Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Please supply the citation from an official Italian source for this. I would like to know the CPP article, Constitutional Court decision, or CSC court decision that established this principle.

Yes Sir!
But in addition to these learned definitions of the method of assessing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court has also suggested to the merit judge how to conduct the evaluation of multiple pieces of evidence of a circumstantial character. The Court has established [9] that “the rule articulated in the initial statement of C.P.P. Article 192, according to which ‘the existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstances’ — based, in rational terms, on the inherent ambiguity of circumstances themselves [ancorata, sul piano razionale, all’equivocità ontologicamente propria degli indizi], which enables them to be placed in (direct or inverse) causal relationships, with a multiplicity of causes or effects — serves to signify that [a single] circumstance is considered inadequate on its own to establish the facts [assicurare l’accertamento dei fatti].

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item’s] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability. [The judge] must, finally, proceed to the final synthesis, ascertaining whether the items under examination are consistent [concordanti], i.e. whether they can be linked to a single cause or a single effect, so that the existence or nonexistence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

From Galati appeal.

 

[Numbers]

Yes Sir!
But in addition to these learned definitions of the method of assessing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court has also suggested to the merit judge how to conduct the evaluation of multiple pieces of evidence of a circumstantial character. The Court has established [9] that “the rule articulated in the initial statement of C.P.P. Article 192, according to which ‘the existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstances’ — based, in rational terms, on the inherent ambiguity of circumstances themselves [ancorata, sul piano razionale, all’equivocità ontologicamente propria degli indizi], which enables them to be placed in (direct or inverse) causal relationships, with a multiplicity of causes or effects — serves to signify that [a single] circumstance is considered inadequate on its own to establish the facts [assicurare l’accertamento dei fatti].

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item’s] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability. [The judge] must, finally, proceed to the final synthesis, ascertaining whether the items under examination are consistent [concordanti], i.e. whether they can be linked to a single cause or a single effect, so that the existence or nonexistence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

From Galati appeal.

Grinder,

Thank you for this.

However, as you point out, the statement "the gravity ... is inversely proportional to the number of such connections" is from an appeal, and its not clear that Galati is quoting from a legal authority on this, rather than suggesting it as a prosecution view.

Also, and perhaps this is a translation issue or I am reading this incorrectly, but as it is written, the clause seems to indicate that the more connections there are, the less each one is valued; that really makes no sense. More sensibly, the "seriousness", "precision", "consistency", truthfulness, or meaning of the connections must be understood and valued individually. Then those that meet the criteria of CPP Art. 192 may be summed, excluding the evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law (CPP Art. 191), including statements by persons who have legally refused to testify and court decisions based on such statements (Italian Constitution, Art. 111; Marasca CSC panel, Knox-Sollecito case motivation report and references therein).

 

[Grinder]

First of all, how does the defense know if prints were matched or not? Trust Stefanoni or her colleages or bosses? Don't you remember Prosecutor Comodi say "we decide what to show (reveal to) the defense" (and what to conceal)?

The cottage was a rental property rented by Filomena and Laura two months before the murder. They rented two bedrooms to Amanda and Meredith. It is not surprising if there are prints in Meredith's room from earlier tenants and visitors or then-current tenants and visitors. So why does the presence of prints indicate more than one person was there the evening of Nov 1 when the murder occurred?

Did the police get reference prints from earlier tenants and visitors, from Meredith's "boyfriend" Giacomo, the other guys downstairs, as well as from Filomena, Laura, Marco, Laura's handyman boyfriend, as well as any other male and female who was known to have visited the upstairs flat? How did the match go?

You can't match fingerprints, footprints, putative semen stains, etc. unless you have similar to match. Otherwise, you have unmatched prints.

Did the authorities really try, did they do so in a competent, valid way? They should have paid another consulting fee to the scientific police official who "matched" the foot smear on the bath mat to Raffaele's foot - he can claim a match to just about anyone. I question whether the authorities really tried to match prints in any serious, scientifically-valid way.

Even had they matched prints, the next question is does it have probative value? Were the prints created the evening of the murder?

Nothing shows that another person was there with Rudi, except for the victim.

They could have come from your list or an accomplice of Rudi's.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Thank you for this.

However, as you point out, the statement "the gravity ... is inversely proportional to the number of such connections" is from an appeal, and its not clear that Galati is quoting from a legal authority on this, rather than suggesting it as a prosecution view.

