Hellmann verdict, the case would have been over. So despite the claim of the Italians, and other civil law jurisdictions, there truly was double jeopardy after the Hellmann acquittal. The ECHR has dealt with this kind of double jeopardy in several cases by judging conviction after acquittal unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6, if there was no new inculpatory evidence introduced or if the key witnesses, including the defendant, not heard again in court.

Heh, I got the joke as well. I'd also add that whichever clown Vogt quoted from the Italian judiciary needs to learn a little more about US law as well. There's only one entity that can make a (decisive) ruling on things like double jeopardy and it's not the US Senate in negotiating a treaty, that has already been adjudicated, but that body has not ever ruled on this particular issue, which means if extradition goes to a US court they just might, that's the sort of thing that causes the US Supreme Court to choose a case. Considering the SC's rulings on related issues, the likelihood that it would rule that the Senate could negotiate a treaty which compromised a constitutional right is pretty much nil.

 

[kwill]

Spontaneous legally means the person is not forced to make it, and not bound within a questioning.

How would Amanda have known that she was free to leave?

 

[Kaosium]

How would Amanda have known that she was free to leave?

Especially considering that one of the officers (Ficarra?) testified she was detailed to approach Amanda after Raffaele gave his statement to ensure that Amanda didn't leave....

 

[Bill Williams]

Spontaneous legally means the person is not forced to make it, and not bound within a questioning.

Italian concepts of spontaneity are irrelevant. What matters is whether she knowingly waived her right not to incriminate herself, and that couldn't have happened because they didn't give her a lawyer.

Machiavelli argues the nuances of what "spontaneous" legally means. Funny that, perhaps someone should have the benefit of a lawyer before this, to help in the explanations of those nuances like Machiavelli is doing for us here.

Oh wait.....

Machiavelli has argued himself into a corner here. Either "spontaneous" means the plain text-rendering, as understood by all (even the non-legally trained), or else it has some nuanced meaning, requiring the services of a lawyer to understand.

 

[Numbers]

1) What she wrote down came later - before that she was given stuff to sign. Why was she not given a lawyer before she was given stuff to sign?
2) The various statements were used against her in two criminal trials - that's illegal.
3) The Italians, like other states, grant their authorities special powers for use only in extraordinary circumstances. Denial of counsel in this case was illegal - Consider post Salduz case law at the ECHR.

The breach of Ms Knox's right to a fair trial was never remedied.

Furthermore, she was slapped - that's inhuman and degrading treatment; then she wasn't given an independent translator but a self styled mediator who interjected herself into the proceedings - another violation. Gosh I'm losing count.

PS You're not also trying to suggest there was a valid waiver, are you?

The point was that she wrote stuff herself. This was the point and the argument. Everything else - while I do not concede your scenario at all - doesn't change this. There is this thing more and the argument stands.

Well by now the courts have ruled it was fully legal.
The reported reason why it was legal is that she committed a calunnia, a new crime, for which she was not a suspect at the time.

It was not, as for the Italian Constitutional court. Exceptional circumstances include investigation needs, something which the ECHR did not dispute until now.

The ECHR and other external autorities cannot deal with such claim. She should have filed a complaint to domestic authorities and pursued remedy that way first.

She had an excellent interpretar who did a professional work, in my opinion. Investigator-informant and judge-witness, like all dialogue situations, don't have "translators", they have interpreters. Translators work with texts or with speeches, one way only; those who work with people, that means two people and a communication between them, the job is called interpreter, and an interpreter may be also a facilitator and a mediator.

This simply is not true. The article 3 exclusionary rule prohibits the use for any purpose whatsoever of a statement obtained through inhuman/degrading treatment. It is not necessary to affirmatively file a complaint in order to make defensive use of this exclusionary rule.

Regarding the inhuman and degrading treatment that Amanda Knox was subjected to, the police themselves have in a fashion shown why she was not able to safely file any formal complaints, but only present her statement of police misconduct in court.

