Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Whether or not 530.2 has any difference legally is secondary in this case to the perception. There is no one posting on this board that equals the status of Professor Anna Bull

Professor Anna Bull was appointed Professor of Italian in 1996, having taught at Bath since 1987. She graduated from the University of Naples and wrote her doctorate at the University of Reading, where she subsequently held a lectureship.

If it is factual that "not proven" and "not guilty" have or had the same legal status in Scotland only strengthens the similarity between "not proven" and 530.2.

I don't believe anyone here has the knowledge to categorically state there is absolutely no difference between a .1 and a .2 verdict. No one has the knowledge to claim it is similar to dropping the charges.

Anna Bull and Cheli both being well educated in Italy believe the difference has meaning.

I have read the posts of Numbers but in law the code doesn't always say it all. I think Mach had a relevant snippet from a court ruling indicating there is a legal difference. I don't know if his quote was on point or not.

 

[Grinder]

But these things remain - Italy is not Scotland, Paragraph 2 in Italy covers everything from completely-bald-face-innocent to getting-off-by-a-whisker-of-reasonable-doubt.

Besides posters on the PI side of things do you have anything to validate this? Para 1 is completely innocent and some here don't believe that is a verdict possible in this case.

Two ways of telling where any one case lies on that spectrum is to:

1) read the motivations report
2) watch subsequent legal actions​

On both those counts, it does not look good for the original PLE/Mignini types.

Unless you read M&B with rose colored glasses it certainly doesn't leave the impression of "bald-faced-innocent". The more verdicts going against the PLE the better for the kids and how they are viewed. If the ECHR overturns the calunnia that will be huge for Amanda's rep.

 

[Bill Williams]

Whether or not 530.2 has any difference legally is secondary in this case to the perception. There is no one posting on this board that equals the status of Professor Anna Bull

Professor Anna Bull was appointed Professor of Italian in 1996, having taught at Bath since 1987. She graduated from the University of Naples and wrote her doctorate at the University of Reading, where she subsequently held a lectureship.

If it is factual that "not proven" and "not guilty" have or had the same legal status in Scotland only strengthens the similarity between "not proven" and 530.2.

I don't believe anyone here has the knowledge to categorically state there is absolutely no difference between a .1 and a .2 verdict. No one has the knowledge to claim it is similar to dropping the charges.

Anna Bull and Cheli both being well educated in Italy believe the difference has meaning.

I have read the posts of Numbers but in law the code doesn't always say it all. I think Mach had a relevant snippet from a court ruling indicating there is a legal difference. I don't know if his quote was on point or not.

You are entirely entitled to your beliefs. You are entirely entitled to argue this on the basis of perception.

 

[Grinder]

You are entirely entitled to your beliefs. You are entirely entitled to argue this on the basis of perception.

And neither of us has the direct knowledge, nor do the others here, to make credible statements of any legal differences between the two paragraphs. But it is clear that there is a difference to those educated in Italy between the paragraphs in terms of meaning non-legally.

 

[Bill Williams]

And neither of us has the direct knowledge, nor do the others here, to make credible statements of any legal differences between the two paragraphs. But it is clear that there is a difference to those educated in Italy between the paragraphs in terms of meaning non-legally.

Which is why I ask the legal question - what is the difference in legal consequence between the two.

So far no one has shown any legal difference in consequence. So, argue this in relation to perception until the 30th continuation if you want. When you discover a difference in consequence, I'm sure you'll post it.

 

[Planigale]

You are entirely entitled to your beliefs. You are entirely entitled to argue this on the basis of perception.

It would be nice to know the proportion of para 1 and para 2 verdicts. In Scotland about a quarter of 'innocent' verdicts are not proven, the rest not guilty. One study showed a third of jurors (wrongly) believed a not proven verdict allowed for the defendant to be retried at a later date.

 

[acbytesla]

I keep Googling with different search terms for Forensic tests determining whether blood is the result of menstruation and cannot find almost anything. What does seem true is that it may be higher in DNA than regular blood as the uterine lining is shed as well.

Maybe someone knows more definitively and can share?

 

[Desert Fox]

It would be nice to know the proportion of para 1 and para 2 verdicts. In Scotland about a quarter of 'innocent' verdicts are not proven, the rest not guilty. One study showed a third of jurors (wrongly) believed a not proven verdict allowed for the defendant to be retried at a later date.

That is scary because the state has so much that they can bring against the defendant, at least in most jurisdictions, that it is incredibly dangerous to want to give the state more than one bite at the apple.

 

[toto]

The issue isn't whether it's possible, but whether it's feasible or even likely.

