The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

The legal terms used in court are convict/guilty or acquit/not guilty. A court will never declare someone "exonerated" if/when they are found not guilty. Further, to be exonerated means to be found innocent after previously having been found, or assumed to have been, guilty. If someone is indicted for a crime, goes to trial and is acquitted, it would not be proper to consider them an exoneree as they were never previously considered guilty.

But in truth none of that really matters. The real point here is you made the claim one can not be considered an exoneree unless they have a "Certificate of Exoneration". Forgetting for a moment the incorrect usage of exoneration in the name of this State of Illinois certificate, you offered no evidence to suggest this certificate was required in order to be considered an exoneree. And certainly what the State of Illinois does has no bearing on someone would was exonerated of a crime in Italy.

You can obtain exoneration by one of two methods:

1. You receive a pardon from the state.

2. You apply (petition) for it.

US law is predicated on the British one, so the Wisconsin rules for getting a 'certificate of exoneration' will be pretty similar, if not the same in the US and the UK.

In the UK it is called 'quashed'.

 

[Vixen]

There is no doubt that the Italian law, CPP Article 314.1, states, in translation:

"Whoever is dismissed by a final judgment because the criminal act did not occur, or they did not commit it or the act does not constitute an offence or it is not deemed an offence by law, is entitled to equitable compensation for the precautionary detention he served, if he did not cause or contributed to cause it intentionally or by gross negligence."

And herein lies the get out clause.

Many countries in Europe do not provide compensation for being held on remand whilst awaiting trial, England, Wales, Scotland, Norn and Eire, being examples.

The ECHR recognises this and therefore does not accept applications for compensation for being held in custody on remand. Italy provides compensation because it allows suspects to be held without charge for up to a year.

Their CPP (penal code) recognises this needs compensating should the imprisonment be wrongful. However, like the US (see the Wisconsin cite earlier), it is not automatic. If there is any hint of contributory conduct to a person being held in custody then the court can refuse compensation.

Italy has it written into its criminal law, so I cannot see how the ECHR can help Raff here, as we know he lied on numerous occasions, refused to give evidence, and obstructed justice by refusing to give an honest account of the murder night.

 

[Vixen]

I'll go with misleading...... but there's a nuance that everyone is missing here.

Both Knox and Sollecito spent time in prison, but that time (one year for Knox, four years for Sollecito) was solely because of precautionary detention.

Neither the Massei nor the Nencini convictions count, not until Cassation confirms them which in this case it did not.

This is different than in the US where a lower court conviction is a conviction, and any jail time is because if guilt. If a person is subsequently released on appeal because the appeals court reverses the conviction, then in the US that person could be said to be both innocent and exonerated.

As it relates to the murder, under Italian law the pair had never been convicted, not really. Nor did the Hellmann acquittal count as an acquittal, not until Cassation signed off on it.

No one here knows, not really, if Cassation's 2015 annulling of Nencini was a de jure agreement or reinstatement of Hellmann's acquittal - where is Grinder when you need him?

So "exonerated" has the nuance to it that someone had first been legally an definitively convicted of murder. Neither Sollecito nor Knox had been, indeed, in the eyes of Italian law they'd been innocent throughout without interruption.

However, there is also a de facto sense of "exonerated". In the US and Canada that term is perhaps used that way, towards Knox, even among 100s of lawyers as she's referred to as such in multiple bar associations and law schools in two countries.

Someone has to keep Grinder's spirit alive! Vixen may have been purposely misleading, but she was not entirely wrong.

These will be eager defence lawyers keen to discover a few tricks in getting their client off the hook.

