The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[sept79]

.
.
.
4. The ECHR judged that the Italian appeal court unfairly convicted Lorefice because it did not hear the witnesses in person, relying only on the transcript, and thus could not accurately evaluate their credibility. The ECHR pointed out that in its jurisprudence, the CSC had acknowledged an appeal court must hear a witness in person if making a judgment of credibility, based on ECHR case-law:

"27. Referring to the case-law of the {ECHR} Court, inter alia, in Dan [v. Moldova (No. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)], the Italian Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the appellate judge who seeks to reverse a judgment of acquittal must rehear witnesses in so far as their statements are decisive in concluding the conviction of the accused and {determine} whether their credibility must be re-evaluated (inter alia, judgment of the 5th Section No. 38085 of 5 July 2012)." {Google translated from French}
.
.
.

It's bewildering that any court of law would allow testimony against a defendant without allowing the defense to cross examine the one offering said testimony.

Questions:

--Is there any indication of strong protests being issued by the defense attorney(s) as these proceedings were taking place?

--Is the court room the only place where kangaroos are found in Italy?

 

[Numbers]

Did Lorefice get the retrial? If so, do we know the outcome?

The ECHR judgment was published 29 June 2017. I doubt that the Italian courts would move so quickly as to provide him a retrial by 10 July 2017.

Possibly the Italian media would have some notice of a retrial when and if it is scheduled.

 

[Numbers]

It's bewildering that any court of law would allow testimony against a defendant without allowing the defense to cross examine the one offering said testimony.

Questions:

--Is there any indication of strong protests being issued by the defense attorney(s) as these proceedings were taking place?

--Is the court room the only place where kangaroos are found in Italy?

Well, there defense appealed the appeal court's conviction to the CSC and lost, although the CSC had previously indicated that in-person evaluation of the credibility of witness testimony was needed to justify a conviction. In earlier cases, the CSC had ruled that it was contrary to Italian law - based on international, ECHR case-law - not to have in person testimony to evaluate credibility for a conviction. The Italian judicial system, however, as a "civil law" system, does not strictly obey precedent. But it must, according to the Italian Constitution, follow international law, and the State of Italy is obligated by treaty to follow the European Convention of Human Rights and the final judgments of the ECHR.

 

[TruthCalls]

"27. Referring to the case-law of the {ECHR} Court, inter alia, in Dan [v. Moldova (No. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)], the Italian Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the appellate judge who seeks to reverse a judgment of acquittal must rehear witnesses in so far as their statements are decisive in concluding the conviction of the accused and {determine} whether their credibility must be re-evaluated (inter alia, judgment of the 5th Section No. 38085 of 5 July 2012)." {Google translated from French}

It would be interesting to know how this should be interpreted when the witness has since died so can not be reheard. Curatolo died in 2012, before the second appeal was heard. I would imagine it was up to Nencini to justify why Hellmann's reasoning was not logical and why Curatolo should have been considered credible. For an impartial judge this is an easy call. Curatolo was adamant he saw Amanda and Raffaele on Halloween (disco buses, costumes, ruckus because it was holiday..) and as Cheffi and Nencini both point out, this was not possible because they were elsewhere. Therefore Curatolo simply mistook someone else as Amanda and Raffaele. The rest of his testimony is irrelevant once it's proven it wasn't Amanda and Raffaele that he saw.

This is interesting, but given that Amanda's calunnia conviction is the only thing before the ECHR I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[LondonJohn]

It would be interesting to know how this should be interpreted when the witness has since died so can not be reheard. Curatolo died in 2012, before the second appeal was heard. I would imagine it was up to Nencini to justify why Hellmann's reasoning was not logical and why Curatolo should have been considered credible. For an impartial judge this is an easy call. Curatolo was adamant he saw Amanda and Raffaele on Halloween (disco buses, costumes, ruckus because it was holiday..) and as Cheffi and Nencini both point out, this was not possible because they were elsewhere. Therefore Curatolo simply mistook someone else as Amanda and Raffaele. The rest of his testimony is irrelevant once it's proven it wasn't Amanda and Raffaele that he saw.

This is interesting, but given that Amanda's calunnia conviction is the only thing before the ECHR I don't see how this is relevant.

I strongly suspect that Sollecito will lodge an application with the ECHR in respect of the settled outcome of his compensation trial. And, if that's what happens, then the ECHR will be invited to consider many of the same sorts of shockingly unjust areas of the Italian criminal justice process as in the Lorefice application.