For a start, the thrower would need to somehow get the shutters out of the way. A person from outside couldn't tell whether they are locked or not, so throwing a heavy stone won't necessarily displace it. Even if it did, there is still the problem of getting in. Whoever threw it from the car park, would have to know that the back of the house and round the side to under the window, twelve and a quarter feet below was easily accessible by walking around it.

Whilst in the trick PIP video we see the 6'7" professional rock climber vaulting over the railing - and the clip then suddenly fades and he magically appears at the lower window - in reality, the drop over the railings is at least nine feet. It would have been in the dark, with the perp not being able to see if the ground below was even level.

No, it's hardly a shot put. why even Amanda herself could have thrown it from the car park, being a titch, standing on tiptoes, but then she has access to the front door so would not have needed to climb the wall in addition.

Not so very "hefty" then.

On an unrelated topic I am happy that the motivation report was rather favourable to honest Amanda. The True justice site had made rather a lot of fuss about this last March, but as far as I can see the only items of interest left are the The Oggi publishing trial, Sollecito's book trial and any news on ECHR. Does anyone know if I am missing anything out?

 

[Stacyhs]

I keep Googling with different search terms for Forensic tests determining whether blood is the result of menstruation and cannot find almost anything. What does seem true is that it may be higher in DNA than regular blood as the uterine lining is shed as well.

Maybe someone knows more definitively and can share?

According to Wikipedia:

"About half of menstrual fluid is blood. This blood contains sodium, calcium, phosphate, iron, and chloride, the extent of which depends on the woman. As well as blood, the fluid consists of cervical mucus, vaginal secretions, and endometrial tissue."

Did Stefanoni test for the presence of cervical mucus, vaginal secretions, and endometrial tissue?
If not, then she would not know if it was menstrual blood or not. I could not find any mention of this at all in her testimony.

 

[acbytesla]

According to Wikipedia:

"About half of menstrual fluid is blood. This blood contains sodium, calcium, phosphate, iron, and chloride, the extent of which depends on the woman. As well as blood, the fluid consists of cervical mucus, vaginal secretions, and endometrial tissue."

Did Stefanoni test for the presence of cervical mucus, vaginal secretions, and endometrial tissue?
If not, then she would not know if it was menstrual blood or not. I could not find any mention of this at all in her testimony.

I understand that there is a difference Stacy. My question is what Forensic tests are performed to definitively determine that it is menstrual blood or not? Can it easily mistaken by a forensic technician?

 

[LondonJohn]

Whether or not 530.2 has any difference legally is secondary in this case to the perception. There is no one posting on this board that equals the status of Professor Anna Bull

Professor Anna Bull was appointed Professor of Italian in 1996, having taught at Bath since 1987. She graduated from the University of Naples and wrote her doctorate at the University of Reading, where she subsequently held a lectureship.

If it is factual that "not proven" and "not guilty" have or had the same legal status in Scotland only strengthens the similarity between "not proven" and 530.2.

I don't believe anyone here has the knowledge to categorically state there is absolutely no difference between a .1 and a .2 verdict. No one has the knowledge to claim it is similar to dropping the charges.

Anna Bull and Cheli both being well educated in Italy believe the difference has meaning.

I have read the posts of Numbers but in law the code doesn't always say it all. I think Mach had a relevant snippet from a court ruling indicating there is a legal difference. I don't know if his quote was on point or not.

1. There is a clear difference between the circumstances of acquittal covered in 530.1 and 530.2.

2. However, that is categorically not to say that 530.1 in any way is equivalent to "not guilty" while 530.2 in any way is equivalent to "not proven".

3. In fact, 530.1 is equivalent to "provably factually innocent", and 530.2 is equivalent to the E&W or US definition of "not guilty" of all other types except for "provably factually innocent".

4. Another way of representing this is that E&W or US "not guilty" encompasses all of 530.1 and 530.2. A small subset of E&W or US "not guilty" falls into the Italian 530.1 bracket (i.e. where the defendant is found not guilty because he can prove his factual innocence, or where the court determines that no crime occurred), and the majority of E&W or US "not guilty" falls into the Italian 530.2 bracket.

5. Even then, 530.1 and 530.2 are semantic and arcane distinctions, since under current Italian law there are only two possible outcomes of a criminal trial: guilty or not guilty (cf current Scottish law where there are three possible outcomes: guilty, not guilty, and not proven).

6. It is, and forever will be, impossible for Knox and Sollecito to be acquitted of the murder charges under 530.1, since the crime of murder clearly did occur and since neither Knox nor Sollecito can prove their factual innocence in court.

