Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

seeing and challenging the evidence is a fundamental principle

C'mon get real Katody. Piktor is in Mexico, I'm based in England and we don't PM so this is pretty silly.

Actually, after a long time of abstinence, I've come in to let you guys have a proper shot at me for the first time ever. You can hit me with whatever you like about any subject and I'll give you my honest response. I've been thinking about it for a long time and then finally I've decided to go for it.

So lets go: give me your best shot and I will answer you as a lawyer on anything you like. If you are wise, you might ask some questions that are actually pertinent to the appeal, not simply rehashing 2.5 yrs of disagreement.

SomeAlibi,

I have documented that the electronic data files, machine logs, and standard operating procedures in the DNA profiling were not released here (message 8444) and elsewhere. I have also documented that release of the electronic data files is the near universal international norm and that they are useful tools for experts in DNA forensics, far more useful than simply observing the work of forensic DNA technicians (message 9010).

Does the prosecution's failure to turn them over not run counter to the principle that defendants should have the right to see and challenge the evidence against them? Why should anyone, especially someone convinced of AK's and RS's guilt, not want to see those files released? I have been asking this question since July, and the silence from those who favor guilt is most disturbing. Finally, how should the defense go about getting these files released now?

 

[Danceme]

Hi SomeAlibi, nice to see you. I have a question on the defense's strategy.
What are your thoughts on the success of the appeals? Do you think it would be better for the appeals to concentrate on singular issues, such as refuting the TOD, or the insistence on proving a computer alibi, instead of touching on nearly all the previous evidence and trying to dispute it all.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Me hating you? Man, I simply love you, back there on PMF you were the most fun.

The question is concrete and specific. Do you think she lied when she said the call was made a) at 12 o'clock b) before anything happened? If you think she didn't lie, then what was it?

I'm trying not to be obtuse, honest but I maybe haven't read back enough. Edda says she got the phonecall. Amanda says she doesn't remember it *at all*. Why is timing important therefore?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody Matrass



But you understood the initial Q and finally posted a response of sorts - an extract from AK's trial.
(perhaps you should have stuck to asking for cites as others did).

Its too late now to translate it out of existence as you seem to have done with the latter part of my post.

That doesn't work here as it didn't work in court.

But we are done on this - unless you wish to try convince Halides1 & Rose Montague (and CD , FS and AK) of you point of view.??

platonov, I'm always glad to discuss anything regarding the case here. If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, then just correct me, If you have something else to add (maybe even some sources), you're also welcome. For now I consider the mole whacked unless you want to pop it up again, but it would be best if you do it in simple declarative sentences

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm trying not to be obtuse, honest but I maybe haven't read back enough. Edda says she got the phonecall. Amanda says she doesn't remember it *at all*. Why is timing important therefore?

Because the insinuation that the call was made at midday implies that Knox was seemingly very concerned at midday, and that her mother told her at midday to call the police, yet the police were not called until 12.50. If so, this would be hard for Knox to explain.

However, since this first call actually took place at 12.47, Knox's state of concern and her mother's advice to contact the police are followed directly (within 5 minutes) by Sollecito calling his sister and then the Carabinieri. Suddenly, there's no inexplicable gap between Knox's first concerned call to her mother and the first call to the police.

So the timing is fairly important. I'm sure you knew that.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Does the prosecution's failure to turn them over not run counter to the principle that defendants should have the right to see and challenge the evidence against them? Why should anyone, especially someone convinced of AK's and RS's guilt, not want to see those files released? I have been asking this question since July, and the silence from those who favor guilt is most disturbing. Finally, how should the defense go about getting these files released now?

Chris - I am not an expert on the Italian rules on disclosure and I have no knowledge as to whether there are any records which have not been turned over or not. However as a professional defence counsel, I support maximum disclosure.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm trying not to be obtuse, honest but I maybe haven't read back enough. Edda says she got the phonecall. Amanda says she doesn't remember it *at all*. Why is timing important therefore?

I understand that you refuse to give an answer.


