Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

But he was wrong when he inferred that he was unreliable because of this. Such inference itself is illogical (as estblished by Chieffi).

By itself yes, but evidentiary points are taken together and form a whole. Hellmann in no way excluded Quintavalle solely because he waited a year to come forward.

But Quintavalle already told Massei that he still did not feel 100% sure about it after seeing the newspaper photo, and he did not want to report things to the police because he didn't want to become a witness.
Based on Quintavalle's statements, Massei found that his explanations were plausible and that Quintavalle was a credible witness.
Massei's reasoning is logical, Hellmann's is not.

Why? Because you think so? Chieffi thinks so? That's weighing on the evidence. The Hellmann court thought failing to mention the ID around the time of the murder to the police when they were asking about her being in the store near the time of the murder was a sign of unreliability. This is a legitimate finding, whether you want to pretend it is or not.

Chieffi finds Hellmann was omissive and apparently dishonest on this. Hellmann omits to report that, albeit Chiriboga didn't see Knox in the shop, yet she did confirm Quintavalle's story in the part where he remembers of talking with his employees about having seen the girl, and asks them whethr they saw her too.

Her testimony is ambiguous. There is no date for when this allegedly happened. This was never established as having happened on the 2nd. I think it happened on the 15th after the police left, when he was talking to Chirboga about the incident (the police interview) and was on the same subject, he offhand asked her if she saw Amanda.

The Supreme Court explained very well why Hellmann was wrong

...
......

Chieffi was transparent following the rules, they did not assess Quintavalle as a witness but focused on the unlawful reasons reasons brought by Hellmann,

I agree that Chieffi et al are experts on Italian law, and painstakingly crafted their report to give the appearance of reasoning about procedures and not about evidence. But it is obvious to any sensible observer that it is a show, a performance. And it didn't fool anybody.

 

[Grinder]

So it would be effectively of no practical value or meaning. Why not just say it is of no practical value? It's because effective is a weasel word.

But there are many meanings for moot and I'd like to know what was meant.

As you can imagine I really don't care that you are toeing the current PIP line on this. It sure was important a year ago when you all thought it was a one. It wasn't effectively moot back then.

I don't think "moot" is a "weasel" word at all. I am surprised that you think that. As to what you think of me. I too find that also to be "moot".

Tesla read the posts slowly. I said "effective" is a weasel word not moot.

I have tried to say nicely that your opinion on this is worthless as you can only be guessing. It may be the OP will effectively agree with you. I would have preferred his own words.

 

[Machiavelli]

Although I am claiming he is lying, I am not the court. The court is not claiming that he is lying, merely that he is unreliable. This is well established and well supported. This is another incidence of the PGP trying to reverse the burden of proof. Prove an invisible flying spaghetti monster isn't watching over us?

This is where you are mistaken. Witnesses don't have to "prove" things to you. For whoever claims a witness is lying, the burden of proof is n the claimant.
There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that.

You are obscuring the timeline. He saw Knox in the newspaper just after the arrest. This would have been the 7th or so. This is when he claims he recognized her as the girl that was in his shop.

Sorry, I just got a point in the timeline wrong. First Quintavalle saw the newspaper photo (not the one with the cap on her face, obviously, since she is not recognizable there) and realized the girl and Knox could be the same person. But he did not feel 100% sure about it, and did't tell the police.
But, let's not forget it, he also didn't lie to the police, since the police admits they did't ask Quintavalle the specific question of whether Knox entered her shop in the days before the murder or the day of the murder.

Then the police came in on the 15th with her photo in connection to the murder investigation, and we're supposed to believe that when the police were holding a photo of Knox, who he recognized right in front of his face, in questioning related to the murder, that he failed to mention to them that he had seen this girl on the 2nd, even though he already recognized her as the girl from the 2nd from an earlier newspaper photo.

Yes, or better, Massei thought that a judge would be supposed to, because the reasons he presented are plausible.
On the other hand, you also need to bear in mind that also the alternative scenario needs to be backed by some reason and evidence, and needs to be plausible. If the alternative hypothesys is that Quintavalle is lying, well then you would need to figure out plausible motive why a witness would decide to place false evidence against someone, there needs to be a logical explanation, it has to make sense.

In the universe of witnesses there are mythomaniacs and liar, there are false memories and autosuggestion, and there is nothing like a concept of 100% reliability in almost any piece of evidence actually. But you need evidence of such things. You can assume someone is a mythomaniac only when there is evidence, if the witness is intrinsically not credible this has to be shown, there must be a reason, evidence of that.

