Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

It looks to me that the Florence court
was not in a position to evaluate whether it was shareable or not. The ECHR judgement is final and isn't a matter to be quibbled about. So, I'd agree with you in that respect.

I'd still argue that the ECHR judgement regarding the lawyer and interpreter violations are overarching; therefore Italy's considerations on the memoriale are irrelevant. I that that CDV should be arguing that if HE were promptly assigned to assist Amanda on the 6th November he'd never have advised her to make the memoriale in the first place, or at least have advised her on the content. The non-assignment of a lawyer of course undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. In other words the use of the memoriale in the current proceedings is deceptive.

Hoots!

I believe that it is not a question of whether or not the Florence Court of Appeals was - or was not - in a position to evaluate Knox's written statements, but rather did that court follow the law - Italian and international - in carrying out the evaluation that led to the provisional conviction.

The Court of Appeals' evaluation and conclusions were unreasonable ("illogical" in Italian legalese) because it failed to examine the complete body of evidence - all the circumstances surrounding the writing of the first memoriale and the meaning of the second memoriale - as well as Italian law CPP Article 533 (a court may lawfully deliver a judgment of guilty only if the evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty). It is an Italian law (CPP Article 530) that if the evidence of guilt is contradictory (or insufficient or absent [lacking]), the accused must be acquitted.

According to the ECHR - Council of Europe - obligations of Italy (and other member states of the CoE), Italy's judgments, laws, and practices, including its interpretations of law, must conform to the final judgments of the ECHR. Treaty obligations have legal force, and Italy continues in its violations of international law in this case as long as it does not conform to the final judgment of Knox v. Italy. There are three violations: Convention Article 3 (procedural limb), Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e. The retrial only attempted to address the violation of Convention Article 6.1, but did this in a way that violated conformance with the ECHR's final judgment Knox v. Italy.

 

[Numbers]

Some additional thoughts:

The Italian courts, including the Florence Court of Appeal in the calunnia retrial, have taken no measures to redress the violation of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb ), so there has never been an independent and effective investigation of Knox's claims of mistreatment during the interrogations and that her statement against Lumumba was a result of a violation of her rights under CPP Article 188 (violation of the right of self-determination in giving evidence) and other Italian law, including the revised (2017) CPP Article 191 (prohibits the use of evidence obtained by mistreatment or torture against the person mistreated or tortured). Thus, use against her of her original statement(s) against Lumumba would be unlawful under CPP Articles 191 and 188.

As stated in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, the violations of either of Convention Articles 6.3c and 6.3e rendered the whole of the trial for calunnia unfair (violation of Convention Article 6.1). The ECHR judgment identified Memoriale 1 as a retraction (even with any ambiguity, Memoriale 1 cannot establish guilt of calunnia beyond a reasonable doubt). Since the ECHR judgment finds the the proceedings as a whole unfair, it suggests that any ambiguity in Memoriale 1 must be regarded, in US legal terminology, as "fruit of the poisoned tree" and a residue of the alleged violation of CPP Article 188, which cannot be used against Knox, especially since she makes a clearer retraction in Memoriale 2 as well as in her statements to her lawyers.

 

[Stacyhs]

The best outcome would be for the SC to do what the M-B SC did: annul the conviction without remand to another appellate court. I don't expect that even though I think it's what should be done. When it comes to Italian courts, nothing they do surprises me anymore.

 

[Numbers]

The best outcome would be for the SC to do what the M-B SC did: annul the conviction without remand to another appellate court. I don't expect that even though I think it's what should be done. When it comes to Italian courts, nothing they do surprises me anymore.

Some of the MRs in the Knox - Sollecito case show nationalistic pride in ancient Italy or Rome as a founder of Western judicial systems.

However, it's that some of the Italian judges either are insufficiently trained or choose to ignore certain basic legal principles of Western (fair) judicial systems.