Interesting that others that brought that issue up strangely keep their lips sealed about it too.

 

[Danceme]

SomeAlibi, I have another question. Could the defense have had the supposed semen stain on the pillowcase tested themselves or were their hands tied and they were forced to petition the court to have the testing done? In other words, can the defense do any investigative testing of evidence themselves?

 

[LondonJohn]

SomeAlibi, I have another question. Could the defense have had the supposed semen stain on the pillowcase tested themselves or were their hands tied and they were forced to petition the court to have the testing done? In other words, can the defense do any investigative testing of evidence themselves?

Unfortunately, even if SA is a "professional defence counsel", he practises under English and Welsh law, so he isn't really qualified to speak about Italian law. I'm sure he'd agree.

 

[piktor]

Piktor,

Consider the following hypothetical. Two people are shown to have lied about their whereabouts on the night of a murder and the day after. Yet, unimpeachable evidence (let us say a security camera) puts them elsewhere at the time of the murder. According to your statement above, they should be convicted anyway. Can this really be your position? If not, then please explain what your position is.

My conclusion would be they had no idea where they were. They are still making no sense but the video shows they were not where they say they were.

In this case the defendants have no credibility and it is up to the prosecution to create a narrative for conviction or exoneration. The prosecution through its investigation becomes the video that describes a credible narrative.

There is more evidence than the two defendant's fabrications. There is evidence of staging, luminol traces, DNA traces, telephone records, testimony from experts and testimony from witnesses. There is an investigation by police and scientific police. When you add up the arrows pointing in one direction, the result is either exoneration or conviction.

The defendants are in jail because the prosecution narrative prevailed. The defense had nothing but weak and wooly tales to help their clients.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, have you gone back into the career of a defence attorney, SA? It's just that you said this when you joined PMF ten months ago:

"I spent several years directly involved in criminal cases and had a lot of direct exposure to a couple of rather notorious UK murder cases in the 90's and to this day remain connected to the law and psychiatric evalation."

That declaration rather implies that you were no longer directly involved in practising criminal law in December 2009. Have you gone back to it since then?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

SomeAlibi, I have another question. Could the defense have had the supposed semen stain on the pillowcase tested themselves or were their hands tied and they were forced to petition the court to have the testing done? In other words, can the defense do any investigative testing of evidence themselves?

Sorry, I feel free to give a comment:
since that stain has not been tested, how can you even suppose it is a semen stain?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hi SomeAlibi, nice to see you. I have a question on the defense's strategy.
What are your thoughts on the success of the appeals? Do you think it would be better for the appeals to concentrate on singular issues, such as refuting the TOD, or the insistence on proving a computer alibi, instead of touching on nearly all the previous evidence and trying to dispute it all.

Danceme

These are really the right questions imho. I will now tell you what I would be focusing on if I were running the appeals. I would like to be plain about this: I believe the overall evidence is overwhelming for the guilt of the accused. Overwhelming - not just sufficient or adequate but actually an embarrassment of riches. But since you ask, and since I spend a lot of my time defending people who are nevertheless convicted, this is what I would do and what would be concerning me:

DNA evidence on the knife: The count is low and you will have to see if Italian law maintains the finding of the court of the first instance. Probably the best chance for the appeals *without* me making any value judgement on the acceptability of the science. Please understand and appreciate this distinction.

DNA evidence on the bathroom: Ditto really.

Choice to disclose the disallowed statement for the purposes of murder charge to be admitted via the calunnia charge and put in front of the jury common to both: I feel that Massei must actually be fairly confident about this or he wouldn't have done it. Nevertheless, I would seek to make noise here.

Now what are the real problems with this case for the defence that I would be obsessing about other than the DNA evidence (which is huge unless disproved):

1) The footprint on the bathmat. You can now go off on a long explanation of why you think it's Rudy's but you have to defeat the first verdict which suggests not only that it is Raffaele's print to millimetre precision on *multiple* measurements but that it doesn't match Rudy's proportionately between length and width however much you photoshop it in size. I am not seeing anything that defeats the *measurement* evidence to millimetre precision. Theories about 2nd toes don't cut it compared to that.