Quintavalle is a reluctant witness. The law doesn't say witnesses need to be model citizens, or good or honest people, or well educated, or intelligent, or always sincere, or healthy, or have a good sight, or good memory, or mentally sane, or be positive individuals or have a god lifestyle. The only requirement to assume reliability is that there is no significant evidence of the contrary. When one wants to assume a witness is unreliable, needs to point to a reason and a logical, plausible scenario for that.

This is why Hellmann tossed his testimony in the trash, which is exactly where it belongs.

Hellmann brought no valid reason. The reasons he raised are either a twisting the content of testimonies (based on dishonest omissions and cherry picking), or inference from non-existent grounds (like the fact that he didn't come forward for a year).

The fact that there is "something blue" in Knox's photo where she is not wearing a scarf and not wearing a coat is not evidence against Quintavalle, I think you know that.

 

[bagels]

There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that.

Nobody has ever claimed he is unreliable for no reason.

He is unreliable for the following reasons:

1. The police held a photo of Amanda Knox right in front of his face and specifically asked if he saw her around the time of the murder or just after.

2. He told the police he did not.

3. He later claimed that by the time the police showed him the photo, he had already recognized Knox in the newspaper as a girl that was in his shop. But he didn't mention this to the police.

4. His employees saw nothing.

5. His story that Amanda came in, stood around like a phantom, and vanished without buying anything, makes little sense.

6. He claimed the police never showed him a photo of Knox or asked about her. The police did in fact show him a photo and he confirmed to his own employee they asked about her.

7. He waited a year to come forward with this story, then claimed it was so remarkable for him that he still had a strong memory of it right down to being able to describe her clothes a year later (Popovich who actually spoke with Amanda that night couldn't describe any of Amanda's clothes in any way). And yet he didn't mention any of this to the police officer in his shop asking him about it.

It's caso chiuso. Stop talking about it. Stop pretending like Hellmann was grossly negligent in his examination of the witness. Stop it!

 

[Bill Williams]

There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that.

Read Bagels' response. Nice strawman, though.

Hellmann brought no valid reason. The reasons he raised are either a twisting the content of testimonies (based on dishonest omissions and cherry picking), or inference from non-existent grounds (like the fact that he didn't come forward for a year).

The fact that there is "something blue" in Knox's photo where she is not wearing a scarf and not wearing a coat is not evidence against Quintavalle, I think you know that.

It's hard to know where to start in pointing out your nonsense.

If you're trying to make a case against Hellmann, at least try to use some logical grounds. But saying that Quintavalle waiting a year to come forward is a "non-existent" ground is all one really needs to read about your ability to assess things.

Mach - your reasoning is lost. There is no one in Italy bringing disciplinary or criminal charges against Bruno/Marasca. Nor even Hellman or Wladimiro De Nunzio. Yes, we've read dozens of your predictions that that is coming.

 

[acbytesla]

This is where you are mistaken. Witnesses don't have to "prove" things to you. For whoever claims a witness is lying, the burden of proof is n the claimant.
There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that.

Sorry, I just got a point in the timeline wrong. First Quintavalle saw the newspaper photo (not the one with the cap on her face, obviously, since she is not recognizable there) and realized the girl and Knox could be the same person. But he did not feel 100% sure about it, and did't tell the police.
But, let's not forget it, he also didn't lie to the police, since the police admits they did't ask Quintavalle the specific question of whether Knox entered her shop in the days before the murder or the day of the murder.



Yes, or better, Massei thought that a judge would be supposed to, because the reasons he presented are plausible.
On the other hand, you also need to bear in mind that also the alternative scenario needs to be backed by some reason and evidence, and needs to be plausible. If the alternative hypothesys is that Quintavalle is lying, well then you would need to figure out plausible motive why a witness would decide to place false evidence against someone, there needs to be a logical explanation, it has to make sense.

In the universe of witnesses there are mythomaniacs and liar, there are false memories and autosuggestion, and there is nothing like a concept of 100% reliability in almost any piece of evidence actually. But you need evidence of such things. You can assume someone is a mythomaniac only when there is evidence, if the witness is intrinsically not credible this has to be shown, there must be a reason, evidence of that.