In many senses, Sollecito's ECHR application will centre on the very same core issue as Knox's application: that his human rights were denied when he was unlawfully coerced in the 5th/6th November police interrogation into making a sworn statement (one which turned out to have serious legal implications for him, including in his compensation claim) without any form of caution and without any access to legal counsel. But in addition, Sollecito's application will invite the ECHR to examine the fact that his compensation trial partially based its judgement upon judicial findings against a totally different person - in a trial in which Sollecito had no representation or right to a defence (i.e. Knox's criminal slander trial).

And furthermore, the sole evidence which constituted grounds for conviction in that other trial (i.e. Knox's 1.45am and 5.45am statements) were deemed unusable against Knox in her trial for murder, and in no way constituted any evidence about Sollecito (his name was never even mentioned), and should therefore not have been (indirectly) usable as evidence that Sollecito must have lied to police when he initially told them that he and Knox had been in his apartment together all evening/night of the murder, since Knox's criminal slander conviction (based, remember, solely on those two statements of Knox's) "proved" that Knox was actually present in the cottage at the time of the murder - and therefore at the very least Sollecito was lying when he told police Knox was with him in his apartment, or at the most, Sollecito was lying because he himself was present in the cottage with Knox.

You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.

 

[Stacyhs]

The ECHR judgment was published 29 June 2017. I doubt that the Italian courts would move so quickly as to provide him a retrial by 10 July 2017.

Possibly the Italian media would have some notice of a retrial when and if it is scheduled.

LOL....I missed the date of the judgment. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!"

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, on the matter of the determination of the credibility/reliability of witnesses, the Italian legislation and codes actually do allow for courts of appeal or the Supreme Court to overturn the assessment of lower courts on these matters, provided that the overturning is done strictly as a matter of a misapplication of the law by the lower courts. The law (and relevant codes) dictates that a court must make a fair, logical and reasonable determination of the reliability/credibility of a witness before deciding whether that witness's testimony should form part of the overall evidence set. And it's perfectly feasible for a higher court to decide that a lower court manifestly did not apply the law correctly in its assessment of witness testimony.

Two (deliberately extreme) examples to illustrate the point:

1) A senior university law professor is a witness to a murder. She has no criminal record or connections, and has no connections to the victim or the defendant. She went straight to the police on the very same night as the murder, and described the murderer in exceptional detail (detail which subsequently matched the man whom the police charged and put on trial for the murder). Furthermore, she picked out the defendant immediately and with certainty in an identity parade as the man whom she saw murder the victim, and has never wavered in her identification.

The court of first instance comes to the assessment that the witness is unreliable and lacking in credibility, and therefore gives her testimony no weight in evidence.

Under these circumstances, it would be entirely feasible for a court of appeal or the SC to overturn the lower court's assessment of this witness's credibility, without necessarily even having to see/hear the witness again. This is because the lower court could reasonably be deemed to have misapplied the law in respect of assessing the quality and reliability of this woman's evidence. Had the law been applied correctly, this woman's testimony should have been deemed fundamentally reliable and credible, and should therefore have been accorded full weight by the lower court in its overall assessment of evidence in its deliberations.


2) A homeless heroin addict and dealer with severe mental health issues claims to have witnessed two defendants in a murder trial in/around a square near the cottage where the murder occurred, in contrast with the two defendants' claims to have been ensconced together in the apartment of one of the defendants the whole time in question. The witness has had several previous run-ins with law enforcement, and the police have (for reasons unknown) held onto cast-iron evidence of the witness's Class A drug dealing for several years without bringing charges. The witness claims to be certain that the people he saw - in low artificial light and and a distance of at least 30-40 yards - were indeed the defendants (in spite of never having had to pick them out in an identity parade etc), despite his self-profession that he was almost certainly using heroin on the evening/night in question. The witness failed to come forward to the police until several months after the murder, and not until he was persuaded to do so by a journalist. And the witness states that he remembers vividly that on the night on which he says he saw the defendants, there were hordes of young people in masks and costumes, and fleets of unmarked buses which were picking up these young people from the square. Yet this can only be a description of the night before the night of the murder - 31st October, Halloween - since all of the large out-of-town discos which provide these buses to transport customers to their premises were holding big events on the night of Halloween (which customers were encouraged to attend wearing costumes and masks etc), and none of these clubs was open the following night - the night of the murder - meaning in turn that there could not possibly have been any such buses (nor any hordes of young people in costumes and masks) present on the night of the murder.