Here is an excerpt from Andrea Vogt's blog
http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/
23 March 2015:

In another legal blow for Knox, a Florence judge earlier this week ruled there was enough evidence to request Knox stand trial on separate charges of continuous aggravated calumny. Though unreported by mainstream media, these additional charges have been simmering quietly in preliminary hearings for months until Friday, when “rinvio di giudizio” was granted and the first trial hearing date was set for June 9 in Florence. While Knox already has one definitive calumny conviction for accusing Congolese pub owner Patrick Lumumba, these latest charges stem from her continued allegations of police abuse and coercion, both on the stand and outside of court, in her memoir and in public appearances.

These "continuous aggravated calunnia" charges against Knox will be significant to the ECHR case claiming violation of her rights by Italy for the calunnia conviction in the Hellmann court. It shows continuing retaliation against her for stating the truth, that she was hit in the interrogation. Thus, she could not safely file an official complaint, for that would likely have resulted in some other retaliation against her while she was imprisoned.

This is yet another example of the despotic behavior of the Italian judicial system.

 

[Diocletus]

Heh, I got the joke as well. I'd also add that whichever clown Vogt quoted from the Italian judiciary needs to learn a little more about US law as well. There's only one entity that can make a (decisive) ruling on things like double jeopardy and it's not the US Senate in negotiating a treaty, that has already been adjudicated, but that body has not ever ruled on this particular issue, which means if extradition goes to a US court they just might, that's the sort of thing that causes the US Supreme Court to choose a case. Considering the SC's rulings on related issues, the likelihood that it would rule that the Senate could negotiate a treaty which compromised a constitutional right is pretty much nil.

Remember, too, that the Italian constitutional court already did the same thing, when it ruled that no person can be extradited to face a capital charge, even though the death penalty is off the table as specified in the treaty. In other words, the Italian constitutional court has taken it upon itself to abrogate part of the extradition treaty, even though there was no need to do so.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think this is a helpful comment. Machiavelli is being honest here. He believes Knox is guilty of sexual assault and murder. A normal woman would not be able to manipulate two men she hardly knows into doing this therefore Knox must logically be abnormal. However since Machiavelli admits his interpretation of her personality is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt this can not in turn be used to argue for guilt.

Of course he's being honest. But that doesn't mean it is a product of intelligent thought. He says she is guilty because she is narcissistic and the reason he knows she is guilty is because she is narcissistic. Circular reasoning.

 

[katy_did]

Readers here may not see the contradiction in the Italian system of claiming that multiple trials, brought about by allowing the prosecution to appeal as well as the defense, are "one trial". If the prosecution had not been allowed by Italian law to appeal the Hellmann verdict, the case would have been over. So despite the claim of the Italians, and other civil law jurisdictions, there truly was double jeopardy after the Hellmann acquittal. The ECHR has dealt with this kind of double jeopardy in several cases by judging conviction after acquittal unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6, if there was no new inculpatory evidence introduced or if the key witnesses, including the defendant, not heard again in court.

Do you know in which cases the ECHR has ruled that this sort of conviction is unfair? I thought the ECHR considered double jeopardy to occur only after someone has been "finally" acquitted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, we are. We are discussing with Eric Paroissien his claim that "Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions." If you want to jump in and correct him like the rest of us are doing, go ahead but it does seem weird when talking to the monkey to be faced with interjections from the organ grinder.

I thought it was part of the show.

 

[Kaosium]

Remember, too, that the Italian constitutional court already did the same thing, when it ruled that no person can be extradited to face a capital charge, even though the death penalty is off the table as specified in the treaty. In other words, the Italian constitutional court has taken it upon itself to abrogate part of the extradition treaty, even though there was no need to do so.

