Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
It is amazing the contortions that the lower, convicting courts went to, to make Quintavalle seem like anything other than what he was - a witness of no value to this case.

One hopes that what is happening right now in Italy, is that investigations into these lower-judicial-farces are being proposed, if not being initiated. Are average Italians safe when Massei and Nencini are able to write what amounts to fiction (with regards to Quintavalle) in condemning two innocents people?

Fixed for you. The court system should not allow these types of witnesses against anyone.
Agreed. Thanks for the correction.

Yes. It is amazing that people there and here could possibly accept Q and C as witnesses. PGP arguing that Curatolo being on heroin doesn't impact his memory is beyond ludicrous. Now had Curatolo and Quintavalle come forward in the two days and picked out A & R out of a photo montage or line-up and filled in details that weren't defined already my the media then maybe. But as it occurred, no way.
Agreed.

Can world peace be far behind? Yes, the issue about allowing this to happen to "innocents" is not really the point, is it.
 
Vixen said:

Heya Vixen
A big WELCOME to our group! :)
Keep on keepin' on, your thoughts are, what's the word, provoking(?)
+ it's already allowed me to bring up different points not often discussed, yea!
RW
 
Is Stefanoni corrupt? <shrug> I honestly have no idea.

But what you do know is she refused to let anyone see the actual data behind the charts she was using in court, defying a judicial order to keep it hidden. Despite this, the defense (and independent experts) were able to show she lied about amount of DNA on the knife blade and method of quantifying it as well as trying to deceive the court regarding the number of contributors to the bra clasp.

Thus the answer to the question is 'Yes, Stefanoni was corrupt.' Further investigation (getting those electronic data files!) would no doubt reveal more evidence of this, which is very likely why she ensured that data wouldn't be available.
 
(The Hellmann trial) was the trial, the Italian system does not work like the common law system where the appeal is just based upon points of law, that's what the Court of Cassation does. It's the trial of the second instance (like Hellmann) that really counts, Amanda and Raffaele could have been acquitted by Massei (first instance) and then convicted in the second instance and that's the one that would have counted. Both the trial of the first instance and the appeal are fact-finding entities, unlike the common law system.

This is a point lost on many, lost to me until recently.

The 2nd-grade trial IS the trial whose verdict is bumped up to Cassation for evaluation on the merits of the law and procedure. Strictly speaking, Cassation ventures no opinion whatsoever about the 1st-grade trial; unless it sends a specific issue back to another 2nd-grade trial that remains unresolved from the 1st-grade.

All of this is difficult to get one's head around, esp. in systems like in England and USA/Canada which have one shot at a fact-finding trial, a trial which produces "the record", which is only rarely amendable. New evidence needs to be found to amend the record, or so it seems to lay folk like me.

Another nuance to the Italian system is that Cassation cannot convict someone if the 2nd-grade trial acquits them. All Cassation can do in that event is to return the issue back to another 2nd-grade trial. As we have seen, Cassation can, and does (albeit rarely), overturn a 2nd-grade conviction.

The troubling thing about the Nencini, 2nd-grade trial is (as the Nencini motivations report betrays) that it shows a complete misunderstanding of issues - even issues as before the Massei court. It was on the basis of this that a few people said Cassation would have to annul Nencini's verdict..... the thing even fewer predicted was that Cassation would annul Nencini completely and further not remand for a 3rd 2nd-grade trial.

CoulsdonUK here on ISF would often ask how the Italian courts typically handle cases like this. The March 27, 2015, decision of the Supreme Court makes it seem like this whole case is one of those "one-offs", that got so judicially out-of-hand, that there was no such thing as "typical" in relation to it.

I mean, Kaosium makes the point that the 2nd-grade trial is THE trial that matters. Yet in this "one-off" there was also Rudi's fast-track process, which many feared was also "the trial", and further a trial at odds with what was being decided about AK and RS.

All this makes one's head spin, and yearn more to be able to read the Maraca motivations report coming up in 62 days or less.
 
But what you do know is she refused to let anyone see the actual data behind the charts she was using in court, defying a judicial order to keep it hidden. Despite this, the defense (and independent experts) were able to show she lied about amount of DNA on the knife blade and method of quantifying it as well as trying to deceive the court regarding the number of contributors to the bra clasp.

