Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Please do, Platonov, don't disappoint us, LJ is in a mistake-admitting streak

I certainly am

I'm perfectly willing (and in fact more than happy) to immediately admit mistakes when I am shown to be wrong. I want my opinions and judgement to be based on solid, verified facts - if I get some of those facts wrong, then I'd far rather be corrected than continue basing my opinions/judgements on an imperfect set of facts.

And this speaks to a wider issue: I (and I think many others on the side of acquittal) would be completely willing and ready to change my view of the guilt/non-guilt of Knox and Sollecito if I could be shown that there was sufficient evidence before the courts to prove their participation beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, as I've said many times previously, if the bathmat partial print could be definitively identified as Sollecito's, then I would immediately shift to a position that he is guilty and that Knox is likely also guilty. Or if the bra clasp had been collected properly and with minimal risk of cross-contamination in the first few days of the investigation, and it had tested positive for Sollecito's DNA and no other unidentified female DNA, then similarly I'd switch to believing Sollecito (andprobably Knox) to be guilty. And of course if any trace of Knox had been properly found either on Meredith's body or made in Meredith's blood in the room, then I'd quickly switch to a guilty viewpoint.

On the other hand, what intrigues me (but probably doesn't surprise me) is the seeming rigidity and implacability of the guilty viewpoint of many (most?) on that side of the debate. Most such people seem to be so deeply emotionally wedded to sustaining their position that they seem determined to rationalise or ignore any factual developments which may impact upon the likelihood of an acquittal in the appeal trial.

 

[Katody Matrass]

From Mark Waterbury's Monster of Perugia Website:




ETA: The letter is illuminating in that it spells out which specific Italian laws were broken in the prosecution.

Excellent! I really hope it's picked up by media.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's the relevant article, I have no idea what the second sentence is supposed to suggest, though the first seems to say that all questioning of a person in custody in any capacity must be documented with audio or video or it is unusable. There also had to be minutes of the interview, but a transcript or copy is only prepared if requested by the parties.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 141-bis.
Procedures for documentation of the interrogation of persons in detention.

1. 1. Any questioning of the person who is, in any capacity, in custody, and that does not take place at the hearing, must be fully documented, otherwise unusable, by means of phonograms or audiovisual work. When there is a lack of recording equipment or technical personnel, are provided with the forms of expertise, or technical advice. Interview shall also be minuted. The transcript of the reproduction is prepared only if requested by the parties.

The second sentence, in the original Italian, reads as follows:

Quando si verifica una indisponibilità di strumenti di riproduzione o di personale tecnico, si provvede con le forme della perizia, ovvero della consulenza tecnica.

Rather than the somewhat confusing Google translation, it translates to something approaching this:

If there is a lack of recording equipment or technical personnel, some appropriate expertise or technical advice should be provided.

In other words, it's apparently not sufficient to claim anything like "Oh, there was no equipment in the room", or "Oh, we didn't know how to work the equipment". The article in the code appears to clearly state that if a person is detained in custody, their interviews must all be recorded using audio or video recording media - otherwise the interviews are not admissible in evidence.


Of course, in this particular case we're not talking about detention in a tiny police station in a remote village in the countryside. We are talking about detention in the police HQ of Perugia, which also served as the HQ of the state police for the whole of the Umbria region. It's nonsense to suggest that there were not ample recording facilities available there on the night of November 5th/6th 2007, and it's also nonsense to suggest that there was nobody with any technical expertise available (either already in the HQ or able to be called in).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So in other words they don't have a true confirmatory test for blood. I was thinking about this which I came across during my Great Luminol Hunt:
"The line between screening and identification is not always clear. For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn?

The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood.

If asked 'Could the results have arisen because the material tested was the blood of the victim?' then an answer of 'Yes' is justified. However, it would be wrong to report that the material was human blood with a DNA type that matched the victim. The material was not subjected to confirmatory testing for blood or proven to be human in origin."

Presumptive tests don't prove blood even with a DNA test, one of those vegetable, metal or other stains that can slip past both luminol and TMB might have mixed with DNA from anyone, from anytime. So if they don't do a confirmatory test in the lab, they haven't really proven for blood.

This might be the other link you were thinking of, Rose re-posted it a while back too.

Kaosium,

Those are a couple of very useful links (RoseMontague initially found the one from New Zealand). A while back I commented on North Carolina's SBI problems and this quote seems pertinent: "The FBI's written policy directed the analyst first to report the positive presumptive test results. If the confirmatory test is negative, the analyst would write, ‘Further testing could not confirm the presence of human blood.’”

The negative TMB