Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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?

So if a perp leaves a minute trace of DNA, they should go scot free?

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

There is nothing about the cardboard box in the bit I proofed but the knife is pretty well demolished and not just because of the DNA but also because of the absurdity of the whole idea that she would lug that knife around.

ETA and they definitely don't say this. Not in the part I read. They are quite judicial and proper - you can't draw inferences from poorly-collected evidence nor does such evidence give you leave to speculate on what conclusions would have been reached but for the cock ups.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Not quite.

The Marasca court upheld the appellants' appeal on points of law. They perhaps agreed with points of fact.... or were barred from considering overturning points of fact by Italian Law, so were forced to agree.

What the Marasca Court has ruled (based on blurred and incomplete interpretations) is this...

On a point of law it is a legal nonsense to convict a person who has no direct link to the murder scene at all. Not even a trace of circumstantial evidence. NONE! It is a quantum leap to magically put the two accused at the murder scene without a shred of proof that they were there. The closest the prosecution could come to was to place one of the accused (perhaps both) in the cottage but NEVER in the murder room.

On a point of law Nencini had no right to ignore his terms of reference, which included ignoring state commissioned DNA experts. His terms of reference directed him to consider DNA evidence to be appointed by the state....which he then promptly and illegally ignored.

The appeal was upheld on points of law incorrectly applied by the court a quo.

 

[bagels]

There is nothing about the cardboard box in the bit I proofed but the knife is pretty well demolished and not just because of the DNA but also because of the absurdity of the whole idea that she would lug that knife around.

Wow. Hard to believe this is from the same report that seemed to endorse Amanda washing blood from her hands.

 

[Kauffer]

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

What on earth does that mean?

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, we go pub crawling.

Well, that's a better use of your time.

 

[Kauffer]

So if a perp leaves a minute trace of DNA, they should go scot free?

The test must be repeatable before you can say there is DNA. Then, once you have your repeated test, you then have to work out how it got there before you make the claim that it was left by a 'perp'. Part of the process in the first instance is to release the EDFs.

Clearly if I shake your hand and you later kill somebody and leave my transferred DNA on a corpse, I am not a 'perp'

 

[acbytesla]

So if a perp leaves a minute trace of DNA, they should go scot free?

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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?

Why not address my point first. You complained that the Marasca ruling was wrong because it was "paper law" and they relied a little on one of the foremost experts in the field Dr. Peter Gill and I pointed out that Carabanieri DNA expert said similar things in the Nencini trial and you ignored that. Why?

 

[Bill Williams]

So, anglo, a few posts ago you were ready to climb in bed with Machiavelli, although for the sake of modesty were going to sleep at a discrete distance.....

How's the bromance now that you have access to more of the translation?

 

[Vixen]

Why not address my point first. You complained that the Marasca ruling was wrong because it was "paper law" and they relied a little on one of the foremost experts in the field Dr. Peter Gill and I pointed out that Carabanieri DNA expert said similar things in the Nencini trial and you ignored that. Why?

You said:

In this case, for example, CandV cited Locard; the prosecution cited Balding. None of these people were cross-examined. Locard, of course is dead.

Remember? Whilst "Locard" might be shorthand case law, when illustrating case precedent, I don't think it's valid to pull "Gill" out of the hat, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to cross-examine him.

 

[acbytesla]

You said:



Remember? Whilst "Locard" might be shorthand case law, when illustrating case precedent, I don't think it's valid to pull "Gill" out of the hat, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to cross-examine him.

ACTUALLY....I DIDN'T SAY THAT. Your quoting someone else. My guess is Bill. And seriously, you don't know about Locard? Here, since you never seem to do any real research outside of the guilters sites.
Locard's exchange principle
In forensic science, Locard's exchange principle (sometimes simply Locard's principle) holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966)

There is more to it than this, but that is a basic summary.

NOW...Back to the point that both Dr. Gill and the Carabanieri lab agreed on and that was the importence of repeatability for tests to be considered reliable. Please address.

 

[Bill Williams]

ACTUALLY....I DIDN'T SAY THAT. Your quoting someone else. My guess is Bill

How did I get pulled into this? Me, I've taken the pledge about V*x*n.

 

[Kauffer]

You said:



Remember? Whilst "Locard" might be shorthand case law, when illustrating case precedent, I don't think it's valid to pull "Gill" out of the hat, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to cross-examine him.

You are taking nonsense - it was my post anyway that you cited, not tesla's - Peter Gill invented the processes abused by the Italians in this case alongside Alec Jeffries. This isn't about case law or precedent or "shorthand case law" - whatever you might think this to be. It's about prevailing scientific opinion with regard to method. The literature is cited profusely in science based reports submitted on behalf of both prosecution and defence in criminal trials, in the main body and in references and footnotes.