The court of first instance, and one of the courts of appeal, find this witness to be credible and reliable, and therefore give his testimony full weight in the overall set of evidence. And once his evidence is considered to be of high quality and credibility, at a stroke it is damning to the defendants, since it flatly contradicts the defendants' claims to have been nowhere near the area where the witness states that he (repeatedly) sighted them on the night of the murder.

Under these circumstances, it would be entirely feasible for the Supreme Court to overturn the would be entirely feasible for a court of appeal or the SC to overturn the lower courts' assessment of this witness's credibility, without necessarily even having to see/hear the witness again. This is because the lower courts could reasonably be deemed to have misapplied the law in respect of assessing the quality and reliability of this man's evidence. Had the law been applied correctly, this man's testimony should have been deemed fundamentally unreliable and lacking in credibility, and should therefore have been discounted by the courts in their overall assessment of evidence in their deliberations.


(Obviously that second example is almost too extreme as to even be feasible as an example - after all, what court in its right mind could possibly ever determine that this man constituted a reliable and credible witness........?)

 

[Numbers]

It would be interesting to know how this should be interpreted when the witness has since died so can not be reheard. Curatolo died in 2012, before the second appeal was heard. I would imagine it was up to Nencini to justify why Hellmann's reasoning was not logical and why Curatolo should have been considered credible. For an impartial judge this is an easy call. Curatolo was adamant he saw Amanda and Raffaele on Halloween (disco buses, costumes, ruckus because it was holiday..) and as Cheffi and Nencini both point out, this was not possible because they were elsewhere. Therefore Curatolo simply mistook someone else as Amanda and Raffaele. The rest of his testimony is irrelevant once it's proven it wasn't Amanda and Raffaele that he saw.

This is interesting, but given that Amanda's calunnia conviction is the only thing before the ECHR I don't see how this is relevant.

Amanda's calunnia conviction is the only part of this case currently pending before the ECHR.

Raffaele's lawyer has been quoted by Italian media as stating their next step is to take the denial of compensation for unjust detention (now a final decision of the CSC) to the ECHR as a complaint of a violation of his Convention rights.

Potentially, the question of whether Amanda's and Raffaele's Convention rights were violated by how the trials were conducted may come before the ECHR.

But more generally, the issue of how an Italian court conducts evaluations of alleged evidence - testimonial or forensic - and whether such evaluations conform or not to international standards Italy is obligated to obey under its Constitution and treaty agreements is highly relevant to the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on tertiary transfer of DNA

I just found this paper this morning, and all I have had a chance to do is to skim it. Looks interesting.

DNA transfer-a never ending story. A study on scenarios involving a second person as carrier.
Conclusion: "This study proves the possibility of transfer of one person’s DNA (donor) from one item to another by a second person (carrier), i.e., a tertiary transfer, since in 40 % of all 180 samples such a transfer could be demonstrated. Our results underline once again the need to interpret DNA results from crime scenes with great care. DNA can be virtually transferred in so many different manners that it may be impossible to determine the way by which it was deposited on a distinct item, even if it is no problem to identify the DNA donor. Especially textiles turned out to be an excellent material for absorbing and releasing DNA." link to abstract

 

[Bill Williams]

I just found this paper this morning, and all I have had a chance to do is to skim it. Looks interesting.

DNA transfer-a never ending story. A study on scenarios involving a second person as carrier.
Conclusion: "This study proves the possibility of transfer of one person’s DNA (donor) from one item to another by a second person (carrier), i.e., a tertiary transfer, since in 40 % of all 180 samples such a transfer could be demonstrated. Our results underline once again the need to interpret DNA results from crime scenes with great care. DNA can be virtually transferred in so many different manners that it may be impossible to determine the way by which it was deposited on a distinct item, even if it is no problem to identify the DNA donor. Especially textiles turned out to be an excellent material for absorbing and releasing DNA." link to abstract

Time to dust off this photo taken by the Scientific Police themselves in 2007....

 

[Stacyhs]

I just found this paper this morning, and all I have had a chance to do is to skim it. Looks interesting.

