Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Probably the reason for a later court date than initially anticipated. It would not surprise me if this is not pushed forward into next year. Frank is all about drama and I love his style even when I don't agree with what he has to say.

It does seem strange that so many different judges were involved in this case, especially given that at least one appeal was mandatory if AK/RS were convicted in the first trial.

Incidentally, it's wrong to lump all these judges together to claim that "x number of different judges believed that AK/RS were guilty, so this strengthens the safety of their convictions". The vast majority of the judges involved pre-trial were either concerned with technical matters, or were asked to rule on arraignment matters. And while it's true to say that arraignment judges can (and do) release defendants if they feel there is no prima facie case for them to be in custody, it's rare for that to happen (particularly after the decision of the first arraignment/remand judge).

And - importantly - the level/quality of evidence required at the arraignment stage is very, very far removed from the level of evidence necessary to convict at trial. All that an arraignment judge has to satisfy him/herself of is that there is a case to answer - not that the answer to that case is necessarily "guilty".

 

[Supernaut]

Reading through the early Italian news stories, it's just staggering how much information was obviously leaked to the press direct from the prosecution's office, and the timing of it. On the same day the papers reported that the police were searching for a fourth man, "an Ivorian", information was leaked about two bleach receipts found in Raffaele's apartment, complete with times indicating bleach was bought on two separate occasions on the morning of the murder - completely and utterly false, of course, but still picked up by international papers who reported it. Patrick was released on the same day Rudy was arrested, despite his alibi having been confirmed nearly two weeks earlier.

We hear a lot about the supposed PR effort, but I'm not sure anything could have undone the damage done to any chance of a fair trial caused by that early reporting.

Speaking of the “bleach receipts”; this was one of the earliest examples of non-existant “damning evidence”, and the first English-speaking paper to riff on it was …. The Times..

It floated the story immediately it was “leaked” by Mignini to the Italian press, within days of the arrests.

The same hack, sorry, reporter (Richard Owen) had also written a ‘companion’ piece the same week asserting that it was known that the flat had been “cleaned with bleach”. This lack of concern for fact-checking is something you'd expect of tabloids such as the Sun or the Mail, not a so-called ‘broadsheet’.

(The Times subsequently assigned a scribbler called John Follain to report on the trial itself, and his pieces wouldn’t have been out of place in any tabloid – The Kercher trial – Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies, Amanda Knox tells of Meredith Kercher's “yucky” death, etc’). You get the idea -the Times "reporting" of the case remained uniformly in this vein.

I have to say, it always struck me as odd that it was this “prestigious” (in some people’s eyes) newspaper which set the precedent for "reporting” Migini’s unverified and unverifiable “leaks” (I prefer "lies", which they are) as factual in the English speaking press, NOT tabloids such as the the Mail (they simply joined the feeding frenzy opportunistically). It was as if it was a matter of editorial policy, perhaps even of a proprietorial directive.

(The other UK ‘broadsheets’ (or “quality dailys”) – the Guardian, Telegraph and Independent - were generally more circumspect, at least in the early days. The Independent in particular has regularly published articles unequivocally lambasting the Italian prosecution.)

A possible topic for the conspiracy MB?

 

[Supernaut]

In the case of the luminol traces, Stefanoni apparently held back exculpatory evidence, i.e., the lab performed a second test for blood, and it was negative in every instance. But the prosecution never attributed any significance to the hair, so she would have no reason to hold back data.

That’s where I was going with this;

The tests had to have been done immediately after the luminol was applied (assuming Stefanoni knew what she was doing), hence the absence of blood (and DNA – only ‘LCN’ quantities are referred to) was known soon after the discovery of Meredith's body, possibly even before the arrests.

Neverthless it seems to have become understood that not only had they NOT been tested (which actually drew accusations of incompetence on Stefenoni’s part), but that the luminol reaction itself sufficed to indicate the presence of blood.

[sarcasm] Of course, Mignini would never dream of spreading such rumours himself. [/sarcasm].

If he sat on this information after the arrests (it’s hardly likely that Stefanoni unilaterally decided to withhold it, given it left her open to accusations of incompetence), and even after the indictments nearly a year later, it is another example of his penchant for criminal misconduct. It amounts to withholding or concealing evidence, which I assume is a crime in Italy.

