Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

What "appeal?" They never got an appeal--it was all "one trial", remember? There are no appeals in Italy. In the alternative, if there are appeals in Italy, then they have no prohibition against double jeopardy.

As for the "de novo" second and third instance trials . . . were they really de novo? People like Machiavelli seem to go on about how the higher level courts have no power to upset the fact findings of the lower courts, and the conclusions of higher level courts. That's not de novo.

IIUC in the Italian context, "double jeopardy" relates to that any judgement of the lower courts is provisional until finally signed off on by Cassazione. This legal saga shows this. There is only single-jeopardy (if that's a term!) in Italy with always at least two trials at the lower levels, one a 1st Grade trial and the other a 2nd Grade appeal of that trial, which is "de novo" in the sense that it can bring in new evidence, but also can interpret evidence gathered at former trials without new-review of it.

 

[Grinder]

IIUC in the Italian context, "double jeopardy" relates to that any judgement of the lower courts is provisional until finally signed off on by Cassazione. This legal saga shows this. There is only single-jeopardy (if that's a term!) in Italy with always at least two trials at the lower levels, one a 1st Grade trial and the other a 2nd Grade appeal of that trial, which is "de novo" in the sense that it can bring in new evidence, but also can interpret evidence gathered at former trials without new-review of it.

IIRC the kids had a deadline to file for the trial of the second instance as did the prosecution. They also had to file an appeal to ISC. It would seem that if neither side files then the case is over.

We have a similar system in some states. The trial of the first instance is a judge only one and the defendant may demand a second trial with a jury if he doesn't like the result.

If a person is acquitted in Italy by the final court then they do have of double jeopardy.

 

[katy_did]

Well it clearly says there was no visible blood not that it tested negative. You've given Vixen a lead and I'm sure that if the case records show that it tested negative for blood we'll hear about it. BTW it only produced a partial DNA match for the victim. This was a 2001 case so wouldn't have been LCN AFAIK.

From the BBC - "He was found guilty after the jury was told DNA found at the murder scene matched blood found on a knife at Hardman's home."

It was definitely LCN, for example another article from the BBC says "Scientists at the Chorley laboratory initially used conventional DNA testing but failed to produce a result. However, the latest, super-sensitive, low-copy number DNA technique was used to extract a partial profile matching Mrs Leyshon".

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of detailed information about the tests they did; the paper by the professor who uses the case to teach DNA is about the most detailed source I've found.

Interesting that the part where they found the DNA was in the knife handle.

 

[Bill Williams]

IIRC the kids had a deadline to file for the trial of the second instance as did the prosecution. They also had to file an appeal to ISC. It would seem that if neither side files then the case is over.

We have a similar system in some states. The trial of the first instance is a judge only one and the defendant may demand a second trial with a jury if he doesn't like the result.

If a person is acquitted in Italy by the final court then they do have of double jeopardy.

Does not both the 2nd grade and Cassazione trials take place regardless of whether appeals (from either side) are filed? If that's true, then all a filing is, is putting it on the record that one side wishes specific things analyzed/reinterpreted at the next level. But the next court has to sit and, I assume, issue a motivations report.

Within 90 days. And, no, I have no idea why this is day 117 and counting...... with nothing new to argue about.

Should I say something about John Follain just to make sure we get to an 18th Continuation? Vixen can't do it by herself!

 

[Samson]

What "appeal?" They never got an appeal--it was all "one trial", remember? There are no appeals in Italy. In the alternative, if there are appeals in Italy, then they have no prohibition against double jeopardy.

As for the "de novo" second and third instance trials . . . were they really de novo? People like Machiavelli seem to go on about how the higher level courts have no power to upset the fact findings of the lower courts, and the conclusions of higher level courts. That's not de novo.

I thought the Hellmann part was the automatic appeal.
My point is that in theory there is a much greater chance of reversing a murder conviction in Italy than in New Zealand. While getting annoyed with the Italians, I had failed to notice the New Zealand system is far worse, if you can believe that. Once convicted when innocent, there is almost no way out, though 3 innocents have eventually emerged after a collective 46 years in jail, and compensation is routinely denied even after exoneration.

 

[Numbers]

IIUC in the Italian context, "double jeopardy" relates to that any judgement of the lower courts is provisional until finally signed off on by Cassazione. This legal saga shows this. There is only single-jeopardy (if that's a term!) in Italy with always at least two trials at the lower levels, one a 1st Grade trial and the other a 2nd Grade appeal of that trial, which is "de novo" in the sense that it can bring in new evidence, but also can interpret evidence gathered at former trials without new-review of it.

