Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

She was, however, American.

Just for fun, I did a quick scan of the sites that come up if you search for Americans, loud, Europe . . . apparently we're loud! And it's annoying.

Also we feel special and entitled, which isn't really surprising since most of us have been told since preschool that we live in the best country in the world and everyone else on the planet wishes they were us. Our faith in our own magical importance is, I'm sure, really annoying. Especially if we don't even know how it comes across, and how would we? Plus we're so loud!

And finally, yes, we're slobs. We dress in ways that to us say "so comfortable," while to others the message is, "I don't care about my appearance at all."

There are so many reasons to hate us, jeez. Loud, entitled, and unkempt. Poor Amanda . . . those English girls would have said that catty stuff about anybody from Seattle.

Another way to view the alleged "loudness" of Americans is that there is a world-wide conspiracy outside the US for people to speak softly so as to convince any American listener that he or she was suffering hearing loss.

 

[Dougm]

She was, however, American.

Just for fun, I did a quick scan of the sites that come up if you search for Americans, loud, Europe . . . apparently we're loud! And it's annoying.

Also we feel special and entitled, which isn't really surprising since most of us have been told since preschool that we live in the best country in the world and everyone else on the planet wishes they were us. Our faith in our own magical importance is, I'm sure, really annoying. Especially if we don't even know how it comes across, and how would we? Plus we're so loud!

And finally, yes, we're slobs. We dress in ways that to us say "so comfortable," while to others the message is, "I don't care about my appearance at all."

There are so many reasons to hate us, jeez. Loud, entitled, and unkempt. Poor Amanda . . . those English girls would have said that catty stuff about anybody from Seattle.

Yeah, but we have nice teeth, at least.

 

[Numbers]

What? Amanda Marie Knox is a convicted criminal.

This is one thing I find really interesting, especially for Italians.
Do the Italian know that they have a Constitution?
Do any of them, including the police, prosecutors, and judges ever read it?

This is Article 27 from the Italian Constitution:

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been
passed.
Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited (1).

I added emphasis.

Thus, both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not guilty in Italy, until such time as a final sentence is passed, and as of today, their appeals are still pending in the CSC.

Source: Constitution of the Italian Republic - Senato
www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/...

 

[kwill]

Another way to view the alleged "loudness" of Americans is that there is a world-wide conspiracy outside the US for people to speak softly so as to convince any American listener that he or she was suffering hearing loss.

See, there's that whole entitlement thing I was talking about. We don't even think it's crazy that the whole world would do something like that, just to mess with our self-important selves.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just another one of Mach's little "mistakes"?

Is the photo of the mounted door contemporaneous to the top-notch Italian forensic police finding the bra clasp?

Yeah Machiavelli is either embarrassingly mistaken or brazenly lying here. The door was on its hinges at the time of the December visit. Perhaps Machiavelli was confused by the fact that in the video, the wardrobe door can be seen propped up against the open bedroom door. Everything can be clearly seen in the various December videos - in the first of the December videos in the link below, for example (i.e. the 4th video down on the page) it can be seen at around 3 mins into the video:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_Collection_Videos


Watching those videos again just makes me incredulous (and, to be honest, angry) that the scene in this condition was deemed acceptable and appropriate for forensic analysis. Kercher's room is an absolute tip. It's a bloody disgrace, frankly. Compared to the condition it was in when first discovered after the murder - which is the only condition that allows for reliable forensic analysis - it's been totally trashed. There's been outrageously copious contamination, mixture and misplacement of vital items, including the wardrobe door, clothing, the condition of the floor; the whole thing is a shocking disgrace (and, in passing, a gross insult to the victim and her family).

There's simply no way that any evidence collected in this "second sweep" should be deemed reliable - and that's before we even get onto the shocking way the clasp was handled once it was discovered. There is, without any shadow of a doubt, copious opportunity for cross-contamination in this environment. Shame on the police involved in this disgrace.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sub-source DNA, yet an activity-level conclusion wrt 36B

Don't you forget a little detail, among the assessment levels?
The judges.
It's the judges who will determine the meaning of each single evidence finding, based on its relationship with the context of the other evidence. Not the experts.

Machiavelli,

You missed the point. The role of the forensic scientist is to explain to the court what the evidence is and is not. Stefanoni took DNA at the sub-source level (36B) and said that it could be interpreted at the activity level (two levels higher). She is not alone in this kind of over-interpretation. In the Adam Scott case the mixed DNA from the seminal fraction was incorrectly interpreted to be mixed semen between the victim's boyfriend and Adam Scott, the alleged rapist. In fact the DNA of the boyfriend may well have originated from semen, but the DNA from Scott was from a saliva sample that got into this unrelated rape case from a contamination event.

