Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Agreed. Manuela Comodi was in charge of the prosecution's DNA case, and her misconduct does not get nearly enough attention. I think that she's more of a liar and bad actor than Mignini.

To me, the worst actors in this whole thing are Comodi, Stefanoni and Napoleoni. Mignini is more like a cartoon, but those three Weird Sisters are truly dishonest and evil.

Not sure, Diocletus.
I like the idea that absolute evil can be ascribed, but it is more Ted Bundy, who operated outside a system.
I now understand how the system destroys those within it. I never thought I would, but now I do.
I think all four of your nominated protagonists are created. Ted Bundy can't be accorded that protection. We will ruminate on this case till we drop dead, but as we study cases worldwide, that make this look ordinary, how do we progress?
My suggestion, and it is resolutely ignored, is to study wrongful convictions like commercial airline crashes.

I guess I should elaborate.
Unfortunately, related cases are often deemed off topic here.
I have no idea why, because history lessons are not ridiculed that way, but discussion of cases with precise parallels are subject to moderator attention.

I am totally certain that many New Zealand cases demonstrate equally reprehensible systemic malpractice. I learned simply because the ruthless examination by international enthusiasts destroyed the case against Knox and Sollecito. It was absolutely not an internally driven process.

 

[Machiavelli]

In normal discourse, a slip-up like this on Machiavelli's part would go by without comment.

Yet he and guilters hang on every nuance of meaning in things Amanda Knox once said, and if there is a scintilla of difference in two of her accounts, it is liar liar from that quarter.

So, just to apply Machiavelli's logic - he obviously lied about what happened to him in 2001.

You are ridiculous, Bill.

A scintilla of difference?

(PS. In Italian there isn't a difference in grammar phrase with this verb, shooting at/shooting can be expressed the same way).

 

[js202]

(PS. In Italian there isn't a difference in grammar phrase with this verb, shooting at/shooting can be expressed the same way).

I am actively teaching my 2 year old son that these sorts of after-the-fact excuse-making and disclaimers are no way to get on in the world. Whether he happens to be in the US, or Italy. Fortunately, at least he is getting the message.

 

[acbytesla]

You are ridiculous, Bill.

A scintilla of difference?

(PS. In Italian there isn't a difference in grammar phrase with this verb, shooting at/shooting can be expressed the same way).

I don't speak Italian so there is no way for me to verify this. Under most conditions and with most people I'd grant them the benefit of the doubt. After all,there is a huge difference in the languages. While someone might learn the basics of another language rather quickly,learning the nuances takes years.

So normally I would grant Mach the benefit of the doubt.

Except he won't do the same for Amanda. Amanda, who was barely spoke any Italian at the time, under duress. (not torture, but duress) I've read Amanda's so called confessions. No native English speaker talks that way. In addition, it's very very clear that Amanda doubts every word.

What's clear is that language is a huge problem. But some people are too blind to see that even though they are experiencing the same kinds of misunderstanding.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....

 

[Bill Williams]

You are ridiculous, Bill.

A scintilla of difference?

(PS. In Italian there isn't a difference in grammar phrase with this verb, shooting at/shooting can be expressed the same way).

So, your English is good enough to question the use of "scintilla", but not good enough to translate the proper Italian word for "shoot at" into the proper English context.

Interesting. You've been managing in English here for five years. Knox was in Italy for seven weeks, or so.....

And you've deemed her a liar, esp. at interrogation because she did not know her way around Italian legalese.

Interesting. Perhaps ridiculousness is something you specialize in. You would do well to sit quietly and accept tutoring on these things. Be a good chap.

 

[Mike1711]

Yes it's minimal.There are no "Guede semen stains". There are unknown stains luminescent under UV light, which Sollecito's defence - may I say cowardly? - remained silent about for months, if not years.

The more I read your postings the more I understand how little you know about "Western" based law.
There is no obligation on the defence to do anything but defend the prosecution's accusations. There is an obligation on the prosecution to disclose/discover evidence pertinent to upholding a FAIR trial.
It is baffling and sinister that the pillow stain was A) not tested or B) tested but the results suppressed.
The secretive/subversive (non)actions relating to the stain by the prosecution undoubtably plays into the hands of accusations of an "unfair" or tainted trial.
There is NO reason for the stain to have been ignored by the prosecution. It is disgracefully unfair to the accused, to the deceased, her family and friends, and most importantly to justice as a whole.
It is an indefensible negligence on the part of the prosecution and should be acknowledged as such.
I have no idea what kind of a legal system operating in a democracy allows such dispicable (non)action by the police/prosecution.
It's absurd, I know, but hypothetically speaking, how do we know that the stain wasn't tested because it belongs to Mignini?
...and what kind of a system allows the investigators to choose to omit vital evidence.....don't policeman commit crimes?

 

[Mike1711]

Sorry, it's no gossip. This is testimony.
Marco Zaroli

In Italy is "hearsay" evidence admissible in a court of law?
Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[Bill Williams]

The more I read your postings the more I understand how little you know about "Western" based law.
There is no obligation on the defence to do anything but defend the prosecution's accusations. There is an obligation on the prosecution to disclose/discover evidence pertinent to upholding a FAIR trial.
It is baffling and sinister that the pillow stain was A) not tested or B) tested but the results suppressed.
The secretive/subversive (non)actions relating to the stain by the prosecution undoubtably plays into the hands of accusations of an "unfair" or tainted trial.
There is NO reason for the stain to have been ignored by the prosecution. It is disgracefully unfair to the accused, to the deceased, her family and friends, and most importantly to justice as a whole.It is an indefensible negligence on the part of the prosecution and should be acknowledged as such.
I have no idea what kind of a legal system operating in a democracy allows such dispicable (non)action by the police/prosecution.
It's absurd, I know, but hypothetically speaking, how do we know that the stain wasn't tested because it belongs to Mignini?
...and what kind of a system allows the investigators to choose to omit vital evidence.....don't policeman commit crimes?

Have you read the first convicting judge's rationale for accepting/supporting the "logic" of the cops not testing the stain? Albeit that Massei also fits it in to the, "this is submitted too late for this court," scenario..... but nowhere does Massei chide the cops for not doing their jobs.

Don't click on this unless you wish to see the reason why the Marasca/Bruno court acquitted without remand. (Judicial incompetence comes to mind, on this issue alone).....

In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind;
with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of
which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related
illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic
investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation,
as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active
sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the
statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not
being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e.
establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts),
might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity,
[which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the
requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.​

The way our friend Mr. Machiavelli here defends the judge's reasoning is laughable.

 

[Grinder]

In Italy is "hearsay" evidence admissible in a court of law?
Curiouser and curiouser!

There are exceptions to hearsay here and official police reports would fall into that category. From what I saw the policeman in this instance was reporting what was said in sort of an interview setting with several people speaking.

In any case what was said wasn't used to prove that Vaseline was on the body which would be the hearsay issue.

 

[Mike1711]

In p. 45 there is an unequivocal statement that it is a proven fact that Knox was inside the murder house when Meredith was killed, and the Court even emphasizes their belief as they cite Knox's statement describing herself covering her ears and other elements. In p. 47 there is a paragraph saying that it is not absolutely sure with "tranquillizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false, maybe there is a possibility that she was at Sollecito's place. Then, at p.49 it states again that it is certain that Knox was in the murder apartment during the killing, only it is not completely sure if Sollecito was there (albeit, the court says, he was probably there).

Not even an imbecile could write something like that.

It's a fact that AK wrote (retracted) testimony to this effect, and this is what (I believe) the context is. (My belief because it is the only logical one, given my limited understanding of Italian).

Logically and quite correctly what Marasca (et al) says is that EVEN if we accept AK's retracted testimony as true (and there MAY be strong suspicion that she was there by her own testimony) she is still not guilty of murder because she was never in the murder room.

There was a case in the USA, which by memory was called "the Green River" serial killer case. A "glory seeker" arrived at the police station and confessed to being the infamous killer. Even though he confessed to the murders it was proved that he could not have been the "Green River Killer", because he was CLEARLY not at the scene of the crimes. The real killer (Ridgeway?) was subsequently caught.

 

[Mike1711]

There are exceptions to hearsay here and official police reports would fall into that category. From what I saw the policeman in this instance was reporting what was said in sort of an interview setting with several people speaking.

In any case what was said wasn't used to prove that Vaseline was on the body which would be the hearsay issue.

A random conversation (where all are talking) cannot be regarding as official, surely?

 

[acbytesla]

It's a fact that AK wrote (retracted) testimony to this effect, and this is what (I believe) the context is. (My belief because it is the only logical one, given my limited understanding of Italian).

Logically and quite correctly what Marasca (et al) says is that EVEN if we accept AK's retracted testimony as true (and there MAY be strong suspicion that she was there by her own testimony) she is still not guilty of murder because she was never in the murder room.

There was a case in the USA, which by memory was called "the Green River" serial killer case. A "glory seeker" arrived at the police station and confessed to being the infamous killer. Even though he confessed to the murders it was proved that he could not have been the "Green River Killer", because he was CLEARLY not at the scene of the crimes. The real killer (Ridgeway?) was subsequently caught.

Actually, people falsely confess quite often. Not only are they sometimes coerced, but some people are simply crazy. A good interrogation will get the suspect to freely discuss the crime. And to provide details that only the killer might know. What is clear is that nothing like that happened in this case. Nothing that Amanda said or wrote actually is confirmed with reality. The other bizarre thing about Amanda's statement is that it is clear that she doesn't even believe it.

 

[bagels]

A random conversation (where all are talking) cannot be regarding as official, surely?

It's not evidence of anything anyway. The police first brought up the Vaseline and hounded Amanda with the suggestion Meredith was using it for anal sex and it was some sort of notable evidence related to the murder. Raffaele was relaying trivia to the group. That one random person that didn't even know Raffaele later though the person accused of being a rapist murderer "sounded cold" is perhaps the least insightful statement of the century.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a fact that AK wrote (retracted) testimony to this effect, and this is what (I believe) the context is. (My belief because it is the only logical one, given my limited understanding of Italian).

Logically and quite correctly what Marasca (et al) says is that EVEN if we accept AK's retracted testimony as true (and there MAY be strong suspicion that she was there by her own testimony) she is still not guilty of murder because she was never in the murder room.

Without being seen to take Machiavelli's side on something.....

There is also this concept in Italy of a "judicial fact". I'll give it my best go, but am probably not spot on....

It means that if a former Supreme Court has deemed something to be so, then all future courts dealing with the same or similar cases must fold that into their reasoning. As you can imagine it can sometimes lead to what appears to be legal-rhetorical gymnastics.

Courts in Italy are also loathe to accuse cops and prosecutors outright of being criminals. All they can do, it seems, is talk around things.

For instance, the 2013 Chieffi Supreme Court ruling which quashed the original acquittals made it seem that it was up to the defence to prove a route of contamination, rather than insist that DNA labs themselves follow proper anti-contamination protocols.

Why? Well as Chieffi said, if not then all DNA-related convictions since 1986 would be in doubt.

Okay...............................!

 

[Mike1711]

Have you read the first convicting judge's rationale for accepting/supporting the "logic" of the cops not testing the stain? Albeit that Massei also fits it in to the, "this is submitted too late for this court," scenario..... but nowhere does Massei chide the cops for not doing their jobs.

Don't click on this unless you wish to see the reason why the Marasca/Bruno court acquitted without remand. (Judicial incompetence comes to mind, on this issue alone).....

​

The way our friend Mr. Machiavelli here defends the judge's reasoning is laughable.

Bill, thanks for that. I am not as familiar with the AK/RS as you and so many others on this site are.

I have no knowledge of what I am about to say (and I'm sure the idi.. ummm Judge also has no knowledge of this, BUT he should have asked the question).......

DNA cannot be dated for logical reasons, but I wonder if an anlysis of the water content of the stain could not have given some sort of time frame due to the rate of evaporation of the liquid from the sperm, (which would ultimately turn to powder under zero humidity conditions). Maybe a clever scientist can answer this, but surely the Judge should have clarified this?

 

[Mike1711]

Without being seen to take Machiavelli's side on something.....

There is also this concept in Italy of a "judicial fact". I'll give it my best go, but am probably not spot on....

It means that if a former Supreme Court has deemed something to be so, then all future courts dealing with the same or similar cases must fold that into their reasoning. As you can imagine it can sometimes lead to what appears to be legal-rhetorical gymnastics.

Courts in Italy are also loathe to accuse cops and prosecutors outright of being criminals. All they can do, it seems, is talk around things.

For instance, the 2013 Chieffi Supreme Court ruling which quashed the original acquittals made it seem that it was up to the defence to prove a route of contamination, rather than insist that DNA labs themselves follow proper anti-contamination protocols.

Why? Well as Chieffi said, if not then all DNA-related convictions since 1986 would be in doubt.

Okay...............................!

It would also mean that Galileo would still be guilty and the world would be the centre of the universe.

A fact is a fact. A "judicial fact" has meaning only by definition and it is only in an a World according to Alice that a "Judicial fact" can trump a "factual fact".

In a world such as the one you describe wrongly incarcerated prisoners could never be freed no matter what new evidence brings.

There is a word for a "judicial fact" and the word is BOLLOCKS.

 

[carbonjam72]

Dating the DNA in the sperm stain

Bill, thanks for that. I am not as familiar with the AK/RS as you and so many others on this site are.

I have no knowledge of what I am about to say (and I'm sure the idi.. ummm Judge also has no knowledge of this, BUT he should have asked the question).......

DNA cannot be dated for logical reasons, but I wonder if an anlysis of the water content of the stain could not have given some sort of time frame due to the rate of evaporation of the liquid from the sperm, (which would ultimately turn to powder under zero humidity conditions). Maybe a clever scientist can answer this, but surely the Judge should have clarified this?

I believe that the defense expert found a semen stain that had been stepped in and squished into, by Rudy's shoe print, which also left shoe prints made in Meredith's wet blood, thereby dating the sperm to the time of the murder.

The second point of dating by moisture was, IIRC, also brought up by defense experts, but that analysis was not available by the time the defense was allowed to examine the evidence, IIUC.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, thanks for that. I am not as familiar with the AK/RS as you and so many others on this site are.

I have no knowledge of what I am about to say (and I'm sure the idi.. ummm Judge also has no knowledge of this, BUT he should have asked the question).......

DNA cannot be dated for logical reasons, but I wonder if an anlysis of the water content of the stain could not have given some sort of time frame due to the rate of evaporation of the liquid from the sperm, (which would ultimately turn to powder under zero humidity conditions). Maybe a clever scientist can answer this, but surely the Judge should have clarified this?

Sorry for doing this to you. This was done to me back in late 2011 following the first acquittal. I'd begun as a mild-guilter, but began to read. Truly, I have no particular expertise in any of the disciplines you'd think would be needed to sort this out.....

... but I can read. I've read more than is decent.

So, how far down this rabbit hole do you intend to go? The most fun is when the guilters think you're a somebody, or a paid shill.

 

[Mike1711]

I believe that the defense expert found a semen stain that had been stepped in and squished into, by Rudy's shoe print, which also left shoe prints made in Meredith's wet blood, thereby dating the sperm to the time of the murder.

The second point of dating by moisture was, IIRC, also brought up by defense experts, but that analysis was not available by the time the defense was allowed to examine the evidence, IIUC.

More utter ineptitude by the state.

Other than Marasca and Hellmann (and the their bench), the rest of them have the combined intellect of a garden gnome....except of course Mignini who has less.

 

[Bill Williams]

It would also mean that Galileo would still be guilty and the world would be the centre of the universe.

A fact is a fact. A "judicial fact" has meaning only by definition and it is only in an a World according to Alice that a "Judicial fact" can trump a "factual fact".

In a world such as the one you describe wrongly incarcerated prisoners could never be freed no matter what new evidence brings.

There is a word for a "judicial fact" and the word is BOLLOCKS.

Machiavelli is trying to play the "judicial fact" card, and he's trying to deal it from the bottom of the deck.

Despite there being almost universal agreement in Italy that the Marasca/Bruno report represents a stunning rebuke to an amnesiac prosecution and inept, perhaps corrupt investigation.....

Machiavelli is trying to rescue some judicial facts from this. I do not read Italian (nor speak it!) but I've read 6, count 'em six!, motivation reports related to this translated into English - most properly, some via Google translate.

The "Rudy acted with confederates" judicial fact was borne at Rudy's separate, fast-track trial(s), a process exactly like a regular set of trials but with the evidence phase missing. The motivations report at the end of that one all-but establishes as a judicial fact that Amanda and Raffaele were those confederates. Neither AK nor RS were represented at the fast-track process which established those things.

At absolute worst, Marasca/Bruno are trying their best to be in harmony with former ISC rulings and judicial facts. However, the Italian press and commentators are almost universal knowing what's going on here. For pete's sake, the union representing the Perugian police are now passing the blame to out-of-control prosecutors. No one that I've read, save Machiavelli here on this service, is even interested in those tidbits Marasca is throwing towards former courts.

They all "get" what's going on here, in that horribly fascinating, dieterological Italian court system. Machiavelli stands alone, and is quite entitled to all of that!

When Hellmann acquitted, he said in his motivations report that it was not up to his court to settle the "multiple attacker issue", only to ascertain if AK and RS were them. IIRC when the Supreme Court in 2013 annulled the acquittals, they said something akin to Hellmann using flawed logic. Anyway, you can read it for yourself, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

Trust me, you're nowhere near the weird stuff yet!