Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am no FOA .. nothing whatsoever to do with it. Neither do I believe in any conspiracy against Knox and Sollecito. My take on this business is much more mundane.

p.s. Fulcanelli, I hope you find a publisher for your book soon because after the appeal it will only be bonfire material.

Oh, personal...

No book from me. I'm no ambulance chaser. And I have no dog in this fight. Sounds like you do though, despite your claims to the opposite.

 

[nicole]

What is your take on it?

You first!

 

[Moss]

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure who this question was addressed to, but in any case speaking for myself, I'll read the verdict and make up my own mind. Unlike the people currently using the verdict as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt, who if they're acquitted, will immediately have to start arguing for their innocence. Fun.

I see that my premonition is already coming to pass.

What is there about an appeals decision based on review of a trial verdict that is going to be essentially different from the trial verdict itself, except for an overturning of the original verdict? If they affirm that verdict what will be changed about it which will cause you to reconsider your current objections?

There has been a great deal of idle chatter bandied about in this thread by partisans of Knox's innocence concerning the appeal and "new" evidence. I'm not from Italy and don't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about their system (although I've learned a great deal here), but if the U.S. is the gold standard to compare to then very little if any "new" evidence will be permissible. Here, the appeals courts review procedure and compliance with the law. Virtually every reversal on appeal is based on a 'technicality'. By definition. In extremely limited circumstances it is possible to present something as evidence which was not presented as evidence in the original trial, but it is vanishingly rare and is of itself a cause for objection by the prosecution.

By way of example, using the DNA discussion, an appeal might try to claim "ineffective counsel" by saying that Knox's lawyers did not exhibit sufficient diligence in countering the prosecution's DNA experts, or didn't trouble themselves to provide sufficiently accomplished experts of their own.

But that would not free Knox. At best (a very unlikely best) it would garner her a re-trial. An appeal might overturn the verdict, but it would not exonerate her. And real life re-trials here, unlike TV portrayals, are not often to the advantage of the defendant.

If the Italian system has a different philosophy then that is yet another example of a possible superiority of their allegedly inferior legal machinery.

 

[piktor]

I can only speak for myself: while I don't think it is likely the verdict will be innocent, I have no problem with saying I was wrong if it happens.

If the appeal favors the accused we must search for the reasons. The only possible scenario is misconduct by the prosecution and/or police investigators. It will not be because the accused are innocent of the charges.

The problem with this scenario is the Guede appeal should have pointed this out already and his conviction should have been overturned. The appeals judges confirmed Guede's guilty verdict. The sentence was reduced a few years because the prosecution did not offer proof of planning by Guede. Knox/Sollecito got a similar sentence. They will likely get a similar ruling on appeal.

To top it all off is Knox's proclamation that hers was a fair trial. Makes you want to scratch your head.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The Johnson/Hampikian letter states, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary.” Contamination events have been known to produce both partial (usually meaning low quality) and full DNA profiles. In other words there is no reason to rule out contamination or secondary transfer, according to the open letter.

Are we back to the "DNA is worthless as a forensic tool" meme?

 

[nicole]

Oh, personal...

No book from me. I'm no ambulance chaser. And I have no dog in this fight. Sounds like you do though, despite your claims to the opposite.

Personal? Yes, but kindly meant.

I have no dog in this fight either. I'm against cruelty to animals. And anyway, it's not a fight, but a 'search for the truth' as Piktor said earlier.

 

[stilicho]

Simply providing 'one' credible way would have been nice


They offered none.

Remember, that was tried here at the JREF already: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163730

That thread was quickly abandoned.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The sentence was reduced a few years because the prosecution did not offer proof of planning by Guede.

No, that isn't quite correct. Guede got his reduction because he wasn't granted mitigation in his first degree. This was therefore granted in his second degree which took his sentence to below 30 years. This then also automatically brought into place his one third sentence discount for having taken the fast track route:

30 years -
6 years for mitigation =
24 years -
1/3 24 years (8) =
---------

16 years

Amanda and Raffaele, unlike Rudy were granted their mitigation in their first degree (quite a hefty one). They don't qualify for the 1/3 discount since they opted for the full trial. Therefore, in their appeal if guilt is confirmed, there are no more adjustments to the sentence for the appellate court to make, meaning it should stand as is.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Personal? Yes, but kindly meant.

I have no dog in this fight either. I'm against cruelty to animals. And anyway, it's not a fight, but a 'search for the truth' as Piktor said earlier.

I'll resist the temptation to quote Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men at this point

 

[quadraginta]

Noooo Fulcanelli, a verdict isn't 'evidence'.

A verdict is based on evidence. We are discussing that portion of the evidence which is available to us, and arriving at our own opinions concerning Knox's guilt. It appears that the larger weight of that opinion is that she is guilty.

The judges and jury in the trial were privy to all of the evidence presented relative to her guilt or innocence. They arrived at a unanimous decision that she was guilty.

I don't think it is unreasonable to take that fact into consideration.

And yes, of course: if people are found innocent, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Don't you think? What will your reaction be, if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted?

Speaking only for myself I would be interested to discover what changes in the circumstances of the case prompted such a reversal. New data can lead to new conclusions. Only ideologues and true believers refuse to change in the face of new information. For rational people there is no embarrassment or opprobrium suffered by doing so.

 

[piktor]

Rudy's DNA, supposedly from a finger, was found inside the vaginal cavity *and* around the exterior of the anus. Is it really possible to distinguish between 'finger' DNA and 'pubic area' DNA. Does anyone know for sure?