7. Prof. Anna Bull is an expert in Italian history and Italian politics. She is not an expert in Italian law, and to the best of my understanding she's never undertaken academic work in the area of Italian legislation and codes of criminal procedure.

 

[LondonJohn]

I understand that there is a difference Stacy. My question is what Forensic tests are performed to definitively determine that it is menstrual blood or not? Can they be easily mistaken by a forensic technician?

I don't think it would be possible to forensically determine whether or not a blood sample per se was menstrual blood. It could/should be possible, however, to determine whether a fluid sample (whether wet or dry) contains substances other than blood which are associated with menstruation and which mix with blood before exiting the body.

Blood is blood is blood, whichever part of the body it comes from - about the only thing one could potentially differentiate in terms of blood alone is whether it's arterial or venous blood, on account of different levels of oxygenation, but even this would be impossible in blood that had been exposed to air for more than a few minutes or which had dried. But where other fluids are mixed with blood, it can be possible to tell where the blood came from. For example, someone shot in the head in a shot which penetrates the skull will pass a mixture of blood and subdural cerebrospinal fluids from the head wound: the blood will be the same as from anywhere else in the body, but the presence of cerebrospinal fluid in the overall fluid deposit will indicate that the blood will have come from the area of the brain or spine. And I should reckon that the same would be the case with menstrual fluid - it's the presence of the things other than blood which would indicate that the blood was the product of menstruation.

Incidentally, while we're on this matter, it's worth remembering that it's an abject falsehood for anyone to claim that Knox's blood has to have been deposited in that bathroom sink at around the same point in time as Kercher's blood was deposited there. The blood deposited from both women would have been dry by the time they were swabbed by the "crack" forensics team, for one thing. And dried blood changes its chemistry only relatively slowly - it would be next to impossible, for example, to tell whether dried blood was 18 hours old (deposited at the time when Kercher was attacked and killed) or, say, 48 hours old. In addition, the crime scene video shows beyond all doubt that the forensic technician taking these swabs used grossly improper methods, smearing the swabs over large areas of the sink, thereby picking up blood traces that could have been as far apart as 6 inches or more on the surface of the sink. Therefore it's a total fallacy to suggest that there necessarily has to be a time correlation between the deposit of Knox's blood and Kercher's blood: in fact, the evidence (coupled with the disgracefully improper collection technique) is wholly compatible with Knox's blood being deposited in the sink up to several days before Kercher's blood was deposited there on the night of her murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not so very "hefty" then.

On an unrelated topic I am happy that the motivation report was rather favourable to honest Amanda. The True justice site had made rather a lot of fuss about this last March, but as far as I can see the only items of interest left are the The Oggi publishing trial, Sollecito's book trial and any news on ECHR. Does anyone know if I am missing anything out?

There is the disposition of the predatory prosecution of Knox's parents; essentially the same as the predatory prosecution of Knox herself for saying that she was hit during interrogation. That has proven to be a complete misstep by the PLE/Mignini as otherwise the truth of the un-videotaped/transcribed lawyer-less interrogation would never have come out.

So unless the Mignini-philes of the world want more "own goals", it would be est if they simply let that one lapse. It's too late for the Knox-calunnia prosecution, that motivation report is already out.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think it would be possible to forensically determine whether or not a blood sample per se was menstrual blood. It could/should be possible, however, to determine whether a fluid sample (whether wet or dry) contains substances other than blood which are associated with menstruation and which mix with blood before exiting the body.

Blood is blood is blood, whichever part of the body it comes from - about the only thing one could potentially differentiate in terms of blood alone is whether it's arterial or venous blood, on account of different levels of oxygenation, but even this would be impossible in blood that had been exposed to air for more than a few minutes or which had dried. But where other fluids are mixed with blood, it can be possible to tell where the blood came from. For example, someone shot in the head in a shot which penetrates the skull will pass a mixture of blood and subdural cerebrospinal fluids from the head wound: the blood will be the same as from anywhere else in the body, but the presence of cerebrospinal fluid in the overall fluid deposit will indicate that the blood will have come from the area of the brain or spine. And I should reckon that the same would be the case with menstrual fluid - it's the presence of the things other than blood which would indicate that the blood was the product of menstruation.