Thus the answer to the question is 'Yes, Stefanoni was corrupt.' Further investigation (getting those electronic data files!) would no doubt reveal more evidence of this, which is very likely why she ensured that data wouldn't be available.

You meant - But what you do know is she refused to let anyone see the actual data behind the charts she was using in court, defying a judicial order to NOT keep it hidden. - I think
 
But what you do know is she refused to let anyone see the actual data behind the charts she was using in court, defying a judicial order to keep it hidden. Despite this, the defense (and independent experts) were able to show she lied about amount of DNA on the knife blade and method of quantifying it as well as trying to deceive the court regarding the number of contributors to the bra clasp.

Thus the answer to the question is 'Yes, Stefanoni was corrupt.' Further investigation (getting those electronic data files!) would no doubt reveal more evidence of this, which is very likely why she ensured that data wouldn't be available.

If Nixon had burned the tapes, he'd have been up for obstruction of justice. Instead he turned over the tapes, and proved that he was liable for a charge of obstruction of justice on the main matter.

It is one of those things.... Stefanoni defied a court order, yet it is also true that none of the courts went the extra step.... of charging her with (whatever the Italian equivalent is to) obstruction of justice.

The crime is not just Stefanoni's. Defence lawyers applied the smell test to what early-judges were saying when they sided with Stefanoni.... the smell test said that, "either charge her with a crime, or quit asking for release of the EDFs." This put the defence(s) in a position of wondering if it was worth it to kick that particular hornets' nest.
 
You're not dealing with a realistic understanding of the process. Stefanoni has to this day concealed the data that would allow a reconstruction of her actual findings, which would show lab contamination.

If you continue to insist Amanda and Raf cleaned up their DNA, fingerprints and their own footprints in Meredith's wet blood, while leaving behind only Rudy Guede's DNA, fingerprints, and wet blood, then I'm revoking your Mensa decoder ring.

I wasn't referring specifically to Amanda and Raf. Just a general crime scene were perps are careful to leave no trace of themselves.

The truth has a habit of coming out, so I am sure that will be the case for Stefanoni.
 
Heya Vixen
A big WELCOME to our group! :)
Keep on keepin' on, your thoughts are, what's the word, provoking(?)
+ it's already allowed me to bring up different points not often discussed, yea!
RW


Why, thank you, RWVBWL, I enjoyed the videos you suggested already.

How did the game (?) go yesterday, that you had to abruptly leave us?
 
AIUI the dispute over Dr Stefanoni is to do with LCN. Vecchiotti & Conti argued the traces on the Knife Exhibit 36 were too low copy number to be admissible and the fact it was not replicable, as she'd used it all up.

ISTM in a crime where perps scrupulously clean up the crime scene, knowing not to leave forensic traces behind, if a small piece of DNA turns up notwithstanding the attempts to conceal, then it's unreasonable and unfair to criticise the police for not having enough of it.

If the perps leave no evidence or not enough to do scientifically valid analysis then the police don't have evidence they can use, period. If a perp leaves a tiny part of a print that isn't enough to qualify as a match the prosecution can't say it's unfair that they didn't leave enough so we'll just say it's a match. It is not unreasonable to criticize Stef for going beyond the limits of her equipment and lab set-up because those darn perps didn't leave what she needed. Truly an idiotic point of view.

defense had a legal right to be present during testing, and I believe they were. The defense agreed it was Mez' DNA, with 15 allelles, a particularly convincing match. In addition, at the Nencini appeal, police experts for the prosecution showed that LCN samples can be double tested accurately.

The police experts didn't show that, it is a requirement of the science that a sample must be able to be tested twice at least. Remember that the knife sample was at most about 1/585,000 of a grain of salt.
 
You meant - But what you do know is she refused to let anyone see the actual data behind the charts she was using in court, defying a judicial order to NOT keep it hidden. - I think

Yes, I wrote that sloppily. The judicial order was to turn everything over to the independent experts and she still managed to keep the edfs from them, defying that order.
 
<snip>

You gotta be kidding' me!
With a horrible rape + murder having occurred,
with World-Wide press coverage,
with Italian police having a Press Conference stating "Case Closed"
forensic laboratory testing commenced on the material acquired up to then on Nov. 12, 2007,
10 days after Meredith Kercher was found murdered under her duvet, mostly naked, in a pool of blood?