Yes, I followed that discussion of yours. I kept wondering why they did that, was it just grandstanding on the issue of capitol punishment? Annoyances over the Gondola tragedy or another related issue? Did they have reason to believe the person was innocent? It was an odd thing to do and it along with previous refusals by the US, UK and other countries to extradite to Italy--despite treaties--ought to clue people into the fact it's not going to be a slam dunk and they shouldn't pay much attention to those people who think it might be.

There's a part of me hoping that Cassation confirms--and then the US calls 'fraud' and demands the EDFs and interrogation tapes.

 

[Planigale]

Well, no. In fact, something like 400 tests were done in the apartment. Seven samples were taken from the corridoor floor on Dec. 17. alone, another dozen were taken from the corridoor floor before that. Several samples were taken in the kitchen and from the floor in other rooms.
That there is no DNA from Sollecito on the floor is manifest.
From all those 400 tests we can infer that no large-size source of Sollecito's DNA was present in the apartment.
And we already know that no other sample from the apartment was contaminated from Sollecito's DNA.
We have a small object (the bra clasp) and no evidence of the existence of a source and of a contamination path, the factual circumstances that would make this alleged contamination from Sollecito's DNA become probable are missing. We have to consider the probability that such source existed and found its path as small odds, and even if there was a double touch with glove fingertip of an alleged source external to the room, first, and the bra clasp after, we would have small odd to obtain this transfer. We should consider the need of a combination of these small probabilities, two or three unlikely circumstances each itself not probable, and we would obtain a (very) improbable event.
If we considered the odds of that improbable event as 1:10 (but we know they are far less) still the evidence would be significant, there would be no denominator problem. Because - pay attention here - as I said we already know that the other samples are not contaminated from Sollecito's DNA. In terms explaining specificity, you need to explain why right that[/I] sample was contaminated and not others, why not the other twenty picked from the floor for example; you cannot use the sheer number as a shield in order to say "one can happen, just because they were many", you need to actually explain why that only one happened, and that one specifically. Because you can see how many samples taken that same day would have not as incriminating as that one. The floor in the kitchen may have little meaning. But Sollecito's DNA in Meredith's room? And on her bra? Why did it happen on that one?



First there are no other profiles found, they are alleles, not profiles. The same difference between finding an old tire rather than a functioning car. You can infer there was a car attached once, of course, but you don't have any. But this is not the problem why they are qualitatively different. They are different because they hae a different logical, as well as statistical value: the known datum is different, those are random, completely generic; while Sollecito's matches a suspect. It's a remarkable coincidence.
If you know the DNA comes from a paramedic or a forensic, which you may even know was there, then you can reasonably infer it was just contamination. But if it matches a suspect, and it is not supposed to be there, and it's there and only there on that incriminating object, it's a specific indication.

This is a common logical error. giving some special significance to an event in retrospect. If Stephanoni had said prospectively 'the key test is the presence of DNA on the bra fastener' then this might be a fair point. But if the DNA had been found on the bra strap you would be making the same argument 'but what are the chances that the DNA would be found on the bra strap?' Or if the DNA had been found under the nails, you would be arguing what are the chances of DNA being found under the nails, or on the purse or on the sleeve.

You also have to consider the contrary argument what are the chances of no DNA being found on the person of the victim? What are the chances of no footprints or handprints being left behind? You cannot just argue in a single direction. You need to consider both the chances of not leaving a trace of self in a struggle. Guede left multiple footprints, handprints multiple DNA samples. What are the chances that two other persons present could leave no footprints handprints fingerprints, or in Knox's case no DNA and in Sollecito's case a single low transcript DNA sample mixed with other person's DNA samples who are assumed to be the result of innocent contamination.

There is a third consideration. I believe there is a mathematician on the pro guilt side. It may be worth asking them, what are the consequences of doing a set of tests. (The first set of DNA tests.) Then going back and repeating the tests until you get the result you want. Which is what happened here. The answer is that if you continue testing until you get the result you want, it is more likely that the result is a false positive.