Also, and perhaps this is a translation issue or I am reading this incorrectly, but as it is written, the clause seems to indicate that the more connections there are, the less each one is valued; that really makes no sense. More sensibly, the "seriousness", "precision", "consistency", truthfulness, or meaning of the connections must be understood and valued individually. Then those that meet the criteria of CPP Art. 192 may be summed, excluding the evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law (CPP Art. 191), including statements by persons who have legally refused to testify and court decisions based on such statements (Italian Constitution, Art. 111; Marasca CSC panel, Knox-Sollecito case motivation report and references therein).

The more connections the less valuable the evidence makes total sense. It means the more explanations for a piece of circumstantial the less it can point to one conclusion. If the luminol prints had been determined to be in Meredith's blood then clearly someone there the night of the murder left them. But they weren't in blood much less Meredith's and therefore the evidence losses value, because it could be cleaning products or fruit juice or even extremely diluted blood from one of Strzzi's former roommate theory.

In the case of Kokomani perhaps being with Rudi the night of the burglary/murder it adds another connection to the multiple killer circumstantial evidence. The other DNAs and fingerprints not identified add to the number of connections to the multiple killer "evidence".

 

[Grinder]

Koko gave ID evidence. It is well known that ID evidence has more weight when the person identified is known already to the witness. Therefore, there was considerable value in proving he knew Guede and that Guede, who disputed that fact, was lying about it. Your credulousness on this stands in contrast to your hyper-critical take on Tramontano's ID evidence.

Oh Anglo the two are so different. CT wasn't identifying anything to do with the crime. He never was sure that it was Rudi.

Who do you think worked to prove Koko knew Rudi? Do you think Mignini wasted a minute on it? Did the kids' defense team do anything about it before it became a judicial truth? Certainly there is as much evidence that Koko knew Rudi as Amanda knew Rudi and way more than Raf knowing Rudi.

Which case would you rather prove, that Rudi knew Raf or that Rudi knew Koko?

Koko's story doesn't interest me but his presence does and should interest the kids' defense because it gives another connection to the multiple killer circumstantial evidence. Why rely on he did it as a "lone wolf".

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Anglo the two are so different. CT wasn't identifying anything to do with the crime. He never was sure that it was Rudi.

Who do you think worked to prove Koko knew Rudi? Do you think Mignini wasted a minute on it? Did the kids' defense team do anything about it before it became a judicial truth? Certainly there is as much evidence that Koko knew Rudi as Amanda knew Rudi and way more than Raf knowing Rudi.

Which case would you rather prove, that Rudi knew Raf or that Rudi knew Koko?

Koko's story doesn't interest me but his presence does and should interest the kids' defense because it gives another connection to the multiple killer circumstantial evidence. Why rely on he did it as a "lone wolf".

For one thing, it is not about "rely(ing) on" it. It's a matter of what the proof is that he was even there. I should have not made my, "just for laughs" post (apologies for it) - the simple matter is, there is nothing really that suggests:

1) multiple attackers, other than the fetish to squeeze AK and RS into that room
2) in the most remote of possibilities that there might have been multiple attackers, that any positive I.D. could be made based on the evidence
3) where the evidence, past the initial collection which pointed to Rudy and Rudy alone, is hopelessly mangled, as per Marasca's description.​

In this state of affairs, judicial truth or no judicial truth, saying anything more than "Rudy did it," is needless speculation awash with agenda.

 

[Grinder]

For one thing, it is not about "rely(ing) on" it. It's a matter of what the proof is that he was even there. I should have not made my, "just for laughs" post (apologies for it) - the simple matter is, there is nothing really that suggests:

1) multiple attackers, other than the fetish to squeeze AK and RS into that room
2) in the most remote of possibilities that there might have been multiple attackers, that any positive I.D. could be made based on the evidence
3) where the evidence, past the initial collection which pointed to Rudy and Rudy alone, is hopelessly mangled, as per Marasca's description.​

In this state of affairs, judicial truth or no judicial truth, saying anything more than "Rudy did it," is needless speculation awash with agenda.

Thanks for the laugh

Let's stipulate that you are correct about the multiple attack being part of the Mignini fetish. I actually believe that they believe there were more than one and I believe Cheli's read of M&B is correct, but we'll put that all aside.