And the laboratory testing was done
by the same woman who collected said material acquired?

How come Dr. Stefanoni did not test the presumed seminal fluid ASAP after Miss Kercher's rape + murder?
Or did she? Where are those results, Dr. Stefanoni, that you talk about discussing with Alessa tomorrow, ("even if it's written clearly near the bags"), which would have been on Nov. 4th, 2007?

Once the final Cassation report is promulgated, there will be a whole mass of evidence and facts not publicised so far, to come out.
 
Oh I thought C&V mostly reviewed the work of Steffi and the crack ICSI crew. They did recheck the knife and found what turned out to be starch when Necinni allowed new evidence into the 2nd trial of the second instance. Say how could he do that? Oh and he used C&V as well.



Well IIRC correctly they did ask after one of their experts found it. Not very clear thinking my you or the ILE as NO DNA IS DATED. The dna of Amanda on the knife was not dated, the alleged dna of Raf on the clasp, or the other three or four people's dna on it, was not dated. Yet those were tested and allowed in. So if the dna came from Raf or Rudi it would mean nothing? Now that's brilliant. What if it matched Koko or some sex criminal they knew of?



No he rejected her "work" and the methods used to collect, transport and test the samples. He may have also chided her for destroying the clasp.



No it was judging his mental state at the time from his own statements and from the outlandish claims made months after he had seen nothing.



It is basically a trial de novo using the first trials evidence which is allowed to be reassessed.



Please the specific.

Broadly, because I find his reasoning frustratingly obfuscated, an example is Hellmann's claim that (to paraphrase) there was no crime of staged burglary. Therefore, he reasons, Guede must have committed the burglary and it thus follows he raped and murdered Mez as a result. There were no facts found at the lower court that the "burglary" happened before the murder - in fact, the reverse - and fails to address any facts about Guede moving the body and positioning it.

Guede may have done it, but the reasoning needs to be better.
 
Which of the two makes more sense? Well, I got as far as page 37 so far with Cheffi, and then lost the will to live when I saw how many more pages there were. Is there a right or wrong answer?

I have to say, bearing in mind Cheffi's assessment of Hellmann, page 16 para 3 (about the non- existence of the staged burglary), p17 para 2, how of course, the pair would turn off their phones, to have a romantic evening in, and p 20 para 1 about "a clear violation of the law" ( amongst several others) in that defense lawyers were allowed to introduce new DNA evidence, without giving the prosecution the same opportunity, together with the denial of anything by Stefanoni, well, hey, what can one say?

Hellmann was quibbling with the conclusions the first court came to, when he should have looked at whether the reasons were within the range of a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he substitutes his own reasoning. This is fine in a philosophical debate, but in law, you need to be there at the trial, looking at the witnesses putting forward their testimony, perhaps even asking a few questions yourself. For example, "Mr Quintavalle, what made you wait a year?"

But do you know what? Hellmann is so far left field, the guy is a genius! There should be a Hellmann movie. Insofar 'Face of an Angel' is based on Barbie Nadeau, and a 'Don't Look Now' type journey through the labyrinthe alleys of Perugia, with Cara Delevinge providing the love interest against a Dante-ian Infernesque intrigue of dreams and nightmares, 'Face of Hell' should be a feel good movie.

We could have someone like Slyvester Stallone as Hellmann and Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Leonardo di Capri and Glenn Close playing the slick avocatos.

Emma Stone of Birdman fame can provide the love interest as she flits between Grant and Firth, in a reconstructed Bridget Jones-style scenario.

Amanda and Raf can play themselves, with Jodie Foster as the cruel Donnino.

The feelgood comes at the end...but then you already know.

No, seriously, Hellmann is a scream! Hopeless logic, but let's not let that get in the way.

I'm dizzy. I can't tell if you're serious, anywhere.

Tell you what. Can you please copy/paste one or more paragraphs from Hellman that you find less than flawlessly reasoned.

Word for word if you please, to avoid contamination bias. Thankyou.
 
Last edited:
I'm slightly concerned about the alleged June 9th case for defamation of the cops, because that is linked to the as now confirmed conviction.
Could we please agree on using the Italian terms of "calunnia" and "diffamazione" just for the sake of clarity? ;)

What continues on June 9th is a case of calunnia i.e. Amanda Knox accusing the interrogating police officers of commiting a crime (or crimes, who knows AFAIK nobody has seen the charges so far.) while on trial in 2009.