For example, Italy, according to its Constitution (Article 27) and its treaty binding it to the Council of Europe and ECHR, is obligated to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. But in this case, we have seen repeated violations of that principle by some of the courts. One example is the CSC judgment that annulled the Hellmann Court of Appeal provisional acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges. That MR stated that the defense must prove that DNA contamination occurred and how it happened; the presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution must prove that DNA contamination did not occur and that its DNA test methods were in fact reliable. The text of the CSC judgment denying Sollecito compensation for unjust detention was allegedly another such violation of the presumption of innocence, since that MR allegedly stated that suspicions of having committed a crime remained against Sollecito.

The presumption of evidence is enshrined in European Convention Article 6.2. ECHR case law defines the features of the presumption of innocence to include, among others, the following:

1. The judges (and jury, if a jury trial) must not begin the trial with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offense charged against him.

2. The burden of proof of the charges rests upon the prosecution.

3. Any doubt shall benefit the accused.

4. The prosecution must prove its case through sufficient (relevant and reliable) evidence.

5. The prosecution must disclose to the accused and the court any evidence supporting the defense or negating the prosecution case.

See:

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

Paragraphs 359 - 411; of special interest: paragraphs 359 - 361 and 405 - 408

* This principle also is a part of the rights to an adversarial trial with equality of arms, ECHR case law derived from Convention Article 6.1. Specifically see paragraphs 171 -172, 175, 188; the full section is paragraph 171 - 196.

 

[Pacal]

The case against Knox - and Sollecito - alleging that they were involved in the murder/rape of Kercher ended, with no legal possibility of being renewed, with their definitive final acquittal in 2015.on

What may happen in 2025:

An ECHR verdict on the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18 (Lodged 22 Dec 2017; Communicated to Italy 1 Feb 2022). See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

An Italian CSC verdict on Knox's appeal against her 2024 re-conviction for calunnia against Lumumba; the re-conviction resulted from an Italian Appeals court trial based on the new Italian law meant to provide retrials for those found in an ECHR verdict to have been unfairly convicted. We'll see at some time (2025 or 2026) in this case whether Italy can actually follow its own laws fairly.

Well, Well! The Italian courts are doubling down on their bad verdicts in this case. No doubt to save face rather than admit to f***ing up. This reminds me of the Dreyfus case when the Second Court Martial convicted Dreyfus despite the lack of any real evidence against him all to protect the "honour", face of the Army. In Canada we had the Milgaard case where a man after serving more than 20 years for a murder he didn't commit and it appears the Prosecutors ignored the possibility of another person being the killer, (That person turns out to have been the killer.), the presiding Judge in the inquiry spent his spent much paper defending the Prosecutors behavior and had the nerve to criticized Milgaard's mother, who had worked for years to free her son, and partly blamed her for the fact it took decades to free her son. All to protect the face of the Prosecutors I guess.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."

Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.

As applied to this case, I would argue that the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.

 

[TomG]

The best outcome would be for the SC to do what the M-B SC did: annul the conviction without remand to another appellate court. I don't expect that even though I think it's what should be done. When it comes to Italian courts, nothing they do surprises me anymore.

I'd be interested to know what you would expect?

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."

Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.

As applied to this case, I would argue that the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.

Good comment, Chris.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'd be interested to know what you would expect?

Hoots

At this point, it's a crap shoot what they'll decide as far as I'm concerned. As I said, nothing Italian courts do surprises me anymore. Look at the SC that overturned Hellmann and basically instructed Nencini to convict. Nencini's and Sacco's ridiculous MRs only confirmed my opinion.

 

[Numbers]

I'd be interested to know what you would expect?

Hoots

If the reasoning of the CSC trial on the appeal from the judgment of provisional conviction for calunnia by the Florence Court could be expected to strictly follow Italian law and the ECHR case law (including the judgment Knox v. Italy), there would be no doubt that either the CSC would annul the case on the grounds of nullity or acquit Knox.

Since it is clear from previous Italian court results in this case and some others, as may be discovered in the ECHR database HUDOC, the legal procedures and reasoning of Italian courts do not always strictly follow Italian law or ECHR case law. Yet, sometimes the Italian courts do follow the law. So it is impossible to make a prediction with any confidence.

 

[Numbers]

In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."

Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.

As applied to this case, I would argue that
the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.