Incidentally, while we're on this matter, it's worth remembering that it's an abject falsehood for anyone to claim that Knox's blood has to have been deposited in that bathroom sink at around the same point in time as Kercher's blood was deposited there. The blood deposited from both women would have been dry by the time they were swabbed by the "crack" forensics team, for one thing. And dried blood changes its chemistry only relatively slowly - it would be next to impossible, for example, to tell whether dried blood was 18 hours old (deposited at the time when Kercher was attacked and killed) or, say, 48 hours old. In addition, the crime scene video shows beyond all doubt that the forensic technician taking these swabs used grossly improper methods, smearing the swabs over large areas of the sink, thereby picking up blood traces that could have been as far apart as 6 inches or more on the surface of the sink. Therefore it's a total fallacy to suggest that there necessarily has to be a time correlation between the deposit of Knox's blood and Kercher's blood: in fact, the evidence (coupled with the disgracefully improper collection technique) is wholly compatible with Knox's blood being deposited in the sink up to several days before Kercher's blood was deposited there on the night of her murder.

Do you know this for a fact? That there aren't for example higher concentrations of estrogen or other hormones in menstrual blood? I would like to read some expert citations one way or another.

 

[acbytesla]

There is the disposition of the predatory prosecution of Knox's parents; essentially the same as the predatory prosecution of Knox herself for saying that she was hit during interrogation. That has proven to be a complete misstep by the PLE/Mignini as otherwise the truth of the un-videotaped/transcribed lawyer-less interrogation would never have come out.

So unless the Mignini-philes of the world want more "own goals", it would be est if they simply let that one lapse. It's too late for the Knox-calunnia prosecution, that motivation report is already out.

What happened in the case against her parents? This had to be one of those charges that just seem to fade away. I also wonder about the suit against Raffaele and his coauthor?

 

[Bill Williams]

And neither of us has the direct knowledge, nor do the others here, to make credible statements of any legal differences between the two paragraphs. But it is clear that there is a difference to those educated in Italy between the paragraphs in terms of meaning non-legally.

Which is why I ask the legal question - what is the difference in legal consequence between the two.

So far no one has shown any legal difference in consequence. So, argue this in relation to perception until the 30th continuation if you want. When you discover a difference in consequence, I'm sure you'll post it.

The problem with reacting to March 25, 2015, from the point of perception is that each person's biases inevitably set in.

So far, no one has shown any credible difference, in law, between paragraphs 1 and 2, esp. in terms of the legal consequence which follows each one's use.

Ok, let's leave "legal consequence" aside for a second.

Grinder would have us believe that people like Luca Cheli has written that one of the "shadows" which is left from the Marasca/Bruno report is some sort of ambiguity over the use of paragraph 2 over paragraph 1 on March 25, 2015.

I suppose you could "perceive" that Cheli wrote that, especially if you cherry-pick from the piece he wrote, and not read the whole thing:

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

In this Cheli actually writes about what are, for him, the four great shadows associated with the M/B ruling. Rather than dwell on any of the ambiguity others, like Grinder, "perceive" and use Cheli to try to butress, take a minute and actually read what Cheli writes.

He actually spells out what those shadows are for him. They are, in short:

A. Shadows

1) the “conflitto in giudicato” which has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.
2) the calumny against Lumumba, particularly the M/B reference to Knox being interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures” - really!?, a police-interrogation makes one immune from psychological pressures!? Really!?
3) the importance of the memorale attributed to Knox and signed by her after the interrogation
4) the ruling concerning the presence of Knox alone or of Knox and Sollecito at the time of the murder or later that night, of which Cheli says: "Here more than shadow we should talk of fog, a thick one indeed."​

That's it. In full. All the shadows Cheli believes are of concern to Italians. Read his long section and the use of Paragraph 2 over Paragraph 1 concerns him the least of other things.

But that does not stop others from trying to cite Cheli as an authority in buttressing their own perception; when he arguably does nothing of the kind.

See!? See what arguing this at the level of perception accomplishes? It accomplishes the cherry-picking of other people's opinions, when those other's opinions do nothing of the sort.

And if you want to get to the meat of what Cheli wrote.... try reading through his sections of how the M/B report also generated:

B. Light, and
C. Thunder​

Cheli's thesis is despite the shadows, Italians can also be grateful that M/B, in the main, cut through “conflitto in giudicato” as best it could to actually decide the case on the evidence, and not - fundamentally - on how it would embarrass other Cassazione judges or provincial PM's.

 

[Grinder]

Bill here is the start of the Cheli article which you brought up.

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.
Also, by paying attention to the text of the verdict back in March, it was already clear to me that, since the acquittal for the charge of staging a burglary was due to the defendant not having committed the crime and not to the crime not existing, this new ruling was going to accept the theory of a staged burglary and hence, most probably, of multiple attackers.