To my knowledge a "querela" for "diffamazione" for things she wrote in her book hasn't even been filed, unless this was done secretly. There is a limitation of three months to file a suit after the defamed person gains knowledge of the defamation. Helpfully Oggi has made some of the points that could be defamatory public in Italy, so that three months should start latest with the publication of the Oggi article that is supposedly under judicial fire in June.

IIRC PM Mignini said something like "If it's true, what the article says, I'll file a suit against her." or something like that when questioned about the article. As I said, to my knowledge this hasn't been done by now, and I think the usual suspects would have posted information about the suits filed, if there were some... So any defamation (diffamazone) suit should be dead in the water because of the statute of limitations.
TwoCents.gif


With the diffamazione out of the way, back to the calunnia.

You might want to take a look at the following articles of the c.p.p.
Art. 368 - Calunnia
Art. 368 - Calunnia
Chiunque, con denunzia, querela, richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne o alla Corte penale internazionale, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni .
La pena è aumentata se s'incolpa taluno di un reato pel quale la legge stabilisce la pena della reclusione superiore nel massimo a dieci anni, o un'altra pena più grave.
La reclusione è da quattro a dodici anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla reclusione superiore a cinque anni; è da sei a venti anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna all'ergastolo; e si applica la pena dell'ergastolo, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla pena di morte .

The maximum penalty for calunnia is (unless you accuse someone of more serious crimes) six years. As I said we don't know what crime(s) Amanda Knox allegedly accused the cops of. The statute of limitations is defined in the following article:
Art. 157 - Prescrizione. Tempo necessario a prescrivere
Art. 157 - Prescrizione. Tempo necessario a prescrivere
La prescrizione estingue il reato decorso il tempo corrispondente al massimo della pena edittale stabilita dalla legge e comunque un tempo non inferiore a sei anni se si tratta di delitto e a quattro anni se si tratta di contravvenzione, ancorchè puniti con la sola pena pecuniaria.
Per determinare il tempo necessario a prescrivere si ha riguardo alla pena stabilita dalla legge per il reato consumato o tentato, senza tener conto della diminuzione per le circostanze attenuanti e dell'aumento per le circostanze aggravanti, salvo che per le aggravanti per le quali la legge stabilisce una pena di specie diversa da quella ordinaria e per quelle ad effetto speciale, nel qual caso si tiene conto dell'aumento massimo di pena previsto per l'aggravante.
So the statute of limitations is a minimum of six years and then defined by the maximum penalty for the allegedly committed crime (without additions or subtractions for aggravating or mitigating circumstances).

I've always wanted to know what the crime was Amanda Knox allegedly accused the police officers of? The "investigation" of that crime of hers started on March 13th, 2009 after she made this statement (pg 214):
Grazie signor Presidente, volevo insistere su un punto per me molto, molto importante. I testimoni stanno evitando ed anche negando i fatti sugli avvenimenti, sull’interrogazione nella notte del 5 e 6 novembre 2007.
Volevo precisare alcuni elementi che per me sono importantissimi e non riesco a lasciare stare. Prima ci sono ore, ore ed ore che loro non dicono che io ho confermato sempre la mia stessa storia anche quando io ho detto che Raffaele avrebbe detto che io sarei uscita da casa. C’era questa insistenza aggressiva sul messaggio che ho ricevuto e che ho risposto da Patrick, proprio aggressivissimi! Hanno chiamato “stupida bugiarda”, da tutte le parti... anche c’era questa storia del trauma che questa Donnino mi ha raccontato e poi successivamente ha suggerito che questo sarebbe stata anche la stessa situazione per me. Nel senso che proprio mentre io non ricordavo bene perché io ero traumatizzava e così dovevo provare di ricordare qualcos’altro. Poi c’è questi scappellotti sulla testa che ho veramente ricevuto... è vero, mi dispiace, è così! Volevo dire queste cose, grazie.
PM Mignini asked for:
A questo punto la Procura chiede la trasmissione al nostro ufficio delle dichiarazioni rese da Amanda Knox

So what is the crime she allegedly accuses the police of?