It's a safe bet, though, that Mignini would be able to cite 'articles' in the arcane Italian penal code, and try to use them to show that was acting "lawfully" (something he does frequently when "justifying" other habits, such spying on or imprisoning people against whom he otherwise has ZERO evidence of wrongdoing).

The simple fact is, given all of the above:- if at any time Mignini (or anyone answerable to him) so much as hinted publically that that the footprints contained Merediths's blood, he was lying. Not "mistaken", LYING.

 

[stilicho]

If the amount of evidence found against Guede had been found against either of the other two, I would have no problem with calling them guilty (now that might more properly be called a 'mountain of evidence').

That's another example of special pleading or possibly mere false dichotomy. There's a third possibility: We don't have enough information or expertise to properly assess the data.

The starting point for your argument is that all evidence against Suspect A is reliable while all evidence against Suspect B and Suspect C is unreliable although it is the same crimescene with the same set of investigative teams. We'll even ignore for the moment Suspect D who was only involved because one of the other Suspects told police she heard him while he was sexually assaulting and murdering the victim.

Any word yet on how Amanda knew about the sexual assault before the police did?

@katy_did: The report doesn't exactly reject the prosecution position directly (on anything, actually, which is quite frustrating) but what he does say is that "The postal police believed they arrived at 12.35", and follows it with "The postal police arrived shortly before 13.00" (i.e. at about 12.56-12.58, which is what Bongiorno argued).

Does the sentencing report specify that the Polizia arrived at the cottage between 12:56 and 12:58? Cite?

I've always had some issues with the precise timing of the events between the Polizia finding the pair at the crimescene and and the discovery of Meredith's body. We know for certain the calls were made before the discovery but not that they were made before the Polizia were observable at the top of the drive from someone standing where the two were found.

The carpark CCTV is inconclusive because of the field of view and the irregularity of the recording. Does the sentencing report state otherwise? Cite?

@RoseMontague: Other parts of [Quintavalle's] testimony are cast in doubt by other witnesses including an employee of his and one of the police investigators.

You keep saying this as though it is doubtful that he knew what or who he saw and that he is directly contradicted by Volturno and Chiriboga. I thought it was not even yet confirmed that what you have in your possession is a list of appeal points, that it is not publicly available, and that it is addressing points plucked out of court testimony rather than the conclusions elaborated in the motivations report.

 

[Supernaut]

A couple of observations regarding Amanda’s state of mind;

It's been sad to see Amanda’s haunted expression at the recent preliminary hearings for the ridiculous “slander” charges.

It’s pretty obvious that during her trial she was shielded from the seriousness of her predicament by her naivety and regularly being in the presence of friends, family and her sympathetic defence team, and it only became a horrendous reality when she was taken away once and for all after the verdict.

However, the relentless stress she had endured manifested itself in that awful cold-sore (which I couldn’t help noticing seems to have scarred her top lip). It was almost certainly caused by adrenalin-precipitated vitamin B12 depletion.
B12 depletion can be a major factor causing depression, and is very difficult to reverse with dietary intake – even if it is addressed in this way, it can take months or the best part of a year.

There have been reports that Amanda is indeed experiencing depression. A B12 supplement could help (ideally a couple of B12 shots) – it’s usually called by it’s chemical name ‘cyanocobalamin’.

I intend to try and make this info known to someone in a position to act on it, but in the meantime perhaps it might be taken note of here.

 

[LondonJohn]

"20 different judges" didn't "come to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher"*. It's grossly misleading and inaccurate statements like this which make me wonder whether the evidence is always being appraised/presented with a fair and open mind.

* The vast majority of these judges were involved in procedural/arraignment areas of the case, which only requires satisfaction by a judge that there is a case to answer (and in no way implies satisfaction of guilt).

 

[LondonJohn]

Speaking of the “bleach receipts”; this was one of the earliest examples of non-existant “damning evidence”, and the first English-speaking paper to riff on it was …. The Times..

It floated the story immediately it was “leaked” by Mignini to the Italian press, within days of the arrests.