I suggest that the presence of several male DNA profiles on the clasp - a fact of the alleged evidence not pointed out by the prosecution - introduces doubt into the probative implication - the forensic meaning - of a DNA profile allegedly matching Sollecito's on the clasp. Since doubt about the probative meaning of alleged evidence benefits the defense, this alleged evidence cannot be used to infer a fact under Italian law (CPP Article 192, paragraph 2). Nor can it be used to convict based on ECHR case law.

The mixed male DNA profiles on the bra clasp are at best evidence of some problem in the forensic collection or treatment during the test procedures (as a whole) of the clasps.

 

[Numbers]

CPP Article 192, paragraph 2:

L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.

Translation (Google, with help from the text by Gialuz et al.):
The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from [circumstantial] evidence unless that evidence is serious, precise, and consistent.

Evidence that is ambiguous or of uncertain validity, such as the DNA profiles allegedly obtained from the bra clasps, cannot satisfy Italian law CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, and thus cannot be used to infer a "judicial" fact against the accused.

https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/11/13/prove-disposizioni-generali

 

[Numbers]

There's a new development in the CSC hearing on Knox's appeal against her provisional re-conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

The hearing will now be held in public, rather than in chambers, with the lawyers presenting, as previously scheduled on 23 January 2025.

Meredith, udienza pubblica per ricorso Knox sulla calunnia - Notizie - Ansa.it

Ci sarà una nuova udienza pubblica per le vicende legate all'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, la studentessa inglese uccisa a Perugia nel novembre del 2007. (ANSA)

www.ansa.it

Il 23 gennaio in Cassazione il ricorso di Knox

Sarà discusso in aula e non in camera di consiglio. In appello la condanna a tre anni, già scontati, per calunnia nei confronti di Lumumba

www.rainews.it

https://umbria.tag24.it/amanda-knox-calunnie-23-gennaio-2025/

 

[Stacyhs]

Good.

 

[TruthCalls]

In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."

Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.

As applied to this case, I would argue that the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.

I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.

I'm also curious what your thoughts are on Raffaele's DNA being 1/6th that of Meredith's and what that says of the trace. I've always believed that if Raffaele had touched the hook, his DNA should have been greater than Meredith's, considering the hook is protected and not touching her body. That it was only 1/6th of hers, in my mind, supports the theory that this was contamination. Then again, my profession was IT, not forensic DNA, so maybe I'm in the weeds on this one. Wouldn't be the first time....

 

[Numbers]

I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.

I'm also curious what your thoughts are on Raffaele's DNA being 1/6th that of Meredith's and what that says of the trace. I've always believed that if Raffaele had touched the hook, his DNA should have been greater than Meredith's, considering the hook is protected and not touching her body. That it was only 1/6th of hers, in my mind, supports the theory that this was contamination. Then again, my profession was IT, not forensic DNA, so maybe I'm in the weeds on this one. Wouldn't be the first time....

There are several issues regarding the validity of the bra clasps as evidence against anyone - except perhaps the authorities who failed to collect the bra during the initial investigation, leaving it to lie at the crime scene on the floor where it was subject to potential contamination for well over 40 days (IIRC), mishandled it during the collection process by touching the hook with a dirty glove (as seen on the police video), possibly tested it twice without notifying the defense or court of the double test, and misrepresented the DNA profile results as only those of Kercher and Sollecito.

Another issue is that the bra was not found intact, but with a ripped or sliced strap, suggesting it had been violently removed from Kercher's body during the crime, not removed by the usual procedure of freeing the hooks from the eyes of the clasps.

A further issue is that IIUC the hooks and eyes of a bra clasp are generally not touched in the process of putting on or taking off a bra. The fabric on either side of the clasp is held and stretched to join or release the hooks and the eyes or release them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.

I'm also curious what your thoughts are on Raffaele's DNA being 1/6th that of Meredith's and what that says of the trace. I've always believed that if Raffaele had touched the hook, his DNA should have been greater than Meredith's, considering the hook is protected and not touching her body. That it was only 1/6th of hers, in my mind, supports the theory that this was contamination. Then again, my profession was IT, not forensic DNA, so maybe I'm in the weeds on this one. Wouldn't be the first time....

It is not disputed that Raffaele touched Meredith's door. DNA of his could have been transferred onto a glove and from the glove onto the clasp. To your question, I would say that one needs to do a study that was very specific before making inferences from the amount of DNA from an item of evidence. In 2013 Meakin and Jamieson wrote a review article and provided some useful generalizations (below). Obviously there has been work done since then, which would have to be reviewed, to update their conclusions. There has been some good work done on tertiary transfer, for example.

"The published work to date establishes:

a) The possibility, but not the probability, of DNA transfer.

b) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from a surface to assess whether the DNA was deposited there by a single touch or by regular use.

c) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from an item of interest to inform whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact or indirect transfer.

d) There is no strong correlation between a full or partial profile and the amount of DNA template (at sub-optimal amounts of DNA)

e) The quality of a DNA profile cannot be used to establish whether the DNA recovered came from the last handler.

f) The number of factors, and the relative effect of those factors, involved in the transfer of DNA is unknown.

g) The initial amount of DNA deposited, and any activity likely to reduce the number of cells or DNA-containing material from donor surfaces (e.g. hand), and the time since those activities, is a key factor in determining the amount of DNA recovered."

 

[Stacyhs]

There are several issues regarding the validity of the bra clasps as evidence against anyone - except perhaps the authorities who failed to collect the bra during the initial investigation, leaving it to lie at the crime scene on the floor where it was subject to potential contamination for well over 40 days (IIRC), mishandled it during the collection process by touching the hook with a dirty glove (as seen on the police video), possibly tested it twice without notifying the defense or court of the double test, and misrepresented the DNA profile results as only those of Kercher and Sollecito.

Another issue is that the bra was not found intact, but with a ripped or sliced strap, suggesting it had been violently removed from Kercher's body during the crime, not removed by the usual procedure of freeing the hooks from the eyes of the clasps.

A further issue is that IIUC the hooks and eyes of a bra clasp are generally not touched in the process of putting on or taking off a bra. The fabric on either side of the clasp is held and stretched to join or release the hooks and the eyes or release them.

After almost 60 years of wearing a bra myself....I agree. I hold the material on either side of the hooks and eyes, not the hooks or eyes. The fact that none of RS's or RG's DNA was found on the material the H and E's were sewn to strongly suggests the clasp was not touched by either to remove the bra.

 

[Numbers]

After almost 60 years of wearing a bra myself....I agree. I hold the material on either side of the hooks and eyes, not the hooks or eyes. The fact that none of RS's or RG's DNA was found on the material the H and E's were sewn to strongly suggests the clasp was not touched by either to remove the bra.

Among the other concerns relating to the bra clasp DNA profiles and how they were obtained, is whether the results were reproducible. In a bizarre and significant "error", after DNA testing, the bra clasp samples were retained inside sealed tubes containing a liquid that would certainly have broken up the continuity between the DNA chemical units (bases). This degradation would prevent meaningful DNA profile results from any future testing of the samples, so there could be no retest. It's the equivalent of shredding a document so that the individual letters may exist, but the words and sentences are destroyed.

Furthermore, for all the DNA profile testing, the raw original data was suppressed by the scientific police. DNA profile results or evidence of absence of DNA, for positive and negative quality controls, respectively, were suppressed by the scientific police for almost all the controls, although there was evidence of contamination in several positive controls and one negative control. The arbitrary refusal by the scientific police (and thus the prosecutor) to turn over true copies of the raw original data or provide complete records of the control results makes it difficult to understand the potential "errors" in the DNA profile testing. Here's a quote from a UK guide* on the forensic and legal aspects of DNA profile testing:

* https://royalsociety.org/-/media/ab...y-forensic-dna-analysis-primer-for-courts.pdf
(A 57 - page primer on forensic DNA profile testing as an introduction for legal professionals.)

In any particular case, the important question is whether an error was made in that case – a realistic suspicion of error in a case can be explored in more detail by examination of the records and quality controls in that case.

 

[Rolfe]

Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.