 

[lonepinealex]

Yeah Machiavelli is either embarrassingly mistaken or brazenly lying here. The door was on its hinges at the time of the December visit. Perhaps Machiavelli was confused by the fact that in the video, the wardrobe door can be seen propped up against the open bedroom door. Everything can be clearly seen in the various December videos - in the first of the December videos in the link below, for example (i.e. the 4th video down on the page) it can be seen at around 3 mins into the video:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_Collection_Videos


Watching those videos again just makes me incredulous (and, to be honest, angry) that the scene in this condition was deemed acceptable and appropriate for forensic analysis. Kercher's room is an absolute tip. It's a bloody disgrace, frankly. Compared to the condition it was in when first discovered after the murder - which is the only condition that allows for reliable forensic analysis - it's been totally trashed. There's been outrageously copious contamination, mixture and misplacement of vital items, including the wardrobe door, clothing, the condition of the floor; the whole thing is a shocking disgrace (and, in passing, a gross insult to the victim and her family).

There's simply no way that any evidence collected in this "second sweep" should be deemed reliable - and that's before we even get onto the shocking way the clasp was handled once it was discovered. There is, without any shadow of a doubt, copious opportunity for cross-contamination in this environment. Shame on the police involved in this disgrace.

It is absolutely shocking. There's not a second of that video that isn't jaw dropping.

 

[lonepinealex]

Is anyone else profoundly disturbed by the predictions from some that Raffaele may be acquitted and Amanda convicted? That anyone finds this a realistic proposition shows how utterly insane the Italian justice system is. How can it be plausible that the supreme court could just introduce a whole new theory at this stage? Does anyone really think that could happen?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yeah Machiavelli is either embarrassingly mistaken or brazenly lying here. The door was on its hinges at the time of the December visit. Perhaps Machiavelli was confused by the fact that in the video, the wardrobe door can be seen propped up against the open bedroom door. Everything can be clearly seen in the various December videos - in the first of the December videos in the link below, for example (i.e. the 4th video down on the page) it can be seen at around 3 mins into the video:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_Collection_Videos


Watching those videos again just makes me incredulous (and, to be honest, angry) that the scene in this condition was deemed acceptable and appropriate for forensic analysis. Kercher's room is an absolute tip. It's a bloody disgrace, frankly. Compared to the condition it was in when first discovered after the murder - which is the only condition that allows for reliable forensic analysis - it's been totally trashed. There's been outrageously copious contamination, mixture and misplacement of vital items, including the wardrobe door, clothing, the condition of the floor; the whole thing is a shocking disgrace (and, in passing, a gross insult to the victim and her family).

There's simply no way that any evidence collected in this "second sweep" should be deemed reliable - and that's before we even get onto the shocking way the clasp was handled once it was discovered. There is, without any shadow of a doubt, copious opportunity for cross-contamination in this environment. Shame on the police involved in this disgrace.

It was in that condition because the Scientific Police thought they were finished and had released it to the local police. But, Mignini needed better evidence, so he called them back to the trashed out place and they found just what they needed. Imagine that.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Is anyone else profoundly disturbed by the predictions from some that Raffaele may be acquitted and Amanda convicted? That anyone finds this a realistic proposition shows how utterly insane the Italian justice system is. How can it be plausible that the supreme court could just introduce a whole new theory at this stage? Does anyone really think that could happen?

They want to vindicate their system, but they don't want to actually lock anyone up, because that brings outside pressure.

 

[TruthCalls]

What? Amanda Marie Knox is a convicted criminal.

Stupid comment since at the time these judges and prosecutors were publicly voicing their opinions, she was nothing other than a suspect.

Regardless, it's circular logic in as much as it was because of such unsubstantiated beliefs that her guilty verdict came about.

Lastly, while I believe the calunnia conviction is bogus, are you suggesting that people with a criminal conviction don't deserve the same presumption of innocence, of normalcy? Are we allowed to cast anyone with a conviction in any light we wish?

 

[lonepinealex]

They want to vindicate their system, but they don't want to actually lock anyone up, because that brings outside pressure.

Sure, but it seems to be that this new narrative of the crime has come from Raffaele's defence and the subsequent press. So it's plausible for the ISC to just roll over and go along with that? That will make them look even crazier!