2) The phonecell evidence of Amanda being near Via Aquila to receive Patrick's SMS. She said repeatedly in her stand testimony that she didn't leave the flat (watch the youtube - boy does she like to say this). Raffaele said repeatedly she did in his diary and in statements to the police. Why? The cellphone data says she did. It's a big big problem. Her 1.45 written statement said she met Patrick at the basketball court around 9. It was clearly Rudy who places himself right there at the same time.

3) The morning of the 2nd. I find the story of sleeping in til 10 - 10.30 one of the biggest single problems in the case for the defence. There is SO much data from the computer and cellphone records from 5.45am onwards that give multiple conflicts with the alibi. It is incredibly problematic. There has never, to this date, been a single credible reply about the multiple interaction points. It's really unbelievable how many points there are here - it's a case closer in its own right.

4) The mop. Amanda says she went to the cottage to get a mop because there was still such a surplus of water on Raffaele's floor that the *8* cloths and rags under his sink couldn't clean it up. However she said that when she came back to the flat she didn't need to use the mop because the water had "evaporated". This is patent nonsense and she must have kicked herself afterwards. It was November and the flat was cold. Literally ridiculous.



The biggest answer to your question which I have said to others in private conversation is that to win an appeal, one must defeat the *judgement*. The mistake that is being made online is to argue facts from cold including rehashing stuff from the first hearing. While inevitably the overlap is very large, it is incredibly important to defeat the *judgement* not just argue the facts from the off again. It's a distinction that isn't being made adequately. It's one of the reasons why Moore's brag that he hasn't even read Massei is so incredibly foolish. Anyone who has ever worked on an appeal would get this instinctively and deeply. If I were you, I would distance yourselves from him considerably: it's heading for an ugly end. He's taken Amanda's statement she was clipped over the head twice and made that "beaten" and "just short of waterboarding". That tells you everything you need to know, surely? Doesn't it? I mean, really?

 

[Danceme]

Sorry, I feel free to give a comment:
since that stain has not been tested, how can you even suppose it is a semen stain?

The defense expert said so, not me. I'm only repeating what was said. Frank had a good post on it, I'll try to find the link.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Are you really that naive that you consider asking for a lawyer as evidence of guilt?



Laura and Filomena both lawyered up on the day the body was discovered. Amanda was the only one of the three surviving roommates that didn't have a lawyer.

I could never really understand why neither Ms.Knox herself nor her mother did not immediately contact the US embassy in Rome for support.

 

[LondonJohn]

Danceme

These are really the right questions imho. I will now tell you what I would be focusing on if I were running the appeals. I would like to be plain about this: I believe the overall evidence is overwhelming for the guilt of the accused. Overwhelming - not just sufficient or adequate but actually an embarrassment of riches. But since you ask, and since I spend a lot of my time defending people who are nevertheless convicted, this is what I would do and what would be concerning me:

DNA evidence on the knife: The count is low and you will have to see if Italian law maintains the finding of the court of the first instance. Probably the best chance for the appeals *without* me making any value judgement on the acceptability of the science. Please understand and appreciate this distinction.

DNA evidence on the bathroom: Ditto really.

Choice to disclose the disallowed statement for the purposes of murder charge to be admitted via the calunnia charge and put in front of the jury common to both: I feel that Massei must actually be fairly confident about this or he wouldn't have done it. Nevertheless, I would seek to make noise here.

Now what are the real problems with this case for the defence that I would be obsessing about other than the DNA evidence (which is huge unless disproved):

1) The footprint on the bathmat. You can now go off on a long explanation of why you think it's Rudy's but you have to defeat the first verdict which suggests not only that it is Raffaele's print to millimetre precision on *multiple* measurements but that it doesn't match Rudy's proportionately between length and width however much you photoshop it in size. I am not seeing anything that defeats the *measurement* evidence to millimetre precision. Theories about 2nd toes don't cut it compared to that.