Quintavalle is a reluctant witness. The law doesn't say witnesses need to be model citizens, or good or honest people, or well educated, or intelligent, or always sincere, or healthy, or have a good sight, or good memory, or mentally sane, or be positive individuals or have a god lifestyle. The only requirement to assume reliability is that there is no significant evidence of the contrary. When one wants to assume a witness is unreliable, needs to point to a reason and a logical, plausible scenario for that.



Hellmann brought no valid reason. The reasons he raised are either a twisting the content of testimonies (based on dishonest omissions and cherry picking), or inference from non-existent grounds (like the fact that he didn't come forward for a year).
The fact that there is "something blue" in Knox's photo where she is not wearing a scarf and not wearing a coat is not evidence against Quintavalle, I think you know that.

Wow, are those deluded remarks. That YOU don't find his reasons to be valid is what you mean. I think the majority of people would find his reasons to very valid. Hell, the fact that a year had gone by in the one of if not the biggest and most publicized murder cases in Perugian or modern Italian history would be enough. Then there is the fact that Volturno questioned him only days after the murder. That his own employees said Quintavalle was mistaken. That his story makes no sense because there were cleaning supplies at both the cottage and Raffaele's apartment. That Quintavalle's story makes zero sense and NOTHING was bought.

Quintavalle is a joke. Too bad it's not funny.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla read the posts slowly. I said "effective" is a weasel word not moot.

I have tried to say nicely that your opinion on this is worthless as you can only be guessing. It may be the OP will effectively agree with you. I would have preferred his own words.

I still disagree with you. I know, you think my opinon is effectively moot.

 

[Machiavelli]

By itself yes, but evidentiary points are taken together and form a whole. Hellmann in no way excluded Quintavalle solely because he waited a year to come forward.

Why? Because you think so? Chieffi thinks so? That's weighing on the evidence. The Hellmann court thought failing to mention the ID around the time of the murder to the police when they were asking about her being in the store near the time of the murder was a sign of unreliability. This is a legitimate finding, whether you want to pretend it is or not.

It is illogical, because all alternative scenarios need to be compared and rationale must be given. A scenario of Quintavalle who changes idea as he decides to place false evidence against someone, needs to be explained in a way that makes sense, consistent with reality, if there is no evidence at least there needs to be evidence of a motive. There is nothing, no alternative scenario.
The fact that a witness is reluctant instead, is most common an typical of the Italian context. To assume Quintavalle did't feel like telling additional things it makes perfect sense, it's common and usual; to assume that he decided to tell lies and make up a testimony placing false evidence, it's quite bizarre and would require evidence.

Anyway, at first you stated that it was "transparent" that he lied, and this is false. Not talking about something he was not asked about is not lying, and it is especially justifiable if it's true that he didn't fel 100% certain about the identity of the girl, as he declared.
Don't forget he said that after he saw the newspaper photo he still did't fel 100% certain. It's important not to miss this point. He said he became certain about the girl's identity only later on, actually he said he became 100% certain when he saw Knox in the courtroom.

Her testimony is ambiguous. There is no date for when this allegedly happened. This was never established as having happened on the 2nd. I think it happened on the 15th after the police left, when he was talking to Chirboga about the incident (the police interview) and was on the same subject, he offhand asked her if she saw Amanda.

Her testimony is ambiguous, it migh well have happened on the 15th after the police left, but this doesn't make it evidence that Quintavalle is a liar. There is just no evidence of that.
And the burden of proof is reversed, remember, Chieffi's lesson is to stick to the rules. The judge needs to provide adequate reasons.
Still, the testimony of Chiriboga tends to support the testimony of Quintavalle: it points ot that a girl may have actually entered his shop and he was thinking about her identity.

I agree that Chieffi et al are experts on Italian law, and painstakingly crafted their report to give the appearance of reasoning about procedures and not about evidence. But it is obvious to any sensible observer that it is a show, a performance. And it didn't fool anybody.

The Sureme Court doesn't make rule about procedures, it rules about legitimacy. It's a wider concept. It includes dealing also with evidence of the case, but on condition that is ionly indirectly, from the point of view of legitimacy, not about the merits of the evidence. The Court has to rule on the way the judge builds its reasoning, the focus is on the way he processed evidence, it cannot be about the evidence alone, and there can't be any finding in the merits.
If you acknowledge Chieffi are experts and did a good job and followed the law, this equates to admit Bruno/Marasca were unlawful.
Let's not forget another point: Chieffi is definitive, therefore Bruno/Marasca committed a violation not only because they made findigns of merits, but just because they ruled again and contradicted the points made by Chieffi. This fact alone is a violation of art. 627 and owtlaws them.