Does not both the 2nd grade and Cassazione trials take place regardless of whether appeals (from either side) are filed? If that's true, then all a filing is, is putting it on the record that one side wishes specific things analyzed/reinterpreted at the next level. But the next court has to sit and, I assume, issue a motivations report.

Within 90 days. And, no, I have no idea why this is day 117 and counting...... with nothing new to argue about.

Should I say something about John Follain just to make sure we get to an 18th Continuation? Vixen can't do it by herself!

The 2nd instance and CSC trials only take place if there are appeals from the lower level. Thus, if neither the prosecution nor the defendant appeals a 1st instance verdict within the time limit, if becomes final. The CSC judgment cannot be appealed.

However, a person convicted by a final judgment, including a CSC conviction, can ask for a revision trial, but only under certain circumstances. These circumstances include but are not limited to: new evidence, proof that the conviction was the result of evidence or proceedings tainted by a criminal offense, or a final judgment by the ECHR that the trial was unfair.

The Italian and other European judicial systems differ from the US and UK systems in a number of ways. The European judicial systems generally allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal given by 1st or 2nd instance court. The prosecution is not allowed to appeal an acquittal of a 1st instance trial, or of an appeal trial acquittal on the merits in the US; any such retrial would be considered double jeopardy.

The European systems, or at least the Italian one, maintain the legal fiction that the series of proceedings ending in a final (definitive) verdict is a single trial. This is true in the sense that evidence introduced at either 1st or 2nd instance remains in the record and does not need to be reintroduced. In the US, an appeal is essentially only on points of law and interpretation of evidence while in Italy, the appeal to 2nd instance is not so restricted, and the appeal to CSC is restricted to points of law and interpretation of evidence.

ETA: In the US, a retrial is one possible result of an appeal, if a retrial is a request of the defendant.

 

[Methos]

IIRC the kids had a deadline to file for the trial of the second instance as did the prosecution. They also had to file an appeal to ISC. It would seem that if neither side files then the case is over.[...]

That is correct. The various appeals can be found here Amanda Knox Case Motivation Reports & Appeal Documents

Does not both the 2nd grade and Cassazione trials take place regardless of whether appeals (from either side) are filed? If that's true, then all a filing is, is putting it on the record that one side wishes specific things analyzed/reinterpreted at the next level. But the next court has to sit and, I assume, issue a motivations report.
[...]

No, if no appeal is filed by either side it is over. The prosecution could have decided not to appeal against the Hellmann verdict. If that had been the case the only thing Chieffi and his panel would have had to decide about would have been Amanda Knox' appeal against the calunnia conviction. The other thing is that either appelant can only get what they ask for. Galati asked for the case being sent back to appeals level, so that was "the best" they could get. Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers asked for an anullment without remand and they got it.

I thought the Hellmann part was the automatic appeal.
[...]

The automatic part is misleading. If no appeal is filed it is over. And even if any appeal filed has to be heard by the court it isn't said that there'll be a real re-opening by the appeals level. Even Hellmann has thrown out most of what the defenses asked for and Nencini only allowed the requests from the prosecution.

 

[RWVBWL]

It was definitely LCN, for example another article from the BBC says "Scientists at the Chorley laboratory initially used conventional DNA testing but failed to produce a result. However, the latest, super-sensitive, low-copy number DNA technique was used to extract a partial profile matching Mrs Leyshon".

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of detailed information about the tests they did; the paper by the professor who uses the case to teach DNA is about the most detailed source I've found.

Interesting that the part where they found the DNA was in the knife handle.

Hi Katy-did,
I just wanted to give you a big shout-out and thanks

for the work that you have done to help correct the unjust conviction of [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] and Miss Knox.

It's cool to see some of the folks who post here, have their names mentioned elsewhere, like here,
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/author/komponisto2/
where Katy_did surely helped much by translating many pages of The Conti-Vecchiotti Report,
which shows how,
(even though Vixen probably doesn't agree with it)
the work of Profs. Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti of the Uni
versity of Rome — La Sapienza
played a key role in securing Knox and Sollecito’s exoneration.

The conclusions reached by Conti and Vecchiotti constitute a damning indictment of the investigation conducted by Italy’s Scientific Police, and in particular of the methods employed by the prosecution’s main forensic scientist, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni. They lend official support to the already-widespread perception that Knox and Sollecito have been the victims of a scandalous miscarriage of justice

 

[moije2]

Hi Katy-did,
I just wanted to give you a big shout-out and thanks

for the work that you have done to help correct the unjust conviction of [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] and Miss Knox.