 

[Numbers]

Is anyone else profoundly disturbed by the predictions from some that Raffaele may be acquitted and Amanda convicted? That anyone finds this a realistic proposition shows how utterly insane the Italian justice system is. How can it be plausible that the supreme court could just introduce a whole new theory at this stage? Does anyone really think that could happen?

It would be more disturbing if the CSC finally convicted Raffaele and acquitted Amanda. The thought is that CSC would acquit Raffaele or sentence him to time served for some lesser made-up crime, and convict Amanda, to please the Italian nationalist home-town crowd (protecting a native son, persecuting an American she-devil). Law as written down in the Italian constitution or code of criminal procedure doesn't really play a role in Italy, unless it benefits the image of the police and prosecution, as shown by the events of this case from its beginning.

 

[katy_did]

A post of mine, still from Thread 13:

Regarding double jeopardy and the ECHR, as Diocletus has pointed out the ECHR does not like to see convictions on appeal which follow acquittals where the same evidence is used for both trials.

I have earlier posted several ECHR cases where such convictions were judged unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6. In particular, in those cases the ECHR objected to the fact that the convicting court did not hear witnesses or the defendant, but merely did a review of the lower court's records, while of course the lower court had conducted a trial de novo. This describes the situation with the Nencini court provisional conviction and the Hellmann court acquittal.

From Post #3584 of Thread Continuation 11:

CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014

Yet another case, relevant because there were two acquittals followed by a final conviction, with no new evidence, and questions about the reasonings for the conviction:

CASE OF VETRENKO v. MOLDOVA 36552/02 18/05/2010

CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA 10890/04 04/06/2013

[snipped for length]

Thanks, I appreciate you digging those out for me.

Having just finished reading them, I think the first two are not so much to do with a convicting court only reviewing the lower court's records and not hearing witnesses directly, but rather with key witnesses and pieces of evidence not having been heard or addressed at all. In Matytsina v. Russia, for example, the key witness wasn't examined by any court, whether first or second (talk about a weird case though - a yoga instructor supposedly inducing schizophrenia...?!) With Vetrenko v. Moldova, the convicting court chose to "remain silent" on key pieces of evidence, like the defendant's alibi, rather than reaching a different conclusion on the same evidence.

The third one you mention, Hanu v. Romania, is interesting though - as you say, that does suggest there could be a problem with a court overturning a lower court's acquittal based on a reassessment of witness evidence it hasn't heard directly (FWIW, here's an Italian article discussing that case and its implications). I'm not clear as to what impact that might have for Amanda and Raffaele, given that the Massei court is the one where most witnesses were heard and that Nencini technically confirmed that conviction, rather than overturning Hellmann, but it might be an objection to raise at least in relation to Curatolo.

Generally it's pretty encouraging to see that the ECHR does involve itself in assessment of the evidence - or the way the evidence is assessed - at least to some extent. I think Amanda's calunnia appeal stands a decent chance of succeeding; the European court might well take a dim view of the way half a sentence from her 'memoriale' statement was used to support the dubious earlier statements, for example (in itself a kind of acknowledgment that those earlier statements alone were inadequate for a conviction).

 

[LondonJohn]

It was in that condition because the Scientific Police thought they were finished and had released it to the local police. But, Mignini needed better evidence, so he called them back to the trashed out place and they found just what they needed. Imagine that.

Indeed. But I'd argue that even if the room truly had been finished with for forensic analysis, it was a grotesque insult to Kercher and her family to have got the room into that condition in any case, with her clothes and belongings dumped on the bed frame in a disgusting pile. And the videos showing the goons cramming Kercher's belongings carelessly into a suitcase is just horrible.

Incidentally, didn't Kercher's father say that she'd told him that she'd already bought and wrapped Christmas presents for the family, and that they were in a case under her bed, and that he (John Kercher Sr) was looking forward to receiving the presents via the police as a tender memory of his daughter? Surprise, surprise, the presents "disappeared" at some point while the cottage was under the control of the police. So did most of Kercher's belongings. The family only got back a very small amount of Kercher's clothes and personal effects, and certainly no presents. I often wonder whether the Kercher family has ever stepped back and really thought objectively about the actions and words of the police and prosecutors in this case........

And let's not forget that the "crack" forensics team not only left the bra clasp there in the room - they also (utterly inexplicably and utterly incompetently) left Kercher's blood-soaked Adidas tracksuit jacket, the trainers she was wearing during or just before the attack, and her handbag. All of these were clearly important items that were potentially hugely relevant to the investigation. Bunch of clowns, and disrespectful clowns at that.