 

[sept79]

Nobody has ever claimed he is unreliable for no reason.

He is unreliable for the following reasons:

1. The police held a photo of Amanda Knox right in front of his face and specifically asked if he saw her around the time of the murder or just after.

2. He told the police he did not.

3. He later claimed that by the time the police showed him the photo, he had already recognized Knox in the newspaper as a girl that was in his shop. But he didn't mention this to the police.

4. His employees saw nothing.

5. His story that Amanda came in, stood around like a phantom, and vanished without buying anything, makes little sense.

6. He claimed the police never showed him a photo of Knox or asked about her. The police did in fact show him a photo and he confirmed to his own employee they asked about her.

7. He waited a year to come forward with this story, then claimed it was so remarkable for him that he still had a strong memory of it right down to being able to describe her clothes a year later (Popovich who actually spoke with Amanda that night couldn't describe any of Amanda's clothes in any way). The clothes that he claimed she was wearing in his shop could not have been correct because the coat was given to her 4 or 5 hours later by Raf because she was cold. And yet he didn't mention any of this to the police officer in his shop asking him about it.

It's caso chiuso. Stop talking about it. Stop pretending like Hellmann was grossly negligent in his examination of the witness. Stop it!

Bagels, I added the highlighted phrase to your post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nobody has ever claimed he is unreliable for no reason.

He is unreliable for the following reasons:

1. The police held a photo of Amanda Knox right in front of his face and specifically asked if he saw her around the time of the murder or just after.

Inspector Volturno stated "no", he didn't ask specifically that. He said he asked whether AK & RS were habitual customers, and whether they bought something the day of the murder of just after.
Quintavalle says he doesn't remember being shown photos by the police. Is this sufficient for making a scenario of him placing false accusations become plausible? I think not.

2. He told the police he did not.

It's incorrect. Volturno noted Quintavalle saying he saw Amanda Knox two or three times in his shop.

3. He later claimed that by the time the police showed him the photo, he had already recognized Knox in the newspaper as a girl that was in his shop. But he didn't mention this to the police.

He also said he didn't feel 100% sure the lone girl was Knox, and said he didn't like the idea of becoming a witness.
Please note that those admissions were assessed by Massei and others as evidence that the witness was reliable.
In other words, the fact that the witness was reluctant to talk, and that he hid information from the police can be considered a sign of credibility. This seems to be another point that you might miss.

4. His employees saw nothing.

But they also admitted they were not there.

5. His story that Amanda came in, stood around like a phantom, and vanished without buying anything, makes little sense.

Well this is really just your opinion. This is not exactly what Quintavalle said, first of all. He said he could see her from less then 1 meter away, he was at the cash register so she might well have bought something, he says she could have, he only has no memory about it.
It makes a lot of sense actually from the viewpoint of the peculiarities of the case: the body discovery begins in the context of a remarkable presence of mops, stories about cleaning rags and cleaning devices, there are murderers who washed in the bathroom, there are islated prints and bathmat-shuffling stories.

6. He claimed the police never showed him a photo of Knox or asked about her. The police did in fact show him a photo and he confirmed to his own employee they asked about her.

Answered above.

7. He waited a year to come forward with this story, then claimed it was so remarkable for him that he still had a strong memory of it right down to being able to describe her clothes a year later (Popovich who actually spoke with Amanda that night couldn't describe any of Amanda's clothes in any way). And yet he didn't mention any of this to the police officer in his shop asking him about it.

Coming out after a year can be seen a sign of credibility within the context. On the other hand it would be very difficult to explain why he would come out and lie after a year. So this is no argument too. The burden of proof is really revrsed here: you would need a plausible explanation why if you want to put forward a scenario that Quintavalle decides to come out a year later and lie. Why?
It is very easy to explain why he remained silent for a long time and hid information, it's so commone, so many witnesses do so, and he's Perugian: no explanation is required. It is not that easy to explain why he would come out to tell a lie.
Quintavalle described some clothing but this is hardly evidence that his testimony is false. He says he has a visual type of memory (while Popovich is a musician) he remembered well the scarf but was less certain about its colour. It's unclear to me why he would make up a scarf, that Knox may not have. He also said the girl was wearing jeans, and I'm not sure there were pictures of Knox with jeans.

