Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[abaddon]

Nonsense. We do not even have a written constitution in the UK.

That's your problem. Italy does have a written constitution, outweighs statute every time.

This is why, in countries which had the foresight to have a written constitution, have constitutional challenges to statutes all the time and the constitution is always prioritised.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's your problem. Italy does have a written constitution, outweighs statute every time.

This is why, in countries which had the foresight to have a written constitution, have constitutional challenges to statutes all the time and the constitution is always prioritised.

Yeah but there's no written constitution in Israel, so....ermmmm.......... evil Foxy Knoxy and Knifeboy butchered lovely Mez......ermmmm..............

 

[abaddon]

Yeah but there's no written constitution in Israel, so....ermmmm.......... evil Foxy Knoxy and Knifeboy butchered lovely Mez......ermmmm..............

LOL. They must be thus retried in Israel. You know it makes sense. Wait, what?

 

[Numbers]

That's because courts return a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Never a verdict of "innocent". There are long historical and logical and legal reasons why this is so.

Your post is actually not quite an accurate description of verdicts in criminal cases as given in Italy, under Italian law. This was discussed up-thread in great detail (perhaps more than many would desire).

Under Italian procedural law, there are FIVE kinds or specifications of "Not Guilty" (also known as "Acquittal") in final criminal trial verdicts. Some of these specifications correspond to the concept of "innocent" with regard to the crime(s) charged. These specifications are detailed in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure ("CPP" being the abbreviation for this legal document in Italian) Article 530, Judgment of Acquittal. CPP Article 530 requires that the judge in the written operative judgment specify the kind of acquittal.

Here are the five specifications:

1. The crime did not occur.*
2. The accused did not commit the crime.*
3. The act of the alleged crime was not an offense under the law.**
4. The act of the alleged crime is no longer an offense under the law.***
5. The accused is a person who cannot be held responsible due to a lack of mental capacity.****

* Corresponds to the concept of "innocent" of the crime charged.
** The accused committed the act, but it was excused, for example, because it was self-defense.
*** The law was changed after the act happened so that the act is no longer a crime. (The significance of this provision may include that Italy's Criminal Code - the list and descriptions of crimes and their punishments - was written during the Fascist regime, and has been not been rewritten in total, but specific articles have been removed or updated to democratic standards since the end of World War II).
**** That is, the accused is either found to be insane, or perhaps, was a minor who could not be considered responsible for the act.

Italian law also includes the judgment of "dismissal", which when final has the effect a final acquittal, and includes the case when the statute of limitation of the crime has run out. Because Italian trials take a long time and many appeals are allowed - a verdict of dismissal because the statute of limitations has run out is not uncommon. There is, however, no statute of limitation in Italy for murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your post is actually not quite an accurate description of verdicts in criminal cases as given in Italy, under Italian law. This was discussed up-thread in great detail (perhaps more than many would desire).

Under Italian procedural law, there are FIVE kinds or specifications of "Not Guilty" (also known as "Acquittal") in final criminal trial verdicts. Some of these specifications correspond to the concept of "innocent" with regard to the crime(s) charged. These specifications are detailed in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure ("CPP" being the abbreviation for this legal document in Italian) Article 530, Judgment of Acquittal. CPP Article 530 requires that the judge in the written operative judgment specify the kind of acquittal.

Here are the five specifications:

1. The crime did not occur.*
2. The accused did not commit the crime.*
3. The act of the alleged crime was not an offense under the law.**
4. The act of the alleged crime is no longer an offense under the law.***
5. The accused is a person who cannot be held responsible due to a lack of mental capacity.****

* Corresponds to the concept of "innocent" of the crime charged.
** The accused committed the act, but it was excused, for example, because it was self-defense.
*** The law was changed after the act happened so that the act is no longer a crime. (The significance of this provision may include that Italy's Criminal Code - the list and descriptions of crimes and their punishments - was written during the Fascist regime, and has been not been rewritten in total, but specific articles have been removed or updated to democratic standards since the end of World War II).
**** That is, the accused is either found to be insane, or perhaps, was a minor who could not be considered responsible for the act.

Italian law also includes the judgment of "dismissal", which when final has the effect a final acquittal, and includes the case when the statute of limitation of the crime has run out. Because Italian trials take a long time and many appeals are allowed - a verdict of dismissal because the statute of limitations has run out is not uncommon. There is, however, no statute of limitation in Italy for murder.

All correct of course.

But one absolutely must not overlook the fundamental legal and ethical cornerstone of modern criminal justice - and it's a cornerstone that thankfully (though belatedly and somewhat under duress) is in place in Italy: every person is presumed innocent of a crime unless and until he or she is convicted for that crime (and Italy has a three-stage trial process for serious crimies, so the presumption of innocence lasts until and unless the Supreme Court affirms guilt).

So, in a very real sense, if a person is tried for a criminal offence and ultimately acquitted, that person maintains the presumption of innocence. And a presumption of innocence is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a declaration of innocence (the philosophical difference between a presumption of innocence and actual innocence is that the latter will have been definitively proven (eg through a cast-iron alibi) - but of course being unable to prove one's innocence absolutely does not count in any way against the person, nor against the presumption of innocence for that person).

So, again in a very real sense (in terms of legal and ethical standpoints), Knox and Sollecito do indeed currently stand innocent of any involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher, by virtue of the Marasca SC panel acquittals/annulments. And, in law and in ethics, they both have in fact been considered innocent of anything to do with the Kercher murder from Day One. They will never be able to be declared definitively innocent, since a) a crime was clearly committed here, and b) neither Knox nor Sollecito can positively prove their innocence (which, as I pointed out above, is in no way whatsoever a marker of suspicion, far less guilt). But they both maintain the presumption of innocence - unless and until evidence were to turn up resulting in conviction for the crime at a later time (double jeopardy rules notwithstanding). Of course no (reliable, credible) new evidence will ever surface in this case, so it's fairly safe to say that Knox and Sollecito will forever be considered innocent of any participation in the Kercher murder.

 

[Numbers]

All correct of course.

But one absolutely must not overlook the fundamental legal and ethical cornerstone of modern criminal justice - and it's a cornerstone that thankfully (though belatedly and somewhat under duress) is in place in Italy: every person is presumed innocent of a crime unless and until he or she is convicted for that crime (and Italy has a three-stage trial process for serious crimies, so the presumption of innocence lasts until and unless the Supreme Court affirms guilt).

So, in a very real sense, if a person is tried for a criminal offence and ultimately acquitted, that person maintains the presumption of innocence. And a presumption of innocence is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a declaration of innocence (the philosophical difference between a presumption of innocence and actual innocence is that the latter will have been definitively proven (eg through a cast-iron alibi) - but of course being unable to prove one's innocence absolutely does not count in any way against the person, nor against the presumption of innocence for that person).

So, again in a very real sense (in terms of legal and ethical standpoints), Knox and Sollecito do indeed currently stand innocent of any involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher, by virtue of the Marasca SC panel acquittals/annulments. And, in law and in ethics, they both have in fact been considered innocent of anything to do with the Kercher murder from Day One. They will never be able to be declared definitively innocent, since a) a crime was clearly committed here, and b) neither Knox nor Sollecito can positively prove their innocence (which, as I pointed out above, is in no way whatsoever a marker of suspicion, far less guilt). But they both maintain the presumption of innocence - unless and until evidence were to turn up resulting in conviction for the crime at a later time (double jeopardy rules notwithstanding). Of course no (reliable, credible) new evidence will ever surface in this case, so it's fairly safe to say that Knox and Sollecito will forever be considered innocent of any participation in the Kercher murder.

I disagree with your statement. While I am unaware of "declarations of innocence" in Italy - beyond the relevant specifications of "the crime was not committed" or "the accused did not commit the crime" for a verdict of acquittal, in terms of US practice, persons who have been accused and convicted of crimes, but were subsequently found not guilty because their DNA was not detected at the relevant locations - such as on or in the body of a rape victim, while another person's DNA was so detected - have been considered factually innocent, and, depending on the specifics of state law, have been issued declarations of innocence or similar documents.

Thus, rather than go through the semantic gyrations sometimes employed on this forum, I suggest that Knox and Sollecito be considered INNOCENT of the murder/rape of Kercher, consistent with US practice.

I suggest that many persons could be considered "NOT INNOCENT" based on not being able to prove their innocence in terms of alibi or some other standard. But since there is no credible evidence of guilt in the case of Knox and Sollecito in the murder/rape of Kercher, and it is clear that there were "irregularities" (a euphemism) in the police investigation and prosecution, it is clear that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree with your statement. While I am unaware of "declarations of innocence" in Italy - beyond the relevant specifications of "the crime was not committed" or "the accused did not commit the crime" for a verdict of acquittal, in terms of US practice, persons who have been accused and convicted of crimes, but were subsequently found not guilty because their DNA was not detected at the relevant locations - such as on or in the body of a rape victim, while another person's DNA was so detected - have been considered factually innocent, and, depending on the specifics of state law, have been issued declarations of innocence or similar documents.

Thus, rather than go through the semantic gyrations sometimes employed on this forum, I suggest that Knox and Sollecito be considered INNOCENT of the murder/rape of Kercher, consistent with US practice.

No, I don't think you do disagree. What you describe is a scenario where evidence comes to light which, in effect, PROVES that person's innocence (in your example, the existence of another, unrelated, person's DNA and the absence of the prior suspect's DNA, which - unless one were to postulate that the two had raped the victim together - is effective proof of innocence for the prior suspect).

Neither Knox nor Sollecito will ever be able (IMO) to prove their innocence in respect of the Kercher murder. Nothing even remotely similar to your example will ever be relevant in the Kercher case. The only thing that could ever come close (IMO) would be a reliable sworn statement by Guede that he alone attacked and murdered Kercher (which is what I believe happened). But I doubt - to the point of almost zero certainty - that Guede will ever make such a statement: he's likely a sociopath or psychopath, and he's quite happy to perpetuate any sort of "fog of uncertainty" around his lies based upon him being an unfortunate bystander.

But people really do have to get their heads round the concept (and it's not just a hollow intellectual concept) that no accused person has to prove their innocence - it's entirely incumbent on the accusers (the state) to prove guilt, and to prove it BARD. I cannot, for example, prove that I didn't participate in the murder of someone who was killed in the middle of the night about 2 years ago, about half a mile from my flat (I was asleep alone in bed at the time, and had no electronic interactions etc). But that shouldn't arouse suspicion in itself that I was involved in the murder. In order to arouse such suspicion, one would need actual reliable, credible evidence pointing to my involvement. Of which there would be none. Because I factually was in my bed asleep at the time.

(ETA: to my knowledge, the murderer(s) in that case has/have not yet been caught......)

 

[acbytesla]

Do read the court documents instead of relying on a Marriott cribsheet. There is no need to take my word for it.

I read the documents a long time ago

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited incivility; use posters' usernames please

But the battle is lost and your dreams are delusions. The courts have decided and the actors have left the stage, the play is over. No one cares that you don't like the ending.

 

[Vixen]

That's because courts return a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Never a verdict of "innocent". There are long historical and logical and legal reasons why this is so.

In Italy, there is an acquittal because of innocence (four broad categories) and an acquittal because of 'insufficient evidence'. The kids got an acquittal because of a'insufficient evidence', the Scottish law equivalent of 'not proven'.

IOW the pair were tried and were not exonerated. Merely acquitted, and as this particular verdict is most commonly used by lower courts at preliminary stage, technically it means they could be charged again for the same offence, as in the US and UK.


Do you see the difference now?

 

[Vixen]

No. What I have is:

ITALY HAS A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.

(Or did you choose to ignore that (main) part of my post?)

Your use of profanities did get in the way. I seem to recall you referred to the Kerchers as low class. However, I have never heard them swear.

 

[Vixen]

That's your problem. Italy does have a written constitution, outweighs statute every time.

This is why, in countries which had the foresight to have a written constitution, have constitutional challenges to statutes all the time and the constitution is always prioritised.

Be that as it may, but for Numbers to invoke the Italian Constitution is to detract from the fact that the Supreme Court did not find them innocent. The word does not appear anywhere in the judgment.

To be exonerated entails being shown to be innocent.

 

[Vixen]

The bra clasp was noticeably darker in photos taken on 18 December than it looked in early November. I was the first person who brought Brown and coworkers' study (Toothman et al., 2008) to the attention of this thread. IIRC some of the peaks are above 2000 RFUs, but the DNA was mixed and showed signs of degradation. My point in discussing this study was to highlight how important cleanliness is when one collects DNA evidence. A great deal more is known about DNA transfer than was known in 2007, and it is easier to understand how innocent DNA transfer can occur, even when an item is under police control.

That might be true. However, to claim secondary transfer - or tertiary transfer in the case of the bra clasp - it is legal forensic protocol to spell out the path of transfer - otherwise it just remains a defence tactic to get the client off the charge.

 

[Vixen]

LOL. They must be thus retried in Israel. You know it makes sense. Wait, what?

The courts system in the west is very much predicated on ancient Jewish protocol. For example, two persons needed as witnesses for an act to be legalised.

 

[Vixen]

You really should not use big words you do not know the meaning of. The sentence "Out of 23 chromosomes there was a match on seventeen", just shows you do not understand the process of STR typing. If you cannot be bothered to learn about this then do not comment. Writing stuff like this just displays your literal ignorance.

To help you learn this is a link to the loci of the STR alleles;
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/coreSTRs.htm

STR are very short sequences of DNA 5 or so bp. Repeated several times so a 5 bp STR with a dozen repeats is only 60bp one needs only a fragment of DNA containing this 60 bp STR to come up with a hit. You can perfectly well get STR typing from DNA fragments. Indeed the DNA within shed epithelial cells from hands is fragmented, this is the process of apoptosis that takes place during the formation of keratinised skin.

The 50 RFU is about internal contamination stutter etc. not external. The problem is once you have mixed DNA then the rules about needing only 11 matches falls apart as especially if you are dealing with unknown contributors the STR could be from different people. In this case one of the STR repeats was common between Sollecito and the victim. FWIW I accept the DNA extract from the bra fastener most likely contained DNA from the victim and Sollecito. This is what the complicated statistical analysis Balding undertook was concerning how can one derive a likelihood ratio for mixed DNA. The problem remains as Steffanoni testified the time and source of DNA deposition can not be determined. Nor can the mechanism. There is adequate scientific studies to show that in trace DNA such as here that one cannot distinguish primary from secondary or tertiary transmission.

Marasca's comments that DNA deposition from the basin must have involved vigorous rubbing of hands (note not blood from Knox) is nonsense. This is where the judge is becoming an 'expert' himself. No one testified to this, Marasca invented this theory himself. The likeliest source is cleaning teeth. mouth epithelials are such a good source of DNA that just swilling water round your mouth will provide an excellent source of DNA, let alone brushing. This is a good example of faulty judicial reasoning that the ISC could say 'we do not question the evidence of the presence of DNA of Knox on the basin, we do however determine the conclusion drawn from the evidence was faulty, since the prosecution expert had testified the time and source of DNA deposition cannot be known'.

One question to ask is why was the quantity of DNA from Sollecito so much less than the DNA of Kercher on the bra hook?

What did you think I was talking about? Vecchiotti confirmed under oath there was no reasonable possibility of contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

Er, you do know there are just two alleles per chromosome? So to get seventeen alleles...?

Incidentally, if you have a jumble of different persons DNA, the chances that any SNP will match anything other than the indiviudal to which it belongs is vanishingly remote unless they are cousins of some sort up to twelve times removed. You seem to be saying the seventeen alleles found of Raff's was a mixture of all sorts of fragments.

This is a clear sign your comment is mere obfuscation to conceal the fact that Raff's clear DNA profile was found on the bra clasp; 17 alleles, counting ONLY those above 50 RFUS's.

There is no innocent explanation for his DNA being there. Aside from the conspiracy theories that 'police planted it because they didn't like his American girlfriend and Stefanoni although observed by at least two sets of forensic experts for the defence, including Prof Torres, none of whom complained of any contamination issues at the time, must have somehow introduced in plain sight, Raff's DNA on to the bra clasp...er,...um...because it was a conspiracy to frame the kids.'

 

[Numbers]

Art. 27. La responsabilita' penale e' personale. L'imputato non e' considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva. Le pene non possono consistere in trattamenti contrari al senso di umanita' e devono tendere alla rieducazione del condannato. Non e' ammessa la pena di morte, se non nei casi previsti dalle leggi militari di guerra.

Source: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:costituzione

Translation of the 2nd sentence above:
The accused is not considered guilty until the final sentence.

Thus, an accused is "presumed innocent" until found guilty. But when acquitted, the accused, if specified that the acquittal is for "the criminal act did not occur" or "the accused did not commit the act", must be considered "innocent". To argue that the accused is not actually innocent after such an acquittal specification is to claim that the acquittal was in error. But how could one make that claim without evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? One could claim that the accused was possibly not actually innocent because there was no proof of innocence, but then many persons are "possibly not actually innocent" because they have no proof of innocence.

For example, I have no ready-at-hand documented proof of where I was at the relevant time in 2007. I maintain that I was in the US, and not Italy, but except for the recollections of a few people, such as my spouse and children - who perhaps could be considered co-conspirators by the police and prosecution, I can't readily prove this. However, there would be no air ticket, travel document, or passport record showing that I had left the US and entered Italy at about that time. However, in earlier travels, say in the year 2000 I had been in Italy, and my passport from that time would document entrance and exit. But suppose the prosecutor maintains that my exit documentation is fraudulent or part of a conspiracy, and that I had stayed in Italy all that time, waiting to commit a murder in 2007? Insane, you suggest? But how could I prove the exit documentation is NOT fraudulent or part of some wider conspiracy?