The same hack, sorry, reporter (Richard Owen) had also written a ‘companion’ piece the same week asserting that it was known that the flat had been “cleaned with bleach”. This lack of concern for fact-checking is something you'd expect of tabloids such as the Sun or the Mail, not a so-called ‘broadsheet’.

(The Times subsequently assigned a scribbler called John Follain to report on the trial itself, and his pieces wouldn’t have been out of place in any tabloid – The Kercher trial – Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies, Amanda Knox tells of Meredith Kercher's “yucky” death, etc’). You get the idea -the Times "reporting" of the case remained uniformly in this vein.

I have to say, it always struck me as odd that it was this “prestigious” (in some people’s eyes) newspaper which set the precedent for "reporting” Migini’s unverified and unverifiable “leaks” (I prefer "lies", which they are) as factual in the English speaking press, NOT tabloids such as the the Mail (they simply joined the feeding frenzy opportunistically). It was as if it was a matter of editorial policy, perhaps even of a proprietorial directive.

(The other UK ‘broadsheets’ (or “quality dailys”) – the Guardian, Telegraph and Independent - were generally more circumspect, at least in the early days. The Independent in particular has regularly published articles unequivocally lambasting the Italian prosecution.)

A possible topic for the conspiracy MB?

I think it's more likely that this was merely a case of shoddy reporting with a sensationalist angle. Even "quality broadsheets" such as The Times have been under immense circulation pressure since the mid 2000s, resulting in staffing, editorial and sub-editing cutbacks, and an increasing reliance on wire services, press releases and handy contacts.

I don't know if you've ever read "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies (a former and current reporter for The Guardian and Observer), but it's a pretty damning indictment of how newspapers across the quality spectrum have had their values steadily eroded in the increasingly desperate fight for survival in a (largely free-to-consume) multimedia universe.

I'm betting that Richard Owen and John Follain from The Times both have entirely honourable intentions. However, I imagine that they would be predominantly sitting in Rome, covering Italian politics and other national news stories of note in the UK. They'd have a foreign desk editor in London saying something like "Can you give me a juicy 500 words about the Kercher case for page 7, and can I have that within the next 2 hours?" And the easiest way to do that is to report and repeat the "official" line coming out of the prosecutor's office. After all, there is a clear layer of official "validation" involved by following that route.

Nick Davies mentions specifically in his book how the UK's parliamentary reporting system (the so-called "lobby" system) has been repeatedly and seriously compromised by journalists' easy willingness to repeat Government spin, for much the same reasons. I can very well imagine how that sort of thing could have happened here.

 

[HumanityBlues]

@RoseMontague: Other parts of [Quintavalle's] testimony are cast in doubt by other witnesses including an employee of his and one of the police investigators.

You keep saying this as though it is doubtful that he knew what or who he saw and that he is directly contradicted by Volturno and Chiriboga. I thought it was not even yet confirmed that what you have in your possession is a list of appeal points, that it is not publicly available, and that it is addressing points plucked out of court testimony rather than the conclusions elaborated in the motivations report.

The problem is, there is reality, and then there is the judges report, and n'er the two shall meet. It only takes one thing to disregard Quintavalle's testimony, and that is the fact he said he saw Amanda and Raffaele together in his store before they had ever met. Massei has a very interesting way of getting around this huge discrepancy.....he just doesn't mention it. I can't wait to see all the other plain errors he makes with the mole hill of weak evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

quality of evidence

That's another example of special pleading or possibly mere false dichotomy. There's a third possibility: We don't have enough information or expertise to properly assess the data.

The starting point for your argument is that all evidence against Suspect A is reliable while all evidence against Suspect B and Suspect C is unreliable although it is the same crimescene with the same set of investigative teams. We'll even ignore for the moment Suspect D who was only involved because one of the other Suspects told police she heard him while he was sexually assaulting and murdering the victim.

Stilicho,

You continue to ignore two things. First, the forensic evidence made RG a suspect. In contrast the forensic work was completed (or in the case of the bra clasp started) after RS and AK were arrested. This potentially set up the forensic team to fall prey to some form of cognitive bias. Second, the quality of DNA evidence against RS and AK is poor. For example, the bra clasp is a mixed DNA sample (and interpreting DNA mixtures introduces an element of subjectivity), the clasp was collected after it had been moved in an undocumented way, and it was handled in a way that doesn’t so much skirt the rules of handling evidence as tread those rules into the ground. The problems with the kitchen knife have been discussed here and elsewhere, as have the mixed-DNA samples. The same discrepancy in the quality of the evidence holds true for the shoeprint/footprint evidence. The argument that since the same team collected all the evidence, the evidence is all of equal quality is fallacious.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem is, there is reality, and then there is the judges report, and n'er the two shall meet. It only takes one thing to disregard Quintavalle's testimony, and that is the fact he said he saw Amanda and Raffaele together in his store before they had ever met. Massei has a very interesting way of getting around this huge discrepancy.....he just doesn't mention it. I can't wait to see all the other plain errors he makes with the mole hill of weak evidence.

This is part of a wider and extremely important point: the conclusions reached by Massei and the judicial panel are not sacrosanct. Even though there were two "professional" judges on the judicial panel, it most definitely cannot be taken for granted that no errors of judgment or analysis were made by that judicial panel.

I'd also very much like to see whether anyone has ever tried to deconstruct the group dynamic within an Italian criminal judicial panel. I would imagine that the two judges might hold enormous psychological sway over the six lay jurors, and that consequently the lay jurors might feel unable to stand up for their own beliefs/doubts. Say what you will about the 12-lay-people jury system, but at least all jurors have equal status and say. UK and US jury studies have shown that typically even if one or two jurors assume a position of dominance (as is often the case), the remaining 10-11 jurors will still find the strength through numbers to represent the voice of even one of those 10-11. And 12-lay-person juries can always refer to a totally disinterested trial judge for advice and direction, even during their deliberations.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That's another example of special pleading or possibly mere false dichotomy. There's a third possibility: We don't have enough information or expertise to properly assess the data.

The starting point for your argument is that all evidence against Suspect A is reliable while all evidence against Suspect B and Suspect C is unreliable although it is the same crimescene with the same set of investigative teams. We'll even ignore for the moment Suspect D who was only involved because one of the other Suspects told police she heard him while he was sexually assaulting and murdering the victim.

Any word yet on how Amanda knew about the sexual assault before the police did?

@katy_did: The report doesn't exactly reject the prosecution position directly (on anything, actually, which is quite frustrating) but what he does say is that "The postal police believed they arrived at 12.35", and follows it with "The postal police arrived shortly before 13.00" (i.e. at about 12.56-12.58, which is what Bongiorno argued).

Does the sentencing report specify that the Polizia arrived at the cottage between 12:56 and 12:58? Cite?

I've always had some issues with the precise timing of the events between the Polizia finding the pair at the crimescene and and the discovery of Meredith's body. We know for certain the calls were made before the discovery but not that they were made before the Polizia were observable at the top of the drive from someone standing where the two were found.

The carpark CCTV is inconclusive because of the field of view and the irregularity of the recording. Does the sentencing report state otherwise? Cite?

@RoseMontague: Other parts of [Quintavalle's] testimony are cast in doubt by other witnesses including an employee of his and one of the police investigators.

You keep saying this as though it is doubtful that he knew what or who he saw and that he is directly contradicted by Volturno and Chiriboga. I thought it was not even yet confirmed that what you have in your possession is a list of appeal points, that it is not publicly available, and that it is addressing points plucked out of court testimony rather than the conclusions elaborated in the motivations report.

stilicho,
Just so your aware, the defense teams are not waiting for the translation of the motivation. They have the information already. The appeals are not simply attacking points plucked out of court testimony.

We have the appeals from Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Katy_did accomplished a great gift with that translation. I was getting very tired of trying to make certain of things via the Google translation. I agree that this witness testimony was important and was considered reliable and significant in the Massei report.

The appeal makes a valid point in that the Massei report chooses to go with statements that support this witness and ignore statements and testimony that do not support this witness. Personally, I do not consider Quintavalle or Curatolo to be reliable witnesses.

When you look at this case point by point you find that this is a common pattern. Cherry pick the evidence that fits, throw away anything that contradicts. Over exaggerate small occurrences such as not remembering the exact order of phone calls to make it appear that there is more evidence than actually exists. When you take a closer look, the "mountain" doesn't seem so high. Continue to investigate and the mountain becomes non-existent.

 

[christianahannah]

When you look at this case point by point you find that this is a common pattern. Cherry pick the evidence that fits, throw away anything that contradicts. Over exaggerate small occurrences such as not remembering the exact order of phone calls to make it appear that there is more evidence than actually exists. When you take a closer look, the "mountain" doesn't seem so high. Continue to investigate and the mountain becomes non-existent.

You don't think that the jurors considered both sides presented during the case? Do you think the Massei motivations was based on a non-existent mountain of evidence?

The appeals of Amanda and Raffaele have yet to be argued and ruled upon in court. What they say may be valid but may also not be valid.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

We have the appeals from Amanda and Raffaele.

Share?

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently, the judges' sentencing report is a stunning document and will be impossible for any reasonable person to refute.

Maybe it's been carved onto two stone tablets as well, who knows...?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It does seem strange that so many different judges were involved in this case, especially given that at least one appeal was mandatory if AK/RS were convicted in the first trial.

Incidentally, it's wrong to lump all these judges together to claim that "x number of different judges believed that AK/RS were guilty, so this strengthens the safety of their convictions". The vast majority of the judges involved pre-trial were either concerned with technical matters, or were asked to rule on arraignment matters. And while it's true to say that arraignment judges can (and do) release defendants if they feel there is no prima facie case for them to be in custody, it's rare for that to happen (particularly after the decision of the first arraignment/remand judge).

They're all sipping the koolaid. They disagree with Mignini on a few minor points as a false display of impartiality and independence, but he is leading them around by nose-rings like so many docile farm animals.

Many people have a hard time understanding how organizations work in these situations. I recently stumbled across this pithy summary of the Dreyfus Affair, by Professor Donald Wilkes (no relation):

At the time of the arrest and trial the army officers responsible for the prosecution truly believed Dreyfus was guilty of the crime charged. By 1896, however, they knew they had made a catastrophic mistake. Nevertheless, high-ranking officers on the army's General Staff and officers in military intelligence, fearful that public exposure of the injustice done Dreyfus would embarrass the army, engaged in a gigantic coverup which featured perjury, forgery, and obstruction of justice. The conspirators, including at least eight generals, even protected and assisted Commandant Ferdinand Esterhazy, the army infantry officer who, as they knew by 1896, had actually committed the crime for which Dreyfus had been wrongfully convicted.

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You don't think that the jurors considered both sides presented during the case? Do you think the Massei motivations was based on a non-existent mountain of evidence?

The Massei motivation is 400+ pages of garbage. Amanda carried a big kitchen knife in her purse for self-protection... they made the choice of evil because, as the esteemed professor so-and-so testified, cannabis causes people to do crazy things.

Google translator is far from perfect, but you can get a general sense of what the main conclusions are. No PMF translation can redeem such lunacy.

 

[RoseMontague]

The Massei motivation is 400+ pages of garbage. Amanda carried a big kitchen knife in her purse for self-protection... they made the choice of evil because, as the esteemed professor so-and-so testified, cannabis causes people to do crazy things.

Google translator is far from perfect, but you can get a general sense of what the main conclusions are. No PMF translation can redeem such lunacy.

Someone's garbage is another person's leaves of grass.

 

[LondonJohn]

Someone's garbage is another person's leaves of grass.

But garbage can also be a down-and-out's only source of food..............

 

[christianahannah]

The Massei motivation is 400+ pages of garbage. Amanda carried a big kitchen knife in her purse for self-protection... they made the choice of evil because, as the esteemed professor so-and-so testified, cannabis causes people to do crazy things.

Google translator is far from perfect, but you can get a general sense of what the main conclusions are. No PMF translation can redeem such lunacy.

Amanda and Raffaele's defense teams should be happy the motivations were written - it makes it easier to fashion an appeal document when you know the reasoning behind a verdict. Many cases that have resulted in a guilty verdict don't have that benefit.

One can get a general sense of what the main conclusions are by reading the many forums dedicated to this subject. While I read all things I much prefer court testimony, transcripts and documents over subjective opinion on either side.