It's caso chiuso. Stop talking about it. Stop pretending like Hellmann was grossly negligent in his examination of the witness. Stop it!

What ?

 

[bagels]

Inspector Volturno stated "no", he didn't ask specifically that. He said he asked whether AK & RS were habitual customers, and whether they bought something the day of the murder of just after.

This is semantic bickering. The cop is asking about Amanda being in the shop in connection with the murder. Quintavalle specifically doesn't mention Amanda being in his shop at any time around the murder despite it being supposedly fresh in his mind from recently recognizing her in the newspaper photo.

Quintavalle says he doesn't remember being shown photos by the police. Is this sufficient for making a scenario of him placing false accusations become plausible? I think not.

It raises a couple issues. One is the reliability of his memory. He remembers what a girl he saw for two seconds was wearing a year later, he remembers seeing her in the newspaper, but he doesn't remember being shown pictures of her by the police? When it would have been a rather remarkable moment, the very girl he thinks he saw in his shop the morning after the murder, and he thinks he recognized in a newspaper photo, is now being presented to him by the police who are directly asking about her? And he doesn't remember this? It's hard to believe and adds to his unreliability. It is compatible with him not taking the police interview as notable - because at the time nothing about the case was on his mind - because at the time he had not yet made up the story of Amanda being in his shop.

He also said he didn't feel 100% sure the lone girl was Knox, and said he didn't like the idea of becoming a witness.
Please note that those admissions were assessed by Massei and others as evidence that the witness was reliable.
In other words, the fact that the witness was reluctant to talk, and that he hid information from the police can be considered a sign of credibility. This seems to be another point that you might miss.

So in Italy the more uncooperative a witness is the more reliable they become? And I haven't seen anything to suggest he is uncooperative. He seemed eager to tell his story to anyone who was willing to listen. He spoke with the press. He confirmed to the police that they were regular customers of his shop. This reluctant witness tale is something made up.

Well this is really just your opinion. This is not exactly what Quintavalle said, first of all. He said he could see her from less then 1 meter away, he was at the cash register so she might well have bought something, he says she could have, he only has no memory about it.
It makes a lot of sense actually from the viewpoint of the peculiarities of the case: the body discovery begins in the context of a remarkable presence of mops, stories about cleaning rags and cleaning devices, there are murderers who washed in the bathroom, there are islated prints and bathmat-shuffling stories.

It makes some sense if you accept Knox needed cleaning supplies and hit up a store as soon as it opened. The problem is there was no cleanup and the evidence of the day shows it didn't happen that way. Earlier in this thread I meticulously and thoroughly analyzed all the phone and witness testimony for the morning of the 2nd, and I discovered that it was an incredibly precise series of corroborated events that established the discovery as happening in exactly the manner as Amanda described it.


Quintavalle was fairly ruled unreliable by Hellmann. Hellmann's reasoning was fair, corroborated, and reasonable. The SC might not like it and there is always the off chance Hellmann might be wrong, but this doesn't in any way excuse overturning his ruling. The only way the SC could overturn Hellmann's ruling on Quintavalle is because they wanted to interpret the evidence in a different way, which is precisely what they did.

If something as intricate and organic as witness testimony that is reasoned about by the judge and lay judges sitting through the trial listening to it can be overturned because of a few quibbles with semantic and alternative scenarios in an appeal, what is even the point of holding a trial? Why not just let the SC decide the entire case? You don't have a defensible system here. If Chieffi said, Hellmann was wrong about the knife test, retest it and if it's MK DNA reconsider the evidence, if it's not we'll confirm Hellmann - Ok that's fine. But they didn't do that. They tossed his entire judgement out because they simply wanted to re-reason about the evidence in a way that found the students guilty. This is simply what happened.

 

[acbytesla]

This is semantic bickering. The cop is asking about Amanda being in the shop in connection with the murder. Quintavalle specifically doesn't mention Amanda being in his shop at any time around the murder despite it being supposedly fresh in his mind from recently recognizing her in the newspaper photo.



It raises a couple issues. One is the reliability of his memory. He remembers what a girl he saw for two seconds was wearing a year later, he remembers seeing her in the newspaper, but he doesn't remember being shown pictures of her by the police? When it would have been a rather remarkable moment, the very girl he thinks he saw in his shop the morning after the murder, and he thinks he recognized in a newspaper photo, is now being presented to him by the police who are directly asking about her? And he doesn't remember this? It's hard to believe and adds to his unreliability. It is compatible with him not taking the police interview as notable - because at the time nothing about the case was on his mind - because at the time he had not yet made up the story of Amanda being in his shop.