Zellner has discovered she can do this by getting prisoners on their death beds in Death Row to 'confess' to having committed murders her clients are convicted of, and thus gets them off by this route. The other, is to pressurise key witnesses (in the case of Ryan Ferguson, the cleaning lady, Shawna Ornt - who came face to face with the two 'college-age men' as their victim lay on the ground, garrotted - who, two year's later, claimed neither of the two men were Ferguson or Erickson, although she didn't say this at the time, and the other witness, whom we are told constantly is a 'sex offender', claims he recognised the men from a newspaper article photo. She got his wife to confirm she never sent him the newspaper as he claimed and he retracted his statement, begging forgiveness.

So, Ferguson got his conviction 'vacated' on the technical grounds of one Brady violation - the prosecution omitted to mention the wife's denial -not because they discovered 'who really did it'.

He was awarded $11m on the technicality of a police irregularity in procedure (they do not admit liabilty).

But money cannot buy the one thing a guilty person can never have, and that is innocence. I look forward to the 'real perpetrators' being found.

 

[LondonJohn]

You can obtain exoneration by one of two methods:

1. You receive a pardon from the state.

2. You apply (petition) for it.

US law is predicated on the British one, so the Wisconsin rules for getting a 'certificate of exoneration' will be pretty similar, if not the same in the US and the UK.

In the UK it is called 'quashed'.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you're talking about in respect of what "quashed" means in England&Wales (not "UK" - further ignorance there) criminal law.

Do some research. Do some reading. Please don't post nonsense and falsehoods. Thank you kindly.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Niether of them complained about police conduct at the time, as their lawyers are obliged by Italian law to do.

In addition, neither of them exhausted internal and external complaints procedures, before bringing a claim.

 

[Vixen]

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you're talking about in respect of what "quashed" means in England&Wales (not "UK" - further ignorance there) criminal law.

Do some research. Do some reading. Please don't post nonsense and falsehoods. Thank you kindly.

'UK' is perfectly decent shorthand as Norn, Scotland, England & Wales converge here.

An exception might be Scotland in that it retains a third, 'not proven' verdict, which cannot ipso facto count as exoneration.

In fact, this is very similar to the Art 530 para II verdict handed to Raff & Knox.

 

[bagels]

Niether of them complained about police conduct at the time, as their lawyers are obliged by Italian law to do.

In addition, neither of them exhausted internal and external complaints procedures, before bringing a claim.

"If there is a problem, fill out a complaint form, and place it in an envelope addressed to the name of the hospital in which you were born" - Franz Kafka International Airport Customer Service.

 

[Vixen]

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

I notice you omitted a key parameter: how soon does the DNA have to be transferred (in minutes, hours, days?) for it to successfully be tranferred by tertiary touch (as you claim re the bra clasp).

Peter Gill says secondary transfer can only take place within 24 hours, so we all await your reply with interest as Raff's DNA must have been on the door frame six weeks.

 

[Vixen]

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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

This reminds me of the recurring photo in Private Eye. I think it is apposite to remind people.

 

[Bill Williams]

'UK' is perfectly decent shorthand as Norn, Scotland, England & Wales converge here.

An exception might be Scotland in that it retains a third, 'not proven' verdict, which cannot ipso facto count as exoneration.

In fact, this is very similar to the Art 530 para II verdict handed to Raff & Knox.

O Lord, are you on about that again?

It is not similar at all.

 

[Vixen]

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.

And as you know, very little useful DNA was found due to (a) the copious amounts of blood having deteriorated ( possibly through environmental bacteria) (b) the victim's DNA dominated all other DNA.

Rudy's was found because of the Y-autosomal test which only comes out in males.

However, Amanda's DNA swamped Mez' in the bathroom, and this is why her bleeding the same time as Mez is suspicious, given the circumstances and all of the scientific evidence put together.

Marasca bringing in Laura and Filomena proves it just cut and pasted Bongiorno's scattergun nonense.

 

[Vixen]

O Lord, are you on about that again?

It is not similar at all.

Grinder agreed.

 

[LondonJohn]

O Lord, are you on about that again?

It is not similar at all.

No indeed, it's not similar at all. And in addition, E&W, Scotland and NI each have difference justice systems.