Hitting her? I don't think so, because she never claimed that she was bodily harmed. If it is "Falsa testimonianza" Art. 372 c.p.p. comes into play:
Art. 372 - Falsa testimonianza
Chiunque, deponendo come testimone innanzi all'autorità giudiziaria o alla Corte penale internazionale, afferma il falso o nega il vero, ovvero tace, in tutto o in parte, ciò che sa intorno ai fatti sui quali è interrogato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni .
Here the maximum penalty is (again) six years so, it isn't a case of:
La pena è aumentata se s'incolpa taluno di un reato pel quale la legge stabilisce la pena della reclusione superiore nel massimo a dieci anni, o un'altra pena più grave.
.
The last part of Art. 368 deals with convictions based on false accusations and is therefore irrelevant.

Nevermind, AFAIK Amanda Knox hasn't repeated the "accusations" (whatever they are...) against the cops "diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne" after she took the stand on June 12th/13th 2009. So my
TwoCents.gif
are on either another postponement or a smart judge asking the prosecution how they are expecting to get the case up to the Supreme Court in four days. ;)
 
Last edited:
I wasn't referring specifically to Amanda and Raf. Just a general crime scene were perps are careful to leave no trace of themselves.

Except that didn't happen, you can tell that by a perusal of the crime scene videos and/or figure that out from the evidence that was collected from those areas. There's no positive evidence of a clean-up (outside the little that Rudy Guede did--mostly with the towels) and evidence that some of those areas couldn't have been cleaned up (the hall where the barely visible shoeprints of Rudy were recovered as well as the unsmeared luminol hits) as well as a lack of clean areas in the murder room and the bathroom.

The only 'evidence' of a clean-up is that they didn't find the evidence of Amanda and Raffaele they were hoping to, and Quintavalle (who--incidentally--testified that Amanda didn't buy anything at his store) who came forward several months later at the behest of the cub reporter who 'found' Curatolo.

The truth has a habit of coming out, so I am sure that will be the case for Stefanoni.

Unfortunately probably not at this juncture, Amanda and Raffaele are free and clear and thus there's no reason to pursue those data files or Stefanoni anymore.
 
Broadly, because I find his reasoning frustratingly obfuscated, an example is Hellmann's claim that (to paraphrase) there was no crime of staged burglary. Therefore, he reasons, Guede must have committed the burglary and it thus follows he raped and murdered Mez as a result. There were no facts found at the lower court that the "burglary" happened before the murder - in fact, the reverse - and fails to address any facts about Guede moving the body and positioning it.

Guede may have done it, but the reasoning needs to be better.

Do you believe the attempted burglary was real or staged and why? Given an answer to this question and using the evidence, explain how you would reason differently from Hellmann. What facts do you think exist with regard to an alleged repositioning of the body?
 
Broadly, because I find his reasoning frustratingly obfuscated, an example is Hellmann's claim that (to paraphrase) there was no crime of staged burglary. Therefore, he reasons, Guede must have committed the burglary and it thus follows he raped and murdered Mez as a result. There were no facts found at the lower court that the "burglary" happened before the murder - in fact, the reverse - and fails to address any facts about Guede moving the body and positioning it.

Guede may have done it, but the reasoning needs to be better.

With all respect.....

Hellmann is clear in his ruling that it is not his job to solve the crime, or to expand his reasons for acquitting AK and RS into a more general solution to the crime.

He says, it was his court's job to discover if AK and RS had been involved. His court said they had not been.
 
Which of the two makes more sense? Well, I got as far as page 37 so far with Cheffi, and then lost the will to live when I saw how many more pages there were. Is there a right or wrong answer?
[...]
So you are still making your way through Judge Chieffi's summing up of the filed appeals, i.e. reading the Galati ricorso. You might want to start on page 55 of this pdf) to read the actual reasoning ;)
 
With all respect.....

Hellmann is clear in his ruling that it is not his job to solve the crime, or to expand his reasons for acquitting AK and RS into a more general solution to the crime.

He says, it was his court's job to discover if AK and RS had been involved. His court said they had not been.

Bill please to clarify. The ISC can only look at technical legal issue if it is in favor of the kids but can demand another court fond facts as they view them when finding against the kids.

Since Hellmann found them innocent then he must solve the crime to the satisfaction of the ISC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom