Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Not sure I understand the question but here goes...

If a "point of fact" were a fact in its pure form why would legal systems allow appeals on "points of fact"? There would no point in allowing such a law to exist if "points of fact" were empirical facts.

From the web...

"An appeal on a point of law will arise after a Court has made a finding on a case, but it has got the law wrong in arriving at that finding. Against a finding of fact, it is much the same principle really, but relates to a situation where the Court has given a decision based on the facts of the case, but that it has arrived at that decision wrongly because it got its finding of the facts leading to that decision wrong."

So logically when a court rules on facts they aren't necessarily facts if they can be overturned on appeal.

It's just a definition peculiar to law, that's all.

So what Bruno-Marasca are saying is, that Massei, in the merits hearing, and to a small extent, Nencini, in the Appeal Court, having conducted the case and heard all the evidence, found various facts - as was their task - and Bruno-Marasca in their report are saying, "these are the facts found" (past tense), but they are overturning them, without remitting back to a lower court.

IMV this is unethical, as it is "trying the case on paper". They seem to have relied on the Dr Gill notes in Raff's Appeal Appendix, yet the other party was given no opportunity to cross-examine Dr Gill, nor did the defense. A supreme court judge in the UK, or even a High Court Appeal judge would not have the power to "fact find", and would always refer a disputed "fact" back to the lower court, assuming it's material.

I would have thought the issue of DNA contamination, police incompetence and the issue of permitted testimony would be one for the lower courts. If Bruno-Marasca have condemned Stefanoni as incompetent, when there has been no investigation or disciplinary finding to this effect, then IMV, they have grossly overstepped their judicial powers.

 

[Annella]

So what Bruno-Marasca are saying is, that Massei, in the merits hearing, and to a small extent, Nencini, in the Appeal Court, having conducted the case and heard all the evidence, found various facts - as was their task - and Bruno-Marasca in their report are saying, "these are the facts found" (past tense), but they are overturning them, without remitting back to a lower court.

IMV this is unethical, as it is "trying the case on paper". They seem to have relied on the Dr Gill notes in Raff's Appeal Appendix, yet the other party was given no opportunity to cross-examine Dr Gill, nor did the defense. A supreme court judge in the UK, or even a High Court Appeal judge would not have the power to "fact find", and would always refer a disputed "fact" back to the lower court, assuming it's material.

I would have thought the issue of DNA contamination, police incompetence and the issue of permitted testimony would be one for the lower courts. If Bruno-Marasca have condemned Stefanoni as incompetent, when there has been no investigation or disciplinary finding to this effect, then IMV, they have grossly overstepped their judicial powers.

You are truly lost Vixen. FWIW, I have much sympathy for you. Have you considered taking this to the next Library meeting of your local chapter of Mensa minds?? Would be fascinating to see how many of ( purportedly) great intellect can demonstrate common sense along with some ' out there' critical thinking skills.
I will not be holding my breath.

 

[sept79]

So what Bruno-Marasca are saying is, that Massei, in the merits hearing, and to a small extent, Nencini, in the Appeal Court, having conducted the case and heard all the evidence, found various facts - as was their task - and Bruno-Marasca in their report are saying, "these are the facts found" (past tense), but they are overturning them, without remitting back to a lower court.
.
.
.
I would have thought the issue of DNA contamination, police incompetence and the issue of permitted testimony would be one for the lower courts. If Bruno-Marasca have condemned Stefanoni as incompetent, when there has been no investigation or disciplinary finding to this effect, then IMV, they have grossly overstepped their judicial powers.

So justice should be secondary ?

 

[acbytesla]

So what Bruno-Marasca are saying is, that Massei, in the merits hearing, and to a small extent, Nencini, in the Appeal Court, having conducted the case and heard all the evidence, found various facts - as was their task - and Bruno-Marasca in their report are saying, "these are the facts found" (past tense), but they are overturning them, without remitting back to a lower court.

IMV this is unethical, as it is "trying the case on paper". They seem to have relied on the Dr Gill notes in Raff's Appeal Appendix, yet the other party was given no opportunity to cross-examine Dr Gill, nor did the defense. A supreme court judge in the UK, or even a High Court Appeal judge would not have the power to "fact find", and would always refer a disputed "fact" back to the lower court, assuming it's material.

I would have thought the issue of DNA contamination, police incompetence and the issue of permitted testimony would be one for the lower courts. If Bruno-Marasca have condemned Stefanoni as incompetent, when there has been no investigation or disciplinary finding to this effect, then IMV, they have grossly overstepped their judicial powers.

Out of curiosity Vixen. What do you think the Cheiffi and Nencini courts did? And btw, the Nencini court had a DNA expert from the Rome Carabinieri lab who basically said that Stefanoni's methods were unreliable because she didn't perform multiple tests.

But my guess is that doesn't matter to you because it's not the result you want. Right?

 

[Grinder]

So justice should be secondary ?

I believe that here in a sense it is. My understanding is that it is very difficult for the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court to reverse a case based on how a lower court dealt with evidence.

How would people feel if the situation were reversed and the lowest court had found that Steffy and Curatolo were not credible but the Supreme Court decided that they were and convicted the kids?

I know that it is very difficult here for people to overturn a conviction once the case is final even with new evidence that is overwhelming.

Very frustrating situations.

 

[Grinder]

Out of curiosity Vixen. What do you think the Cheiffi and Nencini courts did? And btw, the Nencini court had a DNA expert from the Rome Carabinieri lab who basically said that Stefanoni's methods were unreliable because she didn't perform multiple tests.

But my guess is that doesn't matter to you because it's not the result you want. Right?

While I totally agree that she did an awful job, I missed where the Carabinieri made that statement. Could you provide a link to their testimony?

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I have proof read the part of the translated Marasca report from which I quoted the other day. The picture is less bleak than I thought but still not black and white. They set out a bunch of things that were reasonably considered suspicious and say they don't add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They pretty much toss out Curatolo (disco buses) Quintavalle (came forward too late) the knife (not properly tested) and the clasp (ditto). There is one heck of a swipe at Stefanoni as I read it (it's a little veiled).

What I was reading before was apparently a recitation of the prosecution case, not the ISC's own view. They don't dismiss it all as crap (as you or I would) but sort of shrug and say, 'so what? It isn't proof of murder.' Anyway, the full thing should be out soon and we can all chip in our tuppences.

 

[acbytesla]

While I totally agree that she did an awful job, I missed where the Carabinieri made that statement. Could you provide a link to their testimony?

She didn't exactly criticize Stefanoni. She was questioned about the lab's procedures. It is there where she said that they would toss any results that were not repeatable. I'll look for it.

 

[Kauffer]

So what Bruno-Marasca are saying is, that Massei, in the merits hearing, and to a small extent, Nencini, in the Appeal Court, having conducted the case and heard all the evidence, found various facts - as was their task - and Bruno-Marasca in their report are saying, "these are the facts found" (past tense), but they are overturning them, without remitting back to a lower court.

IMV this is unethical, as it is "trying the case on paper". They seem to have relied on the Dr Gill notes in Raff's Appeal Appendix, yet the other party was given no opportunity to cross-examine Dr Gill, nor did the defense. A supreme court judge in the UK, or even a High Court Appeal judge would not have the power to "fact find", and would always refer a disputed "fact" back to the lower court, assuming it's material.

I would have thought the issue of DNA contamination, police incompetence and the issue of permitted testimony would be one for the lower courts. If Bruno-Marasca have condemned Stefanoni as incompetent, when there has been no investigation or disciplinary finding to this effect, then IMV, they have grossly overstepped their judicial powers.

In Italian law, circumstantial evidence must be "serious, precise and consistent" in order to establish a fact. Where it isn't, then Cassation is at liberty to say so. It isn't fact finding; it's the denial of the basis on which a fact was found.

With regard to Gill, he IS the expert on matters pertaining to the DNA evidence in this case. Court submissions often include references to published expert opinion. In this case, for example, CandV cited Locard; the prosecution cited Balding. None of these people were cross-examined. Locard, of course is dead.

 

[Kauffer]

She didn't exactly criticize Stefanoni. She was questioned about the lab's procedures. It is there where she said that they would toss any results that were not repeatable. I'll look for it.

This came up not so long ago. I think it's in Raffaele's appeal.

 

[acbytesla]

While I totally agree that she did an awful job, I missed where the Carabinieri made that statement. Could you provide a link to their testimony?

I can't at the moment find a link to her testimony...but I'll keep looking. But here is a small reference to it in the closing arguments from the Florence trial.

(Again about the Knife)The Carabinieri expertise tells us in every way: be careful, when it is Low Copy Number, you must absolutely respect the international protocols. .....They say when you do not repeat (the amplification) it is a huge mistake, which discredits the analysis...... (Trace 36B)was not amplified twice, it was just amplified once, there was a double electrophoretic run but it gave different results each time. In the first run out of 29 alleles just five were above 50 RSU. In the second run there were only 23 alleles and ten of them below 50 RSU. So there were stochastic effects in this reading. The Carabinieri say that (in such cases) there is the apparition of apparent analytical signals, that do not correctly reflect the([genetic)profile. So what is the usefulness of such a result.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I have proof read the part of the translated Marasca report from which I quoted the other day. The picture is less bleak than I thought but still not black and white. They set out a bunch of things that were reasonably considered suspicious and say they don't add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They pretty much toss out Curatolo (disco buses) Quintavalle (came forward too late) the knife (not properly tested) and the clasp (ditto). There is one heck of a swipe at Stefanoni as I read it (it's a little veiled).

What I was reading before was apparently a recitation of the prosecution case, not the ISC's own view. They don't dismiss it all as crap (as you or I would) but sort of shrug and say, 'so what? It isn't proof of murder.' Anyway, the full thing should be out soon and we can all chip in our tuppences.

That's what one of the "forte sospetto" passages also seemed to say, even when laundered through Google translate. Machiavelli was, in my limited view, simply cherry-picking stuff as if it was Marasca himself who was saying that the students were otherwise strongly suspected. Even though it is sometime like looking through the bottom of a dark glass tumbler, that's not what Google translate said it said....

 

[anglolawyer]

That's what one of the "forte sospetto" passages also seemed to say, even when laundered through Google translate. Machiavelli was, in my limited view, simply cherry-picking stuff as if it was Marasca himself who was saying that the students were otherwise strongly suspected. Even though it is sometime like looking through the bottom of a dark glass tumbler, that's not what Google translate said it said....

They do cite points for suspicion, Bill. They even came up with a new one (to me) which is the idea that Raffaele must have been with Amanda at via Della Pergola on the morning of 2nd November since she did not call him when alarmed by the blood, faeces etc:

Also following one of the versions given by the woman, that is the second one according to which, upon returning home on the morning of November 2, having spent the night with her boyfriend, she immediately realized that something strange had happened (door open, traces of blood everywhere); … it is very strange that she did not immediately call her boyfriend, and the telephone records show that there was no telephone call between the two, even more so because, having been in Italy for a short time, she was presumably unaware of what to do in such emergencies, so the first and perhaps the only person she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend, who lived a few hundred meters from her home. Not doing so means that Sollecito was with her, which does not prejudice, obviously, the juridical relevance of his mere presence in the house, without any certain proof of his contributing to the murder action.

Where the heck did that come from? Is it in Nencini?

 

[Grinder]

That's what one of the "forte sospetto" passages also seemed to say, even when laundered through Google translate. Machiavelli was, in my limited view, simply cherry-picking stuff as if it was Marasca himself who was saying that the students were otherwise strongly suspected. Even though it is sometime like looking through the bottom of a dark glass tumbler, that's not what Google translate said it said....

You mean like that section of Nencini you oft referred to that was really just repeating the defenses point and saying if the defense were correct about Rudi being a serial professional burglar then he would have picked the lock?

 

[Bill Williams]

They do cite points for suspicion, Bill. They even came up with a new one (to me) which is the idea that Raffaele must have been with Amanda at via Della Pergola on the morning of 2nd November since she did not call him when alarmed by the blood, faeces etc:

Also following one of the versions given by the woman, that is the second one according to which, upon returning home on the morning of November 2, having spent the night with her boyfriend, she immediately realized that something strange had happened (door open, traces of blood everywhere); … it is very strange that she did not immediately call her boyfriend, and the telephone records show that there was no telephone call between the two, even more so because, having been in Italy for a short time, she was presumably unaware of what to do in such emergencies, so the first and perhaps the only person she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend, who lived a few hundred meters from her home. Not doing so means that Sollecito was with her, which does not prejudice, obviously, the juridical relevance of his mere presence in the house, without any certain proof of his contributing to the murder action.

Where the heck did that come from? Is it in Nencini?

I don't get it. Is there a manual available to Italian judges which outline the logic of what people do in unique situations?

Rudy would not have logically climbed in through Filomena's window because self-respecting burglars always go in the front door?

Amanda is to be doubted because instead of calling her boyfriend about the weird mess at the cottage, she waited until the short walk back to his place.... therefore it is logical to assume that Raffaele must have been with her when she showered that morning?

Amanda didn't cry at the right times?

What is wrong with Italians?

 

[Grinder]

Well Anglo, what about the angle that had they done the work correctly they would have enough evidence to convict. For example somewhere along the way it was reported that they discounted the knife because it was transported in a calendar box. They didn't seem to be saying that Meredith's DNA wasn't on the knife but it was handled badly therefore couldn't be used.

As I still haven't seen the whole thing, I am basing this early speculation on bits and pieces.

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean like that section of Nencini you oft referred to that was really just repeating the defenses point and saying if the defense were correct about Rudi being a serial professional burglar then he would have picked the lock?

Yup. Things like that. I may well have missed that, but one would expect the judge in writing the motivations to be clear. The "forte sospetto" sections in Marasca's report, pointed to by Machiavelli, didn't seem to survive even an awkward laundering through Google.

There was also Machiavelli's vigourous defence of Guede - no "logical" burglar would have done anything other than gone through the balcony window.

ETA - the very last "Reasons for judgment" I sat through in a local superior court lasted about 50 minutes. Apparently, the judge needs to read the thing in court. Knowing the case well, I did not agree with much of what His Worship concluded. But, man O man, his reasoning was tight and he was crystal - crystal - clear. Them that know of such things said he'd worded certain things the way he had to forestall any theoretical appeal. Indeed, the thing was appealed, and overturned. And we, way up in the cheap seats, know why. Even in cases I disagree with on outcome, I'm glad I live here. Ok, ok, then there's Nordheimer.... don't get me going.

 

[sept79]

I don't get it. Is there a manual available to Italian judges which outlines the logic of what people do in unique situations?

Rudy would not have logically climbed in through Filomena's window because self-respecting burglars always go in the front door?

Amanda is to be doubted because instead of calling her boyfriend about the weird mess at the cottage, she waited until the short walk back to his place.... therefore it is logical to assume that Raffaele must have been with her when she showered that morning?

Amanda didn't cry at the right times?

What is wrong with Italians?

I suspect this manual has sections on 'inappropriate hip movement' and 'inappropriate dining on pizza with boyfriend/girlfriend', along with tips as to turning on/off of phones, . . .

 

[Vixen]

You are truly lost Vixen. FWIW, I have much sympathy for you. Have you considered taking this to the next Library meeting of your local chapter of Mensa minds?? Would be fascinating to see how many of ( purportedly) great intellect can demonstrate common sense along with some ' out there' critical thinking skills.
I will not be holding my breath.

Actually, we go pub crawling.

 

[Vixen]

In Italian law, circumstantial evidence must be "serious, precise and consistent" in order to establish a fact. Where it isn't, then Cassation is at liberty to say so. It isn't fact finding; it's the denial of the basis on which a fact was found.

With regard to Gill, he IS the expert on matters pertaining to the DNA evidence in this case. Court submissions often include references to published expert opinion. In this case, for example, CandV cited Locard; the prosecution cited Balding. None of these people were cross-examined. Locard, of course is dead.

He might be an expert in his field, but he is not case law.