And, for the record, there's no such slang as "Norn" to refer to Northern Ireland. The (rather demeaning) slang, parodying the accent, is "Norn Irn". "Norn" just represents/means "Northern", which is entirely meaningless. And nobody who actually knows about this would EVER refer to NI as "Norn". They would receive blank looks if they did so, together with an acknowledgement of their rather embarrassing ignorance. It's "Norn Irn" (or "Norn Iron") or nothing. Full stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

'UK' is perfectly decent shorthand as Norn, Scotland, England & Wales converge here.

An exception might be Scotland in that it retains a third, 'not proven' verdict, which cannot ipso facto count as exoneration.

In fact, this is very similar to the Art 530 para II verdict handed to Raff & Knox.

Weird how you ENTIRELY overlooked the main point of my post, which was that you had no idea what "quashed" means in E&W criminal law (yet pretended that you did, and created a false definition of it in the process).

Any comments on that?

 

[Vixen]

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.[/QUOTE]

It would be perfectly logical and practical for Guede to have worn gloves while breaking into the cottage. Not only was it a cold night, but it would make sense to wear gloves while pulling himself up gripping the window sill and then clearing away glass. It also would make sense for him to have rummaged through Filomena's room while wearing them and then to have removed them to use the toilet which explains why he then left his DNA, fingerprints, and bloody palm print.

Riiiight. That's why he left his crap behind and his hand and footprints.

 

[bagels]

Riiiight. That's why he left his crap behind and his hand and footprints.

What is the PGP theory of the floating turd anyway? That Rudy isn't familiar with indoor plumbing, being African or whatever? I want to know more.

 

[Vixen]

The reason Curatolo is a bogus witness has nothing to do with disco buses or heroin or any of that crap. It's because the night of the murder he later claims to have seen a young woman in a "serious argument" with a man and this "serious argument" featuring a young woman was so notable to him, that he remembered her and the young man months later, in a town full of young male and female students.

Yet when he was interviewed by the police 12 hours after the murder about a young woman being brutally killed, steps away from where a young woman was supposedly confronting a man in a notable suspicious "serious argument", he knew nothing. Saw nothing.

Hellmann doesn't mention this because Italy has a stupid judicial system and they aren't allowed to imply someone is just lying and making **** up. But in a serious system this would absolutely be the end of his testimony. The PGP don't care because this case has never ever been about the evidence to them.

You are not going to find a Nobel prize winner sitting on a bench in Perugia at that time of night.

 

[Vixen]

Add that to the fact that the "bloody footprints" attributed to Knox were never compared to the footprints of the other 3 girls living in that house. Think about that for a minute. Three other girls lived in that cottage and the police never bothered to compare their footprints to the luminol enhanced footprints. Why? Most likely because they assumed they were in blood so therefore could only belong to Amanda.

Laura and Filomena had rock solid alibis elsewhere.

 

[bagels]

You are not going to find a Nobel prize winner sitting on a bench in Perugia at that time of night.

It is what is known as a "contradiction" or "inconsistency." Two random students are so notable they stick out over thousands of other students, but so un-notable they aren't even worth mentioning to the police right after the murder.

A witness with contradictory and inconsistent testimony, without additional corroboration, is of little value. I hope this evidence 101 lesson helps you in future cases that aren't already solved.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder agreed.

Grinder was wrong.

It is one of the few times I bested him in argument. It's why I remember, because there were so few of those times!!!

I asked him to describe what is different in a case between a Section 1 and Section 2 acquittal; different in practical terms. What is it that ensues from a Section 1 acquittal which would be different from what ensues from a Section 2 acquittal?

The answer? Nothing. He at least had the decency to consult with someone who was familiar with Italian law, and was man enough to admit he'd been wrong.

Ok, that's the only time. Someone more favourable to Grinder's arguments will now list the number of times he'd bested me. Go ahead, I'm dug in for the long haul.....