So in Italy the more uncooperative a witness is the more reliable they become? And I haven't seen anything to suggest he is uncooperative. He seemed eager to tell his story to anyone who was willing to listen. He spoke with the press. He confirmed to the police that they were regular customers of his shop. This reluctant witness tale is something made up.




It makes some sense if you accept Knox needed cleaning supplies and hit up a store as soon as it opened. The problem is there was no cleanup and the evidence of the day shows it didn't happen that way. Earlier in this thread I meticulously and thoroughly analyzed all the phone and witness testimony for the morning of the 2nd, and I discovered that it was an incredibly precise series of corroborated events that established the discovery as happening in exactly the manner as Amanda described it.


Quintavalle was fairly ruled unreliable by Hellmann. Hellmann's reasoning was fair, corroborated, and reasonable. The SC might not like it and there is always the off chance Hellmann might be wrong, but this doesn't in any way excuse overturning his ruling. The only way the SC could overturn Hellmann's ruling on Quintavalle is because they wanted to interpret the evidence in a different way, which is precisely what they did.

If something as intricate and organic as witness testimony that is reasoned about by the judge and lay judges sitting through the trial listening to it can be overturned because of a few quibbles with semantic and alternative scenarios in an appeal, what is even the point of holding a trial? Why not just let the SC decide the entire case? You don't have a defensible system here. If Chieffi said, Hellmann was wrong about the knife test, retest it and if it's MK DNA reconsider the evidence, if it's not we'll confirm Hellmann - Ok that's fine. But they didn't do that. They tossed his entire judgement out because they simply wanted to re-reason about the evidence in a way that found the students guilty. This is simply what happened.

Quintavalle like so much of the prosecution's case is a logical mess Eyewitness testimony even hours old is notoriously bad. I wouldn't give it much credence given the delay. And yes, Machiavelli, that is enough.

People have listed other reasons. Memories are funny things. They simply are not reliable.

Some much less than others.

Here's a great article about false memories.
"

Remember That? No You Don’t. Study Shows False Memories Afflict Us All
Even people with extraordinary memories sometimes make things up without realizing it"
http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/...nt-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/

The phenomenon of false memories is common to everybody — the party you’re certain you attended in high school, say, when you were actually home with the flu, but so many people have told you about it over the years that it’s made its way into your own memory cache. False memories can sometimes be a mere curiosity, but other times they have real implications. Innocent people have gone to jail when well-intentioned eyewitnesses testify to events that actually unfolded an entirely different way. new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences answers both questions with a decisive no. False memories afflict everyone — even people with the best memories of all

So, I don't know if Quintavalle's testimony is a false memory created by suggestion through the media and his own imagination or if he just wanted attention. But given the length of the delay, the publicity, the contradictions with himself/employees and his illogical story it's more than reasonable to dismiss it.

 

[Numbers]

What accounts for the arbitrary judicial conduct and judgments of the Massei, Chieffi CSC, and Nencini courts, that resulted in wrongful (if provisional) convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher?

In The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, edited by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa, (c) 2014, there is an essay by Luparia, Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan. The essay discusses the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) that began in 1988, including some of the challenges to making court practices conform to the CPP and its new principles intended to protect the rights of defendants as recognized in the Constitution of the Republic of Italy that was enacted in 1948.

Here are some excerpts:

....[T]he practical implementation of the new Code has followed a rugged path....[T]he Code aroused distrust in some Italian judges and public prosecutors since the beginning and so some of its provisions in favour of the accused have been distorted by the application of the law. Indeed, many judges, who were used to the old 1930 system where the judge was the driving force of the adjudication and the defence had limited powers, ill-adapted to the new roles assigned by the reform of the criminal justice system. The same can be said about the interpretation of the new role of public prosecutors.

...[T]he impact of the practical implementation of the reform was in some way underestimated by the reformers .... using a metaphor taken from music, replacing the musical score is not enough if the instruments and the muscians remain the same.

The consequence has thus been that judicial life has been filled with deviating practices, sometimes aimed at not applying some norms, and that judgments issued by very important judicial authorities (even the Constitutional Court) have tried to implement a counter-reform by opposing the new principles which were seen as intruders....The extent of this approach was such that Parliament had to pass specific laws to tackle the issue, leading even to a change in the Constitution (art. 111)....