It's cool to see some of the folks who post here, have their names mentioned elsewhere, like here,
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/author/komponisto2/
where Katy_did surely helped much by translating many pages of The Conti-Vecchiotti Report,
which shows how,
(even though Vixen probably doesn't agree with it)
the work of Profs. Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti of the University of Rome — La Sapienza
played a key role in securing Knox and Sollecito’s exoneration.

I will give a similar thank you to Katy_did!

And, RW, I like the way you give emphasis to Raffaele, the forgotten victim.

Regarding Vecchiotti and Conti, they are THE reason that Amanda and Raffaele escaped being further victimized. No matter how much certain posters want to huff and puff and breath all heavy about the Hellmann decision being totally and finally annulled, their science was one of the few days of clear thinking that determined the proper outcome of this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I will give a similar thank you to Katy_did!

And, RW, I like the way you give emphasis to Raffaele, the forgotten victim.

Regarding Vecchiotti and Conti, they are THE reason that Amanda and Raffaele escaped being further victimized. No matter how much certain posters want to huff and puff and breath all heavy about the Hellmann decision being totally and finally annulled, their science was one of the few days of clear thinking that determined the proper outcome of this case.

Absolutely.

The only dog they had in this hunt was science, and evidence based reasoning. Guilters want to trash them because who they may have once had lunch with. Or that their institution was once cited for improper storage of corpses; something which had nothing to do with them.

All that can be lobbed at C&V are random potshots. The ONLY thing which perhaps has ANY validity about them in the judicial process doesn't belong to them directly.

It was some fine point of Italian judicial procedure which said that a judge like Hellmann cannot let an expert (C&V) make a de facto decision which needs to be directly made by the judge - re: Sample 36I.

Nencini's handling of the DNA stuff was pure suspect-centric thinking. To heck with possible contamination, the important thing is he found one of the accused's DNA. Who cares how it got there?

All bizarre. Can anyone imagine the science-precedents being made, judicially, if March 27 had gone the other way? Why, they might now need to revisit all decisions made based on DNA since 1986!!!!

 

[Bill Williams]

The 2nd instance and CSC trials only take place if there are appeals from the lower level. Thus, if neither the prosecution nor the defendant appeals a 1st instance verdict within the time limit, if becomes final. The CSC judgment cannot be appealed.

However, a person convicted by a final judgment, including a CSC conviction, can ask for a revision trial, but only under certain circumstances. These circumstances include but are not limited to: new evidence, proof that the conviction was the result of evidence or proceedings tainted by a criminal offense, or a final judgment by the ECHR that the trial was unfair.

The Italian and other European judicial systems differ from the US and UK systems in a number of ways. The European judicial systems generally allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal given by 1st or 2nd instance court. The prosecution is not allowed to appeal an acquittal of a 1st instance trial, or of an appeal trial acquittal on the merits in the US; any such retrial would be considered double jeopardy.

The European systems, or at least the Italian one, maintain the legal fiction that the series of proceedings ending in a final (definitive) verdict is a single trial. This is true in the sense that evidence introduced at either 1st or 2nd instance remains in the record and does not need to be reintroduced. In the US, an appeal is essentially only on points of law and interpretation of evidence while in Italy, the appeal to 2nd instance is not so restricted, and the appeal to CSC is restricted to points of law and interpretation of evidence.

ETA: In the US, a retrial is one possible result of an appeal, if a retrial is a request of the defendant.

I'd not known this.

 

[Desert Fox]

Does anybody wonder if the pro guilt side, in this case and others, does not really care if the defendants are innocent?

I think there are people who just simply are vindictive and enjoy watching people suffer.

 

[MichaelB]

Ricardo Luciani statements 3-Nov-2007

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...s/2007-Nov-03-Police-deposition-Luciani-2.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...s/2007-Nov-03-Police-deposition-Luciani-3.pdf

 

[bagels]

Well it clearly says there was no visible blood not that it tested negative. You've given Vixen a lead and I'm sure that if the case records show that it tested negative for blood we'll hear about it. BTW it only produced a partial DNA match for the victim. This was a 2001 case so wouldn't have been LCN AFAIK.

From the BBC - "He was found guilty after the jury was told DNA found at the murder scene matched blood found on a knife at Hardman's home."

From another BBC article: "Tiny blood stains on the handle of the knife were matched to Mrs Leyshon. Scientists at the Chorley laboratory initially used conventional DNA testing but failed to produce a result."