You argue that there was no other samples positive for Sollecito's DNA. Remember the samples were samples looking for evidence of the participants, there were no environmental samples taken to look for background DNA. Would you really argue that if a second sample was positive for Sollecito's DNA then the sample on the bra strap was more likely a contaminant? Be honest. The result that is most likely to be the result of contamination is a single positive result.

You argue that the other results on the bra strap are partial alleles. This is primarily a technical issue. If the DNA extraction had been done a different way and been more efficient, if the injection time had been slower, then more profiles may have been revealed. if less efficient then Sollecito's profile would have been partial. there is no qualitative difference in the alleles. This is purely a technical issue in efficienty of extraction and sensitivity of measurement. It is not the difference between an old tire and a car. this is the difference between a photo showing part of a car and a whole car. We know the whole DNA must have been there originally. One does not differentially shed partial DNA if innocent and full DNA if gulity.

Transfer of Sollecito's DNA onto the bra could have been primary, by a cough or sneeze for instance. Secondary by shaking hands with Meredith, then Meredith touching her bra. Tertiary transfer by Knox touching Sollecito then touching Meredith. There are many different potential routes. You are wrong in thinking you need a large scale source of DNA for contamination to occur.

 

[Kauffer]

I saw "Yummi's" dopey post on pmf. He thinks Italy is going to file an "international arrest warrant" right after cassation rules.

Yeah, that doesn't work here.

Apparently, it's known as an "international warrant of capture". Probably it's filed on the back of a pizza box after a long lunch.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think this is a helpful comment. Machiavelli is being honest here. He believes Knox is guilty of sexual assault and murder. A normal woman would not be able to manipulate two men she hardly knows into doing this therefore Knox must logically be abnormal. However since Machiavelli admits his interpretation of her personality is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt this can not in turn be used to argue for guilt.

I'd like to make a little correction to this.
I think the speculation about scenario, crime dynamics and motives (sexual context, feelings involved etc.), basically the explanatory theory of events, which involves a role of psychology personality, is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt.

But the assessment of Knox's personality as abnormal is not dependant on an assumtion of guilt. I think Knox is "abnormal", meaning she had some personality disorders, on grounds that are completely independent from the theories of the crime and also independent from any assumption on her guilt.

I would consider Knox psychologically abnormal even if I had the proof she was innocent. It's good to make this clear. I see the evidence she is abnormal, mostly as something separate an totally independent from the case evidence. I think the evidence - the visible symptoms of narcissistic pathology - were simply visible themselves, they indicate directly a health problem rather than guilt, and theoretically may even fit an innocent person, since there are thousands, actually millions of narcissists around who are not murderers. In the context they can shed a new light, give new more accurate meanings to facts, offer an explanatory key to how the murder has developed, but themselves would be just visible aspects of personality per se, mostly not evidence linked to any "guilt". On the other hand Knox could never fit the picture of a healthy or balanced personality, of a "normal" personality, certainly not when she was 20.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, I followed that discussion of yours. I kept wondering why they did that, was it just grandstanding on the issue of capitol punishment? Annoyances over the Gondola tragedy or another related issue? Did they have reason to believe the person was innocent? It was an odd thing to do and it along with previous refusals by the US, UK and other countries to refuse extradition to Italy despite treaties ought to clue people into the fact it's not going to be a slam dunk and they ought not to pay much attention to those people who think it might be.

There's a part of me hoping that Cassation confirms--and then the US calls 'fraud' and demands the EDFs and interrogation tapes.

There's nothing stopping the US State Department attaching these two requests to a successful extradition.

It would then put Italy in a double-bind. Hand them over, and risk having the coercion/fraud exposed, or refusing and looking like they have something to hide.

Or claiming the dog ate them.

 

[Planigale]

I'd like to make a little correction to this.
I think the speculation about scenario, crime dynamics and motives (sexual context, feelings involved etc.), basically the explanatory theory of events, which involves a role of psychology personality, is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt.