.... it was the lack of a parallel reform of the Judiciary that hindered the practical and efficient implementation of the values of the accusatorial {adversarial} system. The judge's impartiality and the levelling of roles between defence and prosecution, though fully affirmed and safeguarded by the articles of the Code, were bound to become vulnerable in a system...where, basically, the public prosecutor and the judge are colleagues....

 

[LondonJohn]

What accounts for the arbitrary judicial conduct and judgments of the Massei, Chieffi CSC, and Nencini courts, that resulted in wrongful (if provisional) convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher?

In The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, edited by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa, (c) 2014, there is an essay by Luparia, Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan. The essay discusses the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) that began in 1988, including some of the challenges to making court practices conform to the CPP and its new principles intended to protect the rights of defendants as recognized in the Constitution of the Republic of Italy that was enacted in 1948.

Here are some excerpts:

This essay mirrors EXACTLY the observations that you, I and others have been making about the structural problems and fundamental points of tension within the Italian criminal justice system. Many judges are (perhaps by their very nature) reactionary, and they don't like power being taken away from them. Likewise public prosecutors. And a high proportion of the judiciary have grown up in (and been educated in) a system where the prosecutor and judge are basically in cahoots, and where the (pretence of) the "impartial search for the truth" means that they can satisfy themselves that they have no partisan interests.

In practice, of course, this has long meant that the defence in any trial is hugely and improperly hampered, since the default position of the court has been that the prosecutor is "telling it as it is" while the defence is nothing more than a partisan organ of the defendant who will try anything to get acquitted. And the natural progression of such a warped system is that unless the defence can positively disprove the prosecution case, the chances of acquittal once a case has gone to trial are very low - even if the prosecution case is (objectively) clearly lacking.

And the other important factor (again as explicitly addressed in this essay) is that courts seemingly cannot shake their "traditional" - but now prohibited - practice of basing their verdicts on their own narrative and set of inferences. Basically, the public prosecutor would serve as a form of "adviser" to the court. And it's not difficult to see how this would further diminish the power and fair opportunity of the defence.

As you say, I think these sorts of dynamics have been highly visible in the Knox/Sollecito trial process, most notably and clearly in the Massei trial. The judiciary in Italy clearly needs huge reform and re-education, since it appears incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role properly, justly and lawfully. And the Knox/Sollecito trial process only serves to highlight this in an internationally-embarrassing manner.

 

[sept79]

The deliverance of justice seems to be secondary . . .

 

[Antony]

...

He also said he didn't feel 100% sure the lone girl was Knox, and said he didn't like the idea of becoming a witness.
Please note that those admissions were assessed by Massei and others as evidence that the witness was reliable.
In other words, the fact that the witness was reluctant to talk, and that he hid information from the police can be considered a sign of credibility. This seems to be another point that you might miss.

That's preposterous. Machiavelli, the fact that you don't appear to see this upside-down "reasoning" for what it is, just destroys your own credibility.

...

Coming out after a year can be seen a sign of credibility within the context. On the other hand it would be very difficult to explain why he would come out and lie after a year. So this is no argument too. The burden of proof is really revrsed here: you would need a plausible explanation why if you want to put forward a scenario that Quintavalle decides to come out a year later and lie. Why?

...

No. The burden of proof is never reversed. "Why would he lie?" is just an empty rhetorical question. It doesn't make implausible testimony, plausible.

It's not just a disagreement over the credibility of testimony, in which the trial judge (Hellmann) made a judgement you disagree with. These points were behind Chieffi's outrageous dismissal of Hellmann's judgement as (allegedly) "manifestly illogical". This kind of assessment of evidence, and repudiation of a judicial finding of fact, was way beyond the remit of Chieffi's SC in March 2013. It just shows how deeply the guilter poison reached into the Italian judiciary.

Chieffi's March 2013 ruling was the biggest scandal of the whole tragic saga.

 

[Diocletus]

Chieffi is not overrlued by Marasca. Chieffi is still fully valid. This is the interesting part!

Except for . . . innocent.

Oh, and also all of the crap that Chieffi got wrong, so basically everything.

 

[Annella]

Except for . . . innocent.

Oh, and also all of the crap that Chieffi got wrong, so basically everything.

And for anyone who needs to revise... ( not mentioning names here )..