 

[acbytesla]

Is anyone else profoundly disturbed by the predictions from some that Raffaele may be acquitted and Amanda convicted? That anyone finds this a realistic proposition shows how utterly insane the Italian justice system is. How can it be plausible that the supreme court could just introduce a whole new theory at this stage? Does anyone really think that could happen?

No, I am not. That would mean that they would not be pursuing Amanda any more.

Does it mean that the Italian judicial system is bizarre ? Yes, but I knew that already.Frankly, I can't really imagine that happening, But then again I couldn't imagine this court setting aside the acquittals before.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thanks, I appreciate you digging those out for me.

Having just finished reading them, I think the first two are not so much to do with a convicting court only reviewing the lower court's records and not hearing witnesses directly, but rather with key witnesses and pieces of evidence not having been heard or addressed at all. In Matytsina v. Russia, for example, the key witness wasn't examined by any court, whether first or second (talk about a weird case though - a yoga instructor supposedly inducing schizophrenia...?!) With Vetrenko v. Moldova, the convicting court chose to "remain silent" on key pieces of evidence, like the defendant's alibi, rather than reaching a different conclusion on the same evidence.

The third one you mention, Hanu v. Romania, is interesting though - as you say, that does suggest there could be a problem with a court overturning a lower court's acquittal based on a reassessment of witness evidence it hasn't heard directly (FWIW, here's an Italian article discussing that case and its implications). I'm not clear as to what impact that might have for Amanda and Raffaele, given that the Massei court is the one where most witnesses were heard and that Nencini technically confirmed that conviction, rather than overturning Hellmann, but it might be an objection to raise at least in relation to Curatolo.
Generally it's pretty encouraging to see that the ECHR does involve itself in assessment of the evidence - or the way the evidence is assessed - at least to some extent. I think Amanda's calunnia appeal stands a decent chance of succeeding; the European court might well take a dim view of the way half a sentence from her 'memoriale' statement was used to support the dubious earlier statements, for example (in itself a kind of acknowledgment that those earlier statements alone were inadequate for a conviction).

From an ECHR tsandpoint, I think Hellman was the last court to hear Curatolo in a trial, and found him totally not credible. It was cassation (Chieffi) who over-ruled Hellman's assessment of Curatollo, which they were not supposed to do (evaluate evidence). So from an ECHR perspective, it doesn't matter whether its nencini or cassation, Hellman was the highest trial court to see Curatolo, and his rejection of Curatolo as credible can't be over-ridden buy another court without also hearing curatolo in person.

That's my understanding, but I may be wrong.

 

[Dougm]

Is anyone else profoundly disturbed by the predictions from some that Raffaele may be acquitted and Amanda convicted? That anyone finds this a realistic proposition shows how utterly insane the Italian justice system is. How can it be plausible that the supreme court could just introduce a whole new theory at this stage? Does anyone really think that could happen?

Yes, I am disturbed by the mere suggestion. Because that would mean the whole thing is an even bigger farce than I thought, and totally corrupt.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I am not. That would mean that they would not be pursuing Amanda any more.

Does it mean that the Italian judicial system is bizarre ? Yes, but I knew that already.Frankly, I can't really imagine that happening, But then again I couldn't imagine this court setting aside the acquittals before.

Hey LPA, Tesla, - I can't see this result, although I can understand why it looks tempting. But if the evidence against Raf is recognized as junk, there's even less against Amanda.

It's pretty weird watching it unfold though. I've said I felt a shift in the wind, and things are moving towards acquittal (annulment of convictions for both, WITHOUT retrial), Frank Sfarzo wrote the same (or was quoted in the Daily Mail article today). I guess we'll know soon enough.

But I do think Italy's judiciary cares about appearances, and I think Dr Gill's appearance on Porta-Porta made it impossible to let the previous cassation standard "contamination must be proven" stand in this case. Ultimately, I can't see them willing to be seen as unscientific (i.e., backwards hill folks) and ultimately I think that's why they will be very comfortable, and relieved to put this case to bed.

The Kerchers want it to end as well, and who can blame them. I say give them what they want, acquit the defendants and put the Kerchers out of their misery.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey LPA, Tesla, - I can't see this result, although I can understand why it looks tempting. But if the evidence against Raf is recognized as junk, there's even less against Amanda.

Totally true. This is why I believe the idea of a split decision to be absurd. But as I said before, it may even more absurd to think that logic has anything to do with justice in Italy.