I think you can infer here that if it had been a male genital penetration there would be Guede pubic hair on the victim and Guede sweat DNA on the victim's thighs and buttocks. The DNA found inside the victim were epithelial DNA, meaning skin cells likely from the attacker's finger.

Guede also told on the internet phone to his Italian friend that neither he nor the victim had condoms so there was no genital sex, only 'oral'.

 

[piktor]

No, that isn't quite correct. Guede got his reduction because he wasn't granted mitigation in his first degree. This was therefore granted in his second degree which took his sentence to below 30 years. This then also automatically brought into place his one third sentence discount for having taken the fast track route:

30 years -
6 years for mitigation =
24 years -
1/3 24 years (8) =
---------

16 years

Amanda and Raffaele, unlike Rudy were granted their mitigation in their first degree (quite a hefty one). They don't qualify for the 1/3 discount since they opted for the full trial. Therefore, in their appeal if guilt is confirmed, there are no more adjustments to the sentence for the appellate court to make, meaning it should stand as is.

You are quite right, Fulcanelli. Thanks for the correction.

I do think the judges decided it was not proven it was a planned attack by Knox/Sollecito, therefore did not grant the 30 year sentence that the prosecution asked for.

 

[stilicho]

No idea ... best to ask them yourself. Maybe Sollecito didn't want to be branded a 'low-level' pervert. I don't know! But it *is* as good an explanation as the prosecution's theory.

p.s. I don't have any comrades-in-arms.

Much better to be sentenced to your most of your adult life in prison as a sex offender and a murderer than as a pervert. And those are not all mutually exclusive. It's quite all right to be both a pervert and a sex offender.

I have a better reason they didn't come up with Playful Raffaele, nicole. Unlike you, they would rather not erase all doubts (not just reasonable doubt) that he had seized Meredith's bra clasp.

This is also why they didn't allow him to testify in his own defence. Whereas AK confirmed in everyone's minds that she was lying, RS sat mute while the evidence was weighed against him. He didn't sit there like that because he thought it was a good plan for a verdict in his favour. His legal team realised there was nothing to be gained by having him say anything on his own behalf. He was literally thrown upon the mercy of the court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are quite right, Fulcanelli. Thanks for the correction.

I do think the judges decided it was not proven it was a planned attack by Knox/Sollecito, therefore did not grant the 30 year sentence that the prosecution asked for.

The prosecution didn't ask for 30 years, they asked for life. However, the prosecution never have argued premeditation.

 

[stilicho]

Are we back to the "DNA is worthless as a forensic tool" meme?

Selectively worthless. It's just fine in the case of isolating Meredith's DNA, freeing Patrick, and convicting Rudy.

It just doesn't work on sons of urologists or Beatles fans.

 

[Moss]

It just dawned on me how ridiculous the whole "playful perv" scenario is.
Consider how much coincidence is needed to ensure a) that DNA from Raffaele rubs off when he smells the bra (or whatever he is supposed to have done) b) the DNA does not get removed by washing or other means and c) Meredith chooses to wear it on the night she gets murdered and the bra clasp is removed.
Does that really seem likely?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It just dawned on me how ridiculous the whole "playful perv" scenario is.
Consider how much coincidence is needed to ensure a) that DNA from Raffaele rubs off when he smells the bra (or whatever he is supposed to have done) b) the DNA does not get removed by washing or other means and c) Meredith chooses to wear it on the night she gets murdered and the bra clasp is removed.
Does that really seem likely?

Not to mention that he, apparently, only played with the metal on the clasp and no other part. He didn't touch the cups, didn't touch the other side of the strap to practice unhooking the clasp (as Dan and others have postulated). By happenstance, he "daintily" used the clasp to pick up the bra his gf-of-1 1/2-weeks' roommate was to wear the night she was murdered. That's, apparently, perfectly normal. Must be an Italian thing *shrug*

 

[quadraginta]

Except that this guilty verdict is not the 'final assessment' of their guilt, and in fact they're still innocent until the final appeal.

<snip>

What country is it that you live in where this is the case? We have established that it isn't the U.S.

@ Fulcanelli.

Do you know if this is a valid interpretation of the law in Italy? It isn't here. Guilty is guilty. Until such time as an appeals court actually overturns a verdict the convicted defendant isn't 'a little bit' guilty, or 'almost' guilty or 'purty near just about' guilty. Even when an appeal returns a verdict to the originating court for review the defendant is still viewed as "convicted". They are deserving of all of the rights and privileges available to the "guilty", and exactly none of those extended only to the "innocent", or even the "accused".

(Although some may argue that they acquire rights unavailable to the latter two, but that is a different discussion. )

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Unlurking for a moment - I have read that in lesser crimes than this, the accused will not go to jail after being found guilty at trial until all appeals have been exhausted.

ETA: Found this, on a different case (to do with drug smuggling and extradition):

Under Italian law a defendant is not regarded as “convicted” until his conviction becomes final. If he is extradited, his custody in Italy will be categorised as pre-trial custody until all appeals have been exhausted.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/caldar-1.htm

ETA2 Veering a little off topic, but apparently if the appeal period takes you over the statute of limitations (after being originally convicted within the time limits), a conviction will just be wiped out:

On Monday, 15 police, prison guards and prison medics finally were convicted for their part in the violence - although it emerged yesterday that none of them would actually serve prison terms. In Italy, defendants don't go to jail until they have exhausted the appeals process; and in this case, the convictions and sentences will be wiped out by a statute of limitations next year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/italy.g8