There is no reason to limit the argument to there was only one attacker. The point is to raise the doubt to the highest level. Let's say, as I believe, Rudi and Koko did know each other a little over the years. Koko's phone was pinged near the cottage and he says he was near the cottage and IIRC his car matched a car seen by the tow truck or the car people. I'm pretty sure that Koko could be put into having contact with some unsavory Albanians.

We know he was later convicted of dealing coke.

When a case is purely circumstantial as M&B state with no direct evidence then it is incumbent on the defense to create as many scenarios for the various points of circumstantial evidence as possible.

I'm not sure if the defense mentioned though I think they did, the drug issues in the neighborhood and it could have been a local user - actually that might have been an early police or media theory.

So we have a convicted drug dealer (at this time) whose phone is pinged in the neighborhood of the cottage, that says he knew or at least recognized Rudi, says he was there, tells an unbelievable fable and his car may have been spotted, why not point to him as a possible 2nd man and driver for Rudi and the third man?

 

[Vixen]

First of all, how does the defense know if prints were matched or not? Trust Stefanoni or her colleages or bosses? Don't you remember Prosecutor Comodi say "we decide what to show (reveal to) the defense" (and what to conceal)?

The cottage was a rental property rented by Filomena and Laura two months before the murder. They rented two bedrooms to Amanda and Meredith. It is not surprising if there are prints in Meredith's room from earlier tenants and visitors or then-current tenants and visitors. So why does the presence of prints indicate more than one person was there the evening of Nov 1 when the murder occurred?

Did the police get reference prints from earlier tenants and visitors, from Meredith's "boyfriend" Giacomo, the other guys downstairs, as well as from Filomena, Laura, Marco, Laura's handyman boyfriend, as well as any other male and female who was known to have visited the upstairs flat? How did the match go?

You can't match fingerprints, footprints, putative semen stains, etc. unless you have similar to match. Otherwise, you have unmatched prints.

Did the authorities really try, did they do so in a competent, valid way? They should have paid another consulting fee to the scientific police official who "matched" the foot smear on the bath mat to Raffaele's foot - he can claim a match to just about anyone. I question whether the authorities really tried to match prints in any serious, scientifically-valid way.

Even had they matched prints, the next question is does it have probative value? Were the prints created the evening of the murder?

Nothing shows that another person was there with Rudi, except for the victim.

They found bloodsoaked tissues in the bushes.

 

[Vixen]

What physical evidence is there of a second assailant in the house? How did he gain entry?

Footprints in luminol. Came in with Amanda through the front door.

 

[Numbers]

The more connections the less valuable the evidence makes total sense. It means the more explanations for a piece of circumstantial the less it can point to one conclusion. If the luminol prints had been determined to be in Meredith's blood then clearly someone there the night of the murder left them. But they weren't in blood much less Meredith's and therefore the evidence losses value, because it could be cleaning products or fruit juice or even extremely diluted blood from one of Strzzi's former roommate theory.

In the case of Kokomani perhaps being with Rudi the night of the burglary/murder it adds another connection to the multiple killer circumstantial evidence. The other DNAs and fingerprints not identified add to the number of connections to the multiple killer "evidence".

Yes, if "connections" means that the evidence is not precise and specific, that it could have more than one probable meaning, than it is indeed not acceptable for concluding a fact, in accordance with CPP 192. Even one probable alternative explanation could render a piece of evidence valueless.

 

[Vixen]

Koko gave ID evidence. It is well known that ID evidence has more weight when the person identified is known already to the witness. Therefore, there was considerable value in proving he knew Guede and that Guede, who disputed that fact, was lying about it. Your credulousness on this stands in contrast to your hyper-critical take on Tramontano's ID evidence.

Not only that, Kokomani significantly claimed to have heard a individual yelling from inside the house.

For a police investigator that would be a very interesting thing to say. When Amanda claimed Mez screamed before she was killed and that she heard "thuds", the highly trained examiners will have been on high alert.

 

[Vixen]

I long ago gave up trying to follow -- or even make sense of -- this thread, but I note that it's still going strong. So I propose a dance-off:

1/ The people who still hold the belief that Amanda and Raffaele had anything at all to do with Meredith's death: summarize your evidence point-by-point, particularly citing errors you think were made by the two Italian courts that determined there is no evidence against them;

2/ Others who disagree: respond point-by-point.