This thread is already one of the top results on google for that case lol

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anybody wonder if the pro guilt side, in this case and others, does not really care if the defendants are innocent?

I think there are people who just simply are vindictive and enjoy watching people suffer.

As I've said, I've had PMs with more than a few guilters. The surprise was finding two (IIRC the #) who, to me at least, said they could not care at all about guilt or innocence - it was unimportant either way. What I took from it was that they only engaged in guilt-like conversation because those were their friends on those websites.

 

[Desert Fox]

As I've said, I've had PMs with more than a few guilters. The surprise was finding two (IIRC the #) who, to me at least, said they could not care at all about guilt or innocence - it was unimportant either way. What I took from it was that they only engaged in guilt-like conversation because those were their friends on those websites.

I don't want to be popular if it means putting somebody innocent in prison. I know that sometimes my disagreeing and thinking a few people really are guilty was not real popular either.

 

[Planigale]

Caveat: My understanding of what I wrote below is not good. I do not mean to represent in any way that I have significant expertise with regard to the use of DNA testing for forensic purposes.

Second Caveat: I have treated the possibility that the finding of Kercher's DNA on the kitchen knife was a legitimate result for the purposes of discussion. My overall view is that it is unlikely that Kercher's DNA was on the knife.



Is there a problem with this analysis? Wouldn't the DNA have been contained within cells?

I tried to get an estimate of the mass of the DNA per the mass of an average cell and it turns out to be difficult to estimate because there is considerable variability in the mass of a cell but I came up with a rough estimate that about the mass of the DNA in a cell is about 1/1000 of the total mass of the cell.

So maybe Steffi saw about 1000 times as much stuff as the 100 pico grams of DNA would suggest or about 100 nano grams of stuff (10 ^-7 grams)

One estimate of the mass of a grain of salt on the web is 5.85 x 10^-5 grams* which is apparently the one Grinder used. If my understanding of this is correct then a rough estimate of the stuff that Steffi might have observed was that it was about 1/500 the mass of a grain of salt. However, there is the issue that red blood cells don't contain DNA and much more blood would need to be present than if the source of the DNA was from human cells that have genetic material.

So presumably if the source of the DNA was blood then the sample from the knife should have been positive for blood and the blood would have been apparent under a microscope. I think, somebody quoted a forensic scientist saying that if blood was the source of the DNA he would always expect a positive result for blood if DNA was detected. I can now understand why that might be. In blood there is a lot more stuff to react with the blood test reactants than there is DNA so that you need quite a bit of blood before you can recover DNA if blood is the source of the DNA.


* I estimated the mass of a grain of salt to be 13 x 10^-5 grams. I measured several grains of salt from our salt shaker to be about .4 mm. A cube .4 mm on a side has a volume of .064 cubic mm's which based on the 2.17 grams/cubic centimeter density of sodium chloride leads to my estimate. Apparently the guy who came up with the 5.85 x 10^-5 grams had smaller grains of salt than we do or maybe he did a better job of measuring. I used calipers and I took a macro picture of our salt grains. Both those measurement techniques yielded a value of about .4 mm for the size of our salt grains but there was considerable variability and maybe the 5.85 x 10^-5 gram estimate is a better one although given the variability of the size of a grain of salt 5.85 suggests that the estimate of the mass of a grain of salt is way more precise than it actually is.

Let us look at things another away. One microlitre of blood contains 10,000 white cells. The limit of detection of Luminol for blood is about 1:1,000,000 dilution. That means your microlitre diluted to one litre.* That litre contains 10,000 WBC. Ten white cells per ml. The usual volume of sample for DNA processing is 50 microlitres. So there is only a 1:2 chance your PCR sample contains any DNA. In any case that is only 6pg and below even what LCN can easily type. now these are the extreme limit figures, but it gives a sense of how you are more likely to detect haemoglobin than you are to get a positive PCR sample. This leaves aside the issue that haemoglobin is quite a stable molecule, whilst DNA degrades quite easily, especially if exposed to light.

*One drop of blood is about 20 microlitres so the Luminol positive footprints that are proposed to be blood too dilute to detect with TMB (limit of detection about 1:100,000) but detectable with Luminol would mean that 1 drop of blood had been diluted into ten to twenty litres of water.