DNA transfer-a never ending story. A study on scenarios involving a second person as carrier.
Conclusion: "This study proves the possibility of transfer of one person’s DNA (donor) from one item to another by a second person (carrier), i.e., a tertiary transfer, since in 40 % of all 180 samples such a transfer could be demonstrated. Our results underline once again the need to interpret DNA results from crime scenes with great care. DNA can be virtually transferred in so many different manners that it may be impossible to determine the way by which it was deposited on a distinct item, even if it is no problem to identify the DNA donor. Especially textiles turned out to be an excellent material for absorbing and releasing DNA." link to abstract

But I have it on very good authority that it b'aint never gonna happen:

There is no such thing as tertiary transfer, except in very limited experimental conditions of restricted time frames. Even Dr. Gill confirms that secondary transfer of DNA is higly unlikely after 24-hours. In other words, the PIP fairy story of Raff's DNA being transferred from door frame to latex glove to bra clasp - tertiary transfer - is pure lalaland.
B'ain't never gonna happen.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Charles University Faculty of Law (Prague, Czech Republic), had Raffaele Sollecito as a theme speaker in its program on "Mental Health and Law International Congress". I presume he was taking about his time in solitary confinement from late 2007 to late 2008 in Italy.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Charles University Faculty of Law (Prague, Czech Republic), had Raffaele Sollecito as a theme speaker in its program on "Mental Health and Law International Congress". I presume he was taking about his time in solitary confinement from late 2007 to late 2008 in Italy.

Mental Health and Law? They need to have a symposium about people who still believe that tertiary transfer of DNA is impossible.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mental Health and Law? They need to have a symposium about people who still believe that tertiary transfer of DNA is impossible.

Or believe that blood wiped from a sink could not possibly pick up the pre-existing DNA of a person who used the sink daily. Or that TMB negative means that blood is still present. Or that a serial witness for the cops admittedly high on heroin (and possibly cocaine, too) and intoxicated people are "reliable witnesses". Or that a single non-repeatable, LCN DNA sample on a knife that tested repeatedly negative for blood and was physically incapable of making all but one wound was the murder weapon. Or that an athletic, physically fit 20 yr. old man could not climb into a second story window. Or that the same 20 yr. old man could not lob a 9 lb. rock horizontally about 6 feet.

No need to go on although there are many more examples.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mental Health and Law? They need to have a symposium about people who still believe that tertiary transfer of DNA is impossible.

Or believe that blood wiped from a sink could not possibly pick up the pre-existing DNA of a person who used the sink daily. Or that TMB negative means that blood is still present. Or that a serial witness for the cops admittedly high on heroin (and possibly cocaine, too) and intoxicated people are "reliable witnesses". Or that a single non-repeatable, LCN DNA sample on a knife that tested repeatedly negative for blood and was physically incapable of making all but one wound was the murder weapon. Or that an athletic, physically fit 20 yr. old man could not climb into a second story window. Or that the same 20 yr. old man could not lob a 9 lb. rock horizontally about 6 feet.

No need to go on although there are many more examples.

Or believe that "mixed blood" was in play.

Today there was a tweet which noted the coincidence of OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox sharing a birthday. Knox made a rare comment in response, saying (quite correctly), "It's focussing on this kind of meaningless coincidence rather than actual evidence that leads to wrongful convictions."

The someone else piled-on quipping, "Wanna talk about why you were really convicted? Mixed blood...." etc. In fact talking about all that kind of evidence reveals that it is vapourware - there was no mixed blood. That factoid was dismissed at the Massei trial in 2009. (But it shows up in tweets in 2017.)

Mental health and the law? They need to have a symposium on how people cannot assess evidence before they tweet....

 

[Stacyhs]

Or believe that "mixed blood" was in play.

Today there was a tweet which noted the coincidence of OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox sharing a birthday. Knox made a rare comment in response, saying (quite correctly), "It's focussing on this kind of meaningless coincidence rather than actual evidence that leads to wrongful convictions."

The someone else piled-on quipping, "Wanna talk about why you were really convicted? Mixed blood...." etc. In fact talking about all that kind of evidence reveals that it is vapourware - there was no mixed blood. That factoid was dismissed at the Massei trial in 2009. (But it shows up in tweets in 2017.)

Mental health and the law? They need to have a symposium on how people cannot assess evidence before they tweet....