Start the ball rolling, Bob001!

 

[Grinder]

They found bloodsoaked tissues in the bushes.

whose blood?

 

[Vixen]

Were they hovering in the air in Meredith's bedroom, so as to leave no physical evidence? Or do you believe that since Stefanoni allowed Meredith's bra clasp to lie on the floor for 47 days, get stepped on, and end up under a rug, then picked it up and handled it with her dirty gloves, tested it her special way, and then destroy it in moisture so it cannot be independently examined - does that convince you that the trace sample DNA on the bra clasp is proof of multiple attackers?

There is no law that says you have to leave evidence when you commit a crime.

However, in accordance with Locard, a bra clasp covered with Raff's DNA was found.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for the laugh

Let's stipulate that you are correct about the multiple attack being part of the Mignini fetish. I actually believe that they believe there were more than one and I believe Cheli's read of M&B is correct, but we'll put that all aside.

There is no reason to limit the argument to there was only one attacker. The point is to raise the doubt to the highest level. Let's say, as I believe, Rudi and Koko did know each other a little over the years. Koko's phone was pinged near the cottage and he says he was near the cottage and IIRC his car matched a car seen by the tow truck or the car people. I'm pretty sure that Koko could be put into having contact with some unsavory Albanians.

We know he was later convicted of dealing coke.

When a case is purely circumstantial as M&B state with no direct evidence then it is incumbent on the defense to create as many scenarios for the various points of circumstantial evidence as possible.

I'm not sure if the defense mentioned though I think they did, the drug issues in the neighborhood and it could have been a local user - actually that might have been an early police or media theory.

So we have a convicted drug dealer (at this time) whose phone is pinged in the neighborhood of the cottage, that says he knew or at least recognized Rudi, says he was there, tells an unbelievable fable and his car may have been spotted, why not point to him as a possible 2nd man and driver for Rudi and the third man?

There perhaps is no reason not to point to him. But other than pointing to him, what is there, really, to go whole hog on, he was the wheel man for the murder, if not one of the multiple attackers?

There's just nothing - other than the well trod speculative path that at least three courts in Italy (one each in Perugia, Rome, and Florence) used rather than rely on evidence-based reasoning.

 

[Strozzi]

They found bloodsoaked tissues in the bushes.

OK, the police recovered tissues with blood on them. If the blood was fresh, it certainly might be connected to the murder. If the blood is not fresh, it would not be and would have no probative value. There is a moisture test to show how recent the blood is. What were the results of the test? They DID DO THE TEST, didn't they - or is this yet another instance of the police failing to properly test evidence?

Did Prosecutor Mignini introduce this in court? He DID make it part of his case, didn't he? If not, why do you think he failed to do that? Did he want to conceal Rudi's involvement?

 

[Strozzi]

whose blood?

I hope it wasn't cat blood. That poor cat took more than its share of blame for the murder.

 

[Vixen]

The more connections the less valuable the evidence makes total sense. It means the more explanations for a piece of circumstantial the less it can point to one conclusion. If the luminol prints had been determined to be in Meredith's blood then clearly someone there the night of the murder left them. But they weren't in blood much less Meredith's and therefore the evidence losses value, because it could be cleaning products or fruit juice or even extremely diluted blood from one of Strzzi's former roommate theory.

In the case of Kokomani perhaps being with Rudi the night of the burglary/murder it adds another connection to the multiple killer circumstantial evidence. The other DNAs and fingerprints not identified add to the number of connections to the multiple killer "evidence".

That's right. This is why it is critical to get the charges right and get the pleading absolutely correct. For example if all the evidence points to manslaughter, there's no point charging for murder, as the perp would simply get off scot free.

 

[Grinder]

There is no law that says you have to leave evidence when you commit a crime.

However, in accordance with Locard, a bra clasp covered with Raff's DNA was found.

So you have to agree that Kokomani or another man he drove to the cottage could have been involved and not left evidence that the ISC found or if they found it neglected to identify to whom it belonged. Out of the hundreds of unidentified pieces surely one of them could belong to the Albanian killer.

 

[Vixen]

whose blood?

This was the DNA from a couple they never found.

As Raff pleaded for police to "search the bushes for the murder knife"; and lo! a butterknife was found, I expect it was cleverly planted by Raff himself.