It is a ruling with both lights and shadows, but indeed appreciation for it greatly varies if one looks at it only from the point of view of the specific case, or from the point of view of its potential effect on Italian criminal justice in general.

I will therefore summarize in the following sections first what I don’t like in it, mainly from the point of view of a supporter of Knox and Sollecito’s complete innocence, then I will expand on what instead, are its big merits, not simply for this case, but for Italian justice in general.

As done before, I will use the name “Marasca” to represent the ruling as a whole, rather than the individual judge.

Shadow

There is a ghost haunting the solemn corridors of the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It is called, in Italian, “conflitto in giudicato” and it has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.

A “conflitto in giudicato” of the worst type happens when two definitive rulings, that is two different rulings issued by Cassation’s panels to close a case, conflict about the verdict on some element of the same case.

Throughout the years, Cassation judges have always tried to dispel such a haunting presence by trying to ensure that all of their rulings were “aligned” and coherent, as much as possible.

Hence it isn’t particularly surprising that Marasca agrees with Guede’s ruling about the presence of multiple attackers and the burglary being staged: ruling otherwise would have caused a major “conflitto in giudicato”, and probably that was also one of the causes of the annulment of the first acquittal.

There is however a difference: while Marasca writes very few words, if any, in upholding the concept of a staged burglary, so much so that one derives it was deemed staged more from the verdict than from the ruling, he expands quite a bit on the reasons for supporting the multiple attackers theory.
Some of those reasons are the usual ones and have been debated for years, and I will not discuss them further now (lack of defensive wounds, just to quote one), but while this could just be a mechanical rehashing of corny arguments, there is also something new that makes me think the judges of the panel, or at least a majority of them, really believed in what they were writing.
Specifically they really believed that Meredith Kercher’s killer was much more “criminally skilled” than petty thief Rudy Guede and, all the more so, than two nerdy students.

They seem to think so because of the cruel way the Englishwoman was killed, according to them the “frightful way” she was killed is something worthy of the “disturbed personality of a serial killer”.

While there are some who think Guede could be a serial killer caught after his first murder, I have to say the small number of wounds and their localization made me wonder at times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another big shadowy area concerns the calumny against Lumumba.

Sure, Knox had already been definitively convicted for that charge, but it nevertheless looms large in this report too.

It first shows up when the judges have to decide about a request by Knox’s defense to postpone the decision until the pronouncement by the ECHR on the conviction for calumny.

Clearly the panel wants to find a quick reason for going on and rejecting a request that would introduce such a long delay and unfortunately they come out with a few incorrect assertions.

Essentially, to reject the request, they say that even if the ECHR should rule that Knox’s human rights were violated, she has no hope for a revision of her conviction, because she repeated her slandering accusation against Lumumba thrice (a bit like Saint Peter …): in her first memoriale, in front of the prosecutor and in front of the judge of the preliminary hearing (Matteini).

I'd say much more than Bill's summary.

 

[Grinder]

7. Prof. Anna Bull is an expert in Italian history and Italian politics. She is not an expert in Italian law, and to the best of my understanding she's never undertaken academic work in the area of Italian legislation and codes of criminal procedure.

She wrote a book in which she addresses 530.2 and says it is akin to "not proven". She was educated in Italy. She teaches at U of Bath. I have more faith in her knowledge than any poster or group of posters here.

She teaches a final-year option ‘Political Terrorism and its Legacy in Italy' and contributes to the Italian Politics and Society courses. She also contributes to a postgraduate unit, Memory Cultures-memory Politics.

 

[LondonJohn]

She wrote a book in which she addresses 530.2 and says it is akin to "not proven". She was educated in Italy. She teaches at U of Bath. I have more faith in her knowledge than any poster or group of posters here.

She teaches a final-year option ‘Political Terrorism and its Legacy in Italy' and contributes to the Italian Politics and Society courses. She also contributes to a postgraduate unit, Memory Cultures-memory Politics.

Quote the relevant parts of the book then, as a starter.......


And I repeat: she is not an expert in Italian law. As for your appeals to authority on her qualifications, well.... for example, David Starkey is an expert in English history and English political history, he was brought up in England, and he teaches at many prestigious universities. But does that somehow automatically make Starkey and expert on, say, the E&W Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or the E&W Sentencing Council guidelines? No. It does not.

Whereas a real expert in Italian law )who has been referenced here often) states clearly what 530.1 and 530.2 are, and exactly how and why they are anachronisms that don't fit into the current Italian legislative and constitutional landscape. But you choose to ignore those proper experts for some reason....