The absurd example I give is my opinion of the level of police and prosecution logic in the Knox - Sollecito case.

 

[Planigale]

Nonsense. We do not even have a written constitution in the UK.

This is a myth. The UK does have a written constitution. It is just not written down in one place; it has accumulated in multiple documents over hundreds of years.

 

[Mary_H]

LOL You are very good at knowing what Amanda 'thinks'. She would say that, wouldn't she, to borrow from Mandy Rice-Davies.

Stacy is not guessing; she is referring to an e-mail Amanda wrote during the first week of the case.

You also erroneously claimed that Amanda said her own blood was on the faucet. Where did you get your information for that claim, if not from the same document?

 

[Mary_H]

Do read the court documents. It is a scientifically established fact Amanda washed Mez' blood from her hands.<snip>

Do provide documented support for this false claim.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sorting through it all

What did you think I was talking about? Vecchiotti confirmed under oath there was no reasonable possibility of contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

Er, you do know there are just two alleles per chromosome? So to get seventeen alleles...?

Incidentally, if you have a jumble of different persons DNA, the chances that any SNP will match anything other than the indiviudal to which it belongs is vanishingly remote unless they are cousins of some sort up to twelve times removed. You seem to be saying the seventeen alleles found of Raff's was a mixture of all sorts of fragments.

This is a clear sign your comment is mere obfuscation to conceal the fact that Raff's clear DNA profile was found on the bra clasp; 17 alleles, counting ONLY those above 50 RFUS's.

There is no innocent explanation for his DNA being there. Aside from the conspiracy theories that 'police planted it because they didn't like his American girlfriend and Stefanoni although observed by at least two sets of forensic experts for the defence, including Prof Torres, none of whom complained of any contamination issues at the time, must have somehow introduced in plain sight, Raff's DNA on to the bra clasp...er,...um...because it was a conspiracy to frame the kids.'

Most of this post is garbled nonsense, but it might be worth pointing out why. One Vecchiotti did not testify to any such thing. Two, Professor Carlo Torre was not a DNA expert. Three, my best guess as to the PG-nonsense about 17 alleles is that it refers to the Y chromosomal results. However, the ability of YSTR DNA profiling to discriminate among individuals is far poorer than autosomal DNA profiling. If a man is included, then so are many of his relatives, plus an unknown number of unrelated individuals. Moreover, I posted portions of the YSTR chromatogram, and the presence of at least two contributors (above 50 RFU and not Guede) was obvious in the diagram that I attached.

One of the first things that this thread did was to explore various possibilities of innocent DNA transfer. From Raffaele to the door, to a glove, to the clasp was a hypothesis I put forward in 2010 (I am not sure how or where this idea originated). We now know a great deal more about tertiary transfer than we did in 2010, and such a putative transfer has much better support in the literature now.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no innocent explanation for his DNA being there. Aside from the conspiracy theories that 'police planted it because they didn't like his American girlfriend and Stefanoni although observed by at least two sets of forensic experts for the defence, including Prof Torres, none of whom complained of any contamination issues at the time, must have somehow introduced in plain sight, Raff's DNA on to the bra clasp...er,...um...because it was a conspiracy to frame the kids.'

This is basically Judge Nencini's 2014 reasoning - a reasoning refuted by the Italian Supreme Court in 2015. There is plenty of innocent explanation for Sollecito's DNA being found within the one, single sample Exhibit 165.

Judge Nencini's bogus reasoning about this is at the heart of the way the Supreme Court dismantles the conviction - quashing it and exonerating the pair.

Why? It is classic suspect-centric reasoning. Not only is there a 165b (Raffaele's), there's a 165c, 165d, 165e and perhaps more. If there is no innocent reason for Raffaele's to be there, then there is no innocent reason for the rest.....

Save for Nencini's bizarre reasoning that 165c was probably the victim's boyfriend, and the 165d and 165e despite being male were probably two of the victim's girlfriends.

Once again, Nencini is substituting his hunches and guesses for verifiable evidence; which in this case is what there is not. No one has id'ed the other traces to either rule-in other perps, or rule-out people who couldn't possibly be perps.

What there is with Sample 165 (writ large) is the classic signs of contamination. The bra-clasp is useless as evidence, and it is a sign of such a weak case that it needs to be appealed to by the guilter mob.

And all this is BEFORE the fact of it being on the floor for 46 days before being collected, found in a place different from where it was photographed on Nov 2, and the way the geniuses who collected it handled it.