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/

 

[Numbers]

This essay mirrors EXACTLY the observations that you, I and others have been making about the structural problems and fundamental points of tension within the Italian criminal justice system. Many judges are (perhaps by their very nature) reactionary, and they don't like power being taken away from them. Likewise public prosecutors. And a high proportion of the judiciary have grown up in (and been educated in) a system where the prosecutor and judge are basically in cahoots, and where the (pretence of) the "impartial search for the truth" means that they can satisfy themselves that they have no partisan interests.

In practice, of course, this has long meant that the defence in any trial is hugely and improperly hampered, since the default position of the court has been that the prosecutor is "telling it as it is" while the defence is nothing more than a partisan organ of the defendant who will try anything to get acquitted. And the natural progression of such a warped system is that unless the defence can positively disprove the prosecution case, the chances of acquittal once a case has gone to trial are very low - even if the prosecution case is (objectively) clearly lacking.

And the other important factor (again as explicitly addressed in this essay) is that courts seemingly cannot shake their "traditional" - but now prohibited - practice of basing their verdicts on their own narrative and set of inferences. Basically, the public prosecutor would serve as a form of "adviser" to the court. And it's not difficult to see how this would further diminish the power and fair opportunity of the defence.

As you say, I think these sorts of dynamics have been highly visible in the Knox/Sollecito trial process, most notably and clearly in the Massei trial. The judiciary in Italy clearly needs huge reform and re-education, since it appears incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role properly, justly and lawfully. And the Knox/Sollecito trial process only serves to highlight this in an internationally-embarrassing manner.

Yes.
It was only after reading Luca Luparia's essay that I understood what Hellmann meant when he referred to the "party of the prosecutors" in the Italian judiciary. It's not a political party, but a reference to the clique of collaboration between judge and prosecutor, where the judge slavishly accepts the prosecution arguments as the "truth" and delivers verdicts and motivation reports on that basis.

 

[Numbers]

I've always believed the smartest guys are the ones who take complex subjects and simplify them as much as possible. And in contrast, the dumbest people are the ones who complicate relatively easy subjects.

It's the old "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.

There are only 2 reasons to overly complicate a subject.
1. You don't understand it
or
2. You're being deceptive.

Other than the DNA, this case is really very simple.

So, when I read these long-winded posts, I just know he's twisting the facts.

For DNA testing, there are two articles I am aware of, written to explain DNA profile testing to lawyers, that include accurate but not overly complicated explanations.

They can be found at:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Elements_of_a_Competent_Defense_Review_Part_1

http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=786
(The second article is a continuation of the 1st. This link has a pay wall; there may be a free link.)

ETA: The 1st article includes the following:

Appendix: Model Discovery Request for STR Test Results

....
6. Data files: Please provide copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing the testing and analyzing the data in this case. These files should include all data necessary to, (i) independently reanalyze the raw data and (ii) reconstruct the analysis performed in this case.
....

ETA2: From http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for...e540074c156?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic

This appears to be an excerpt from Part 2.

Breaking open the black box: How to review the electronic data

Reviewing the electronic files produced by the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ (or similar equipment) has a number of additional benefits beyond revealing unreported low-level peaks. The software that controls these devices creates a complete record of all operations the device performs while typing samples in a particular case and records the results for each sample.

These records can reveal a variety of problems in testing that a forensic laboratory may fail to notice or choose not to report, such as failure of experimental controls, multiple testing of samples with inconsistent results, re-labeling of samples which can flag potential sample mix-ups and failure to follow proper procedures. We know of several cases in which review of electronic data has revealed that the laboratory failed to run all of the necessary control samples needed to verify the reliability of the test results, or that the laboratory ran the control samples under different conditions than the analytical samples (a major breach of good scientific practice).
....
It is easy for crime laboratories to produce the electronic data that underlie their conclusions. All that is necessary is to copy the files produced in the case onto a CD-ROM or other storage medium. CD-ROMs are generally preferred because they create an unalterable record of the data produced by the laboratory. Copying files to a CD-ROM is a simple point and click operation that can be accomplished in fifteen minutes or less in most cases. CD-ROM burners compatible with any laboratory computer are available commercially for under $200. There is no legitimate excuse for refusing to turn over electronic data for defense review. In a few instances laboratories have resisted producing electronic files, or have even destroyed the files, but the great majority of trial courts will not tolerate such obstructive behavior.