But the assessment of Knox's personality as abnormal is not dependant on an assumtion of guilt. I think Knox is "abnormal", meaning she had some personality disorders, on grounds that are completely independent from the theories of the crime and also independent from any assumption on her guilt.

I would consider Knox psychologically abnormal even if I had the proof she was innocent. It's good to make this clear. I see the evidence she is abnormal, mostly as something separate an totally independent from the case evidence. I think the evidence - the visible symptoms of narcissistic pathology - were simply visible themselves, they indicate directly a health problem rather than guilt, and theoretically may even fit an innocent person, since there are thousands, actually millions of narcissists around who are not murderers. In the context they can shed a new light, give new more accurate meanings to facts, offer an explanatory key to how the murder has developed, but themselves would be just visible aspects of personality per se, mostly not evidence linked to any "guilt". On the other hand Knox could never fit the picture of a healthy or balanced personality, of a "normal" personality, certainly not when she was 20.

Why did not the professionals who assessed her during her incarceration come to this conclusion?

 

[Kaosium]

There's nothing stopping the US State Department attaching these two requests to a successful extradition.

It would then put Italy in a double-bind. Hand them over, and risk having the coercion/fraud exposed, or refusing and looking like they have something to hide.

Or claiming the dog ate them.

Yes, something like that. They wouldn't actually call 'Fraud,' they'd use diplomatic niceties, but the end result would be to put the Italian judiciary in the hot seat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently, it's known as an "international warrant of capture". Probably it's filed on the back of a pizza box after a long lunch.

In all this discussion about the potential extradition battle for Knox - with more than one anonymous State Dept source now apparently saying that if the convictions were confirmed and Knox's extradition were sought, the US would refuse to extradite - have the pro-guilt commentators yet managed to figure out that this wouldn't be a case of the US protecting a "murderer"?

If the reports (and the sources) are accurate, then the reason why the US would refuse to extradite Knox would be this: the US Government doesn't think Knox should be convicted of murder, and that any such conviction in an Italian court would be a miscarriage of justice. Knox is a private citizen of no other importance (strategic, military or otherwise) to the US Government, so there can be no other reasonable explanation for a refusal to extradite.

Perhaps the pro-guilt commentators might care to dwell on this factor for a while. Why might the US Government consider this to be a miscarriage of justice, and to conclude this so strongly as to refuse extradition? Could it possibly be that, under reasoned non-partisan analysis, there are clear indications of a miscarriage of justice? Surely not! (Obviously the more stupid and blinkered pro-guilt commentators are likely to retreat under the banner of "Bad old America protecting its own regardless", but maybe this might just give one or two of them pause for thought.....)

 

[Kauffer]

I'd like to make a little correction to this.
I think the speculation about scenario, crime dynamics and motives (sexual context, feelings involved etc.), basically the explanatory theory of events, which involves a role of psychology personality, is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt.

But the assessment of Knox's personality as abnormal is not dependant on an assumtion of guilt. I think Knox is "abnormal", meaning she had some personality disorders, on grounds that are completely independent from the theories of the crime and also independent from any assumption on her guilt.

I would consider Knox psychologically abnormal even if I had the proof she was innocent. It's good to make this clear. I see the evidence she is abnormal, mostly as something separate an totally independent from the case evidence. I think the evidence - the visible symptoms of narcissistic pathology - were simply visible themselves, they indicate directly a health problem rather than guilt,and theoretically may even fit an innocent person, since there are thousands, actually millions of narcissists around who are not murderers. In the context they can shed a new light, give new more accurate meanings to facts, offer an explanatory key to how the murder has developed, but themselves would be just visible aspects of personality per se, mostly not evidence linked to any "guilt". On the other hand Knox could never fit the picture of a healthy or balanced personality, of a "normal" personality, certainly not when she was 20.

What on earth are you talking about? What is now and was then abnormal about her personality and what expertise do you have in connection with this 'diagnosis'?

Are you making a plea that she should be in a hospital rather than a prison, to be released when she is 'better'?