 

[Vixen]

This is so much nonsense.
1) Bleach is used because it inactivates DNA, DNA is more sensitive to bleach than Haemoglobin.
2) You add bleach to allow Luminol to work. This is one reason why there is a concern that using Luminol destroys DNA. The Luminol spray contains a mixture of bleach and Luminol. The haemoglobin catalyses the oxidation of Luminol by the bleach. 3) Blood clots. It gets into cracks and clots. Skin cells are a poor source of DNA. They are not sticky. As previously posted the ratio of haemoglobin to DNA molecules in blood is about 100 billion haemoglobin molecules to 1 set of DNA (genome).

If the haematic substance has already been oxidised by bleach (as in cleaning up), there won't be any haemoglobin to trace.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
How come,
in the re-created scenes that I copy and post below,
with Fair Use in mind for public discussion,
from a fictional LifeTime movie with the story being based on the brutal rape and murder we discuss, that, without question, only Rudy Guede's DNA, hand print, and shoe imprints is found in Miss Kercher's bedroom, on her clothing, and inside her genitalia?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9989[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9990[/qimg]


Look,
I'm gettin' hammered again on a July night here in L.A.
I dig old English Heavy Metal, been so since the 70's.
Ain't you an English broad?
Maybe you can dig what I'm listenin' too,
and sayin...

There is no way, as I listen to some old Iron Maiden,
like Runnin' Free, Wrath Child, Aces High, Run to the Hills, + Wasted Years
and some early Judas Priest songs,
such as The Sinner, Diamonds + Rust,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHbz2lYgqJ8
Victim of Changes, + Deceiver,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IH-Ex6OBoY
and of course the Green Manalishi,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgnOJXIvu6s
that I can ever visualize, when lookin' at the pix I copied + posted above,
that Amanda Knox and [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE] would not have left,
without a doubt what so ever, as Rudy Guede did,
their DNA on Meredith's blue Adidas Jacket, her purse,
inside her genitalia.

How the heck did they remove any and all traces of themselves from on or inside her corpse,
while leaving, without any doubt whatsoever, proof that only "poor Rudy"
was here, there, + elsewhere inside of Miss Kercher's bedroom?

If you are really a Mensa Chick,
explain this to me, a shark likin', surfer dude, ok?
Thanks in advance,
RW

As you know, Randy (?) any DNA of hers is explained away as, "it's because she lives there". What was with the blond hair in Mez' hand? Did Carabineri Vanessa Raff manage to "lose it".

Yeah, Bruce Dickinson, Peter Green, rock. I saw some guy with an Iron Maiden denim jacket on the Arctic Circle. Small world.

I like US heavy metal

http://youtu.be/EzgGTTtR0kc


ETA edited.

Try some Gruener Veltliner (Austrian) or Alsace Gewurtstraminer for a real fine wine, rather than get hammered.

 

[Vixen]

I'm kinda interested in this "Toto" was convicted for selling cocaine issue.

Why?
because I seem to recall that he had a drug bust over his head for many, many years, but it was not until after The Massei Court convicted the Kids 6 years later, and it looked that their Appeal might become successful,, that, IIRC, "The Tramp" was jailed and then convicted for drug sales.

From reading around over the last 30 minutes or so to refresh my memory a bit, it seems that Toto was sentenced to 18 months for 1 drug conviction, and was due to go to trial for another bust.

I also seem to recall the Christian Anarchist did not apparently understand why he was even in prison, weird that statement, comin' from a guy who can remember specific details about a young couple arguin' and hangin' around all night outside, from 9:27pm onward, on a windy, chilly Nov. night...


Why am I also interested in The Cocaine Question?

This:
Judge Paolo Micheli admitted several new pieces of evidence, including the testimony of a young Somali man who used to play basketball with Guede on a court near the rented house that Miss Kercher shared with Knox.
<snip>
In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.

“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press.

Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-to-women.html
* * *


If "Toto" was livin' on the bench next to the basketball court,
I bectha that "poor Rudy" knew ol' Toto.

If "Toto" was slingin' dope, like cocaine,
and Rudy himself, liked sniffin' a few lines before dancin,
"poor Rudy" mighta even been a dude who,
ah, made a purchase or 2 from the tramp.
heck, maybe "Toto" even gave "The Baron" credit,
for all we know...

Or did Rudy get his coke somewhere else?

Momi's testimony was ignored. Courts are really not interested in "character witnesses" (except, after the verdict, when aggravating or mitigating factors come into play wrt sentencing).

Save it for the marines.

Rudy got his gear from the Cathedral steps, just like Raff and Amanda.

Raff and Amanda wandered into town on the day of the murder. They didn't buy food, so did they "score"?