Indeed, it is Balding, as a scientist, who is the first one, you might argue, who should have been cross examined as he interpreted actual, submitted evidence in the case. He examined the clasp epg at the behest of the Italian forensic institute, using a software programme, something a recent court opinion from the U.S., stated was an unsound procedure. Balding was cited by Crini in closing before Nencini. But Balding is not a lab based forensic scientist and has little knowledge let alone expertise in matters relevant to this case. He did not know what EDFs are.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

This was actually a great discussion point in the Marsaca report. Marasca used this principle to discuss the DNA in the LCN context, where a partial profile is generated. Marasca stated, IIUC, that if a DNA profile only provides a partial profile, it lacks sufficient specificity to form a the basis of an acceptable fact in court. (But DNA tests are only partial tests anyway, right?).

I'm not sure Marasca "solved" the conundrum of how to deal with trace DNA at a crime scene, but I thought the discussion was a noble effort anyway.

Also interesting, was Marasca set Chieffi straight on this point. That in order to have confidence in a DNA result, it was the prosecution's burden to insure the DNA lab result was reliable. In cases of LCN, that required at least two if not 3 repeats. Since Stefanoni only had one non-repeatable event for both the bra and knife clasp, those results had to be rejected as evidence.

Marasca also dealt with the issue of importing results from Guede's trial, into the case against Amanda and Raf. This was hard to follow, but the sense I got was neither the findings from Guede's trial, nor the testimony of Guede, could be used against Amanda and Raf, since they didn't have a chance to fight it in the original setting. It was a weird position I thought, and I may not have understood it correctly. It seemed like the courts were free to establish these "facts", but the "facts" could not be used against other defendants in future cases. (Which btw, mirrors the principle of collateral estoppel in US courts).

Also, Marasca reasoned that Nencini was irrational for not suspecting Filomena and Laura, as much as Raffaele, since they also didn't know Rudy nor had ever met him, just like Raf. An unexpected flourish of rationality!

One of the most interesting points Marasca made, was that in a case with only circumstantial evidence such as this one, a motive is critical, and without which a guilty verdict cannot be sustained. Motive is what ties circumstantial evidence together into a coherent picture. Without a solid credible motive, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is precluded by law. (But crazy people think differently, so I don't know what to make of it, but there is a hint of sense in this thinking, no?)

Marasca listed all the issues on appeal at the outset of the opinion, and went through the issues methodically. I thought the discussion was really closely carefully reasoned. There were some unfortunate things, like saying there were multiple attackers - with no apparent evidence of any kind other than a previous judicial finding. And that as far as I can tell, the break-in was staged. (So Hellman said the break-in was real, and AK/RS not guilty because the crime did not occur. Marasca I think says the break-in was staged, but there is zero evidence it was staged by Amanda and Raf, so they are just not guilty of a crime that did occur, if I have it right).

I guess we desperately need a solid translation to really understand it. But I thought Marasca took on a lot of the logically flawed methods used by the lower courts, and did some heavy lifting in terms of getting Italy to resemble a modern judicial system again. On balance, I have to say I'm impressed with Marasca.

Oh, and referring to Dr Gill, as an expert in the field, who has written specifically on the failures in this case, is well within the traditions of courts citing expert scholarship to support their opinions. Happens all the time in the US.

 

[anglolawyer]

So, anglo, a few posts ago you were ready to climb in bed with Machiavelli, although for the sake of modesty were going to sleep at a discrete distance.....

How's the bromance now that you have access to more of the translation?

It's cooled a little. Perhaps if we weren't all so partisan we would be a little more objective. They seem to be saying very little but it amounts to a great deal: the evidence doesn't stack up. That's basically Grinder's line. He should feel vindicated.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also, Marasca reasoned that Nencini was irrational for not suspecting Filomena and Laura, as much as Raffaele, since they also didn't know Rudy nor had ever met him, just like Raf. An unexpected flourish of rationality!

This is the essence of suspect-centrism. The main reason why Filomena and Laura can be ruled out is because they are not suspects. The main reason to rule-in Raffaele is that he's the one on trial. I mean, how many times in this very thread read Machiavelli imply that Stefanoni's result were perhaps immune from criticism because, he said, "Stefanoni is not on trial here."

If what you've read/reasoned is remotely true, then Marasca is the only clear thinker in the whole of the Italian judiciary. Ok, ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the drift.....

One of the most interesting points Marasca made, was that in a case with only circumstantial evidence such as this one, a motive is critical, and without which a guilty verdict cannot be sustained. Motive is what ties circumstantial evidence together into a coherent picture. Without a solid credible motive, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is precluded by law. (But crazy people think differently, so I don't know what to make of it, but there is a hint of sense in this thinking, no?)