The willful ignorance of so many PGP is staggering...but not surprising. When anyone can actually believe that sharing a common birthday means something it's just plain stupid. Ah, yes...the "mixed blood" nonsense is still supported on TMofMK. Stupid. Just stupid.

 

[Bill Williams]

The willful ignorance of so many PGP is staggering...but not surprising. When anyone can actually believe that sharing a common birthday means something it's just plain stupid. Ah, yes...the "mixed blood" nonsense is still supported on TMofMK. Stupid. Just stupid.

A Wiki is supposed to be user-editable, meaning that if a user (even un-logged-in) wants to make an edit, they can.

The mixed-blood/mixed DNA section from the fake-Wiki is almost entirely from Sept 2013, from a single editor - "Ferguson". From the page, the reader cannot really be sure what point the editor is trying to draw.

However, the most stupid comment of them all is this:

Likewise, if shared housing is meant to excuse the mixed trace in Romanelli's room, it logically follows that Romanelli's DNA should be found in her own room, which it wasn't.​

What is "Ferguson" suggesting here? That Knox performed a clean in Filomena's room, a clean to the molecular, forensic-DNA level? I thought they were claiming that that (impossible) clean was supposed to be in the murder-room only?

If the pair were such thorough forensic cleaners, why'd they leave ANY traces at all anywhere.

Serves me right. I had not been on the fake-Wiki for some time. One of the last times I'd been on was to read the proof that Vixen claimed that Vecchiotti was on the take. Back then, the claim was based on a random comment by the Kercher lawyer that he'd once seen Vecchiotti go for lunch with defence lawyers. At that time, that was all the fake-Wiki had said.

There was no point to go back to it.... until now. Now I feel stupid.

 

[Planigale]

A Wiki is supposed to be user-editable, meaning that if a user (even un-logged-in) wants to make an edit, they can.

The mixed-blood/mixed DNA section from the fake-Wiki is almost entirely from Sept 2013, from a single editor - "Ferguson". From the page, the reader cannot really be sure what point the editor is trying to draw.

However, the most stupid comment of them all is this:

​

What is "Ferguson" suggesting here? That Knox performed a clean in Filomena's room, a clean to the molecular, forensic-DNA level? I thought they were claiming that that (impossible) clean was supposed to be in the murder-room only?

If the pair were such thorough forensic cleaners, why'd they leave ANY traces at all anywhere.

Serves me right. I had not been on the fake-Wiki for some time. One of the last times I'd been on was to read the proof that Vixen claimed that Vecchiotti was on the take. Back then, the claim was based on a random comment by the Kercher lawyer that he'd once seen Vecchiotti go for lunch with defence lawyers. At that time, that was all the fake-Wiki had said.

There was no point to go back to it.... until now. Now I feel stupid.

Since they never took a reference sample from Romanelli they would never know if they found a DNA sample to match her. If you don't look you don't find.

 

[Bill Williams]

Since they never took a reference sample from Romanelli they would never know if they found a DNA sample to match her. If you don't look you don't find.

It raises the thought that if the Scientific Police had not done a forensic-DNA sweep, the fake-Wiki would claim that Knox had cleaned the whole cottage!

Every so often I forget just how stupid the fake-Wiki actually is.

 

[TruthCalls]

Since they never took a reference sample from Romanelli they would never know if they found a DNA sample to match her. If you don't look you don't find.

You have to have unidentified DNA before having reference profiles is necessary, and you have to be taking sampling before you can generate DNA profiles, unidentified or otherwise. I find a total of five samples from Romanelli's room. One from the rock, one a hair from the window, one from the window frame and the two that were Luminol positive. Ferguson seems to make the same foolish error so often made by PGP. A lack of sampling resulting in a lack of DNA profiles does not in any way suggest DNA traces aren't present in the room. You just need to find them. Obviously the police jumped to the conclusion the room was staged and didn't bother to properly test it. Romanelli was in her room on two occasions after the police arrived so there is no doubt her DNA is in there. But why let this obvious fact get in the way of good PGP insinuation.

And before Vixen resurfaces to jump on this... there were 156 samples taken from Meredith's bedroom and an additional 24 taken from her body (that I can find, perhaps there were even more). Attempting to equate this with the five samples taken from Romanelli's room would be really, really stupid. Especially since it would be relatively easy to take minor steps to avoid leaving a forensic trace of yourself entering a room through a window, but far more difficult to do so when stabbing and sexually assaulting someone in a small room.