2) The phonecell evidence of Amanda being near Via Aquila to receive Patrick's SMS. She said repeatedly in her stand testimony that she didn't leave the flat (watch the youtube - boy does she like to say this). Raffaele said repeatedly she did in his diary and in statements to the police. Why? The cellphone data says she did. It's a big big problem. Her 1.45 written statement said she met Patrick at the basketball court around 9. It was clearly Rudy who places himself right there at the same time.

3) The morning of the 2nd. I find the story of sleeping in til 10 - 10.30 one of the biggest single problems in the case for the defence. There is SO much data from the computer and cellphone records from 5.45am onwards that give multiple conflicts with the alibi. It is incredibly problematic. There has never, to this date, been a single credible reply about the multiple interaction points. It's really unbelievable how many points there are here - it's a case closer in its own right.

4) The mop. Amanda says she went to the cottage to get a mop because there was still such a surplus of water on Raffaele's floor that the *8* cloths and rags under his sink couldn't clean it up. However she said that when she came back to the flat she didn't need to use the mop because the water had "evaporated". This is patent nonsense and she must have kicked herself afterwards. It was November and the flat was cold. Literally ridiculous.



The biggest answer to your question which I have said to others in private conversation is that to win an appeal, one must defeat the *judgement*. The mistake that is being made online is to argue facts from cold including rehashing stuff from the first hearing. While inevitably the overlap is very large, it is incredibly important to defeat the *judgement* not just argue the facts from the off again. It's a distinction that isn't being made adequately. It's one of the reasons why Moore's brag that he hasn't even read Massei is so incredibly foolish. Anyone who has ever worked on an appeal would get this instinctively and deeply. If I were you, I would distance yourselves from him considerably: it's heading for an ugly end. He's taken Amanda's statement she was clipped over the head twice and made that "beaten" and "just short of waterboarding". That tells you everything you need to know, surely? Doesn't it? I mean, really?

Ummm isn't the Italian form of appeal essentially a "de novo" trial? Doesn't the judgement of the first court hold no weight to the appeal's judicial panel? Aren't they required to examine the case from scratch?

Isn't what you are describing more applicable to a UK appeal, where the defence team has to essentially find reasons to challenge (and overturn) the first court's judgement?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Incidentally, have you gone back into the career of a defence attorney, SA? It's just that you said this when you joined PMF ten months ago:

"I spent several years directly involved in criminal cases and had a lot of direct exposure to a couple of rather notorious UK murder cases in the 90's and to this day remain connected to the law and psychiatric evalation."

That declaration rather implies that you were no longer directly involved in practising criminal law in December 2009. Have you gone back to it since then?

I split my duties, these days focusing on being the managing partner of a criminal law firm which involves being somewhat like the COO of a business but also directly managing some longer term cases / clients and then most frequently as a joint partner / consultant on more difficult cases. The psychiatric angle is as a consultant and also through some charities I help to do with the rehabilitation of offenders.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Ummm isn't the Italian form of appeal essentially a "de novo" trial? Doesn't the judgement of the first court hold no weight to the appeal's judicial panel? Aren't they required to examine the case from scratch?

Isn't what you are describing more applicable to a UK appeal, where the defence team has to essentially find reasons to challenge (and overturn) the first court's judgement?

I admit I wait for others answers on this but I don't think so because of all the estimates on the timing of it. And I don't know any jurisdiction that retries from scratch. Even if it did, the problems would remain the same eh?

 

[LondonJohn]

I split my duties, these days focusing on being the managing partner of a criminal law firm which involves being somewhat like the COO of a business but also directly managing some longer term cases / clients and then most frequently as a joint partner / consultant on more difficult cases. The psychiatric angle is as a consultant and also through some charities I help to do with the rehabilitation of offenders.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[SomeAlibi]

I understand that you refuse to give an answer.


Interesting that others that brought that issue up strangely keep their lips sealed about it too.

Get off Katody. I never dodge a question so lets not be so silly. I don't actually understand what it is you are asking!