Thank goodness. Every time an innocentisti would cite any one of the ever changing motives as irrational, the fall-back position of guilters was to say, "Well, motive is not always necessary." The counter to that one was, "Well, then, why did the prosecution see a need to re-invent motive at every turn, as well as at-least two of the judges!?"

Now we know. Apparently the prosecutors and the convicting judges know something that the guilters do not - without a motive to unify an otherwise chaotic guilt-narrative, the narrative itself is not very stable. Again, if Marasca said this - that explains a whole bunch of stuff we've argued incessantly about in all these continuations!

Marasca listed all the issues on appeal at the outset of the opinion, and went through the issues methodically. I thought the discussion was really closely carefully reasoned. There were some unfortunate things, like saying there were multiple attackers - with no apparent evidence of any kind other than a previous judicial finding. And that as far as I can tell, the break-in was staged. (So Hellman said the break-in was real, and AK/RS not guilty because the crime did not occur. Marasca I think says the break-in was staged, but there is zero evidence it was staged by Amanda and Raf, so they are just not guilty of a crime that did occur, if I have it right).

I guess we desperately need a solid translation to really understand it. But I thought Marasca took on a lot of the logically flawed methods used by the lower courts, and did some heavy lifting in terms of getting Italy to resemble a modern judicial system again. On balance, I have to say I'm impressed with Marasca.

Perhaps even a double translation. One from Italian into English, and another to interpret Italian legalese.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's cooled a little. Perhaps if we weren't all so partisan we would be a little more objective. They seem to be saying very little but it amounts to a great deal: the evidence doesn't stack up. That's basically Grinder's line. He should feel vindicated.

O God.... you now want me to say something nice about Grinder! Talk about a Hobson's choice. Still, since the alternative is slipping between the sheets with M., bundling board firmly bolted to the mattress below, I may then risk having to buy coffee for that other young lad.

Sometimes you are really mean, A.L.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps even a double translation. One from Italian into English, and another to interpret Italian legalese.

I've said since the very beginning that the biggest problem is the language issue. The cops don't understand Amanda, she doesn't understand the cops. She is thinking in English and translating that into her beginning Italian. She is saying one thing, they are hearing another.

If there is one thing to learn from this is that communication is challenging even when you speak the same language. There are nuances, subtleties, implied words, slang, idioms. And people don't listen. They hear what they want or expect to hear. You read Amanda's memorials. One for sure she didn't write. No native English speaker speaks that way.

We few diehards trying to thoroughly understand every word of the motivation are struggling. This has been one of the prime reasons for this farce.

 

[Grinder]

There is nothing about the cardboard box in the bit I proofed but the knife is pretty well demolished and not just because of the DNA but also because of the absurdity of the whole idea that she would lug that knife around.

ETA and they definitely don't say this. Not in the part I read. They are quite judicial and proper - you can't draw inferences from poorly-collected evidence nor does such evidence give you leave to speculate on what conclusions would have been reached but for the cock ups.

Here's one report the mere rabble have access to:

According to the court document, the main basis for the acquittal was that the police and prosecutors were responsible for "stunning weakness" and "investigative bouts of amnesia."

It also called to task the lack of biological evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the scene of the crime. As such, they should not have been held responsible for the killing.

"There was no shortage of glaring errors in the underlying fabric of the sentence in question," the court document read.

The court also found issue with the alleged murder weapon, which was a kitchen knife that was found in Sollecito's house contained in a cardboard box, and a bra clasp which was said to have carried DNA evidence but was left on the floor for 46 days.


and

The high court said: “The kitchen knife, found in Sollecito’s house and the supposed crime weapon, was kept in an ordinary cardboard box, like the kind that Christmas gadgets are packaged in”. In 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ruled that the case be returned for retrial.

and

It also wrote that the Florence appeals court which convicted them last year ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

"The kitchen knife, found in Sollecito's house and the supposed crime weapon, was kept in an ordinary cardboard box, like the kind that Christmas gadgets are packaged in," the Cassation judges noted. In any case, no traces of blood were found on it, they wrote.

Examples of investigative ineptitude abound in the report.

 

[Desert Fox]

I've said since the very beginning that the biggest problem is the language issue. The cops don't understand Amanda, she doesn't understand the cops. She is thinking in English and translating that into her beginning Italian. She is saying one thing, they are hearing another.

If there is one thing to learn from this is that communication is challenging even when you speak the same language. There are nuances, subtleties, implied words, slang, idioms. And people don't listen. They hear what they want or expect to hear. You read Amanda's memorials. One for sure she didn't write. No native English speaker speaks that way.

We few diehards trying to thoroughly understand every word of the motivation are struggling. This has been one of the prime reasons for this farce.

I was thinking that one could have even issues where due to little idiosyncrasies in language, even a British person could get in hot water in the United States as a result. . . . .Boot, flat, jab are all slang/terms we don't really use in the United States.

How well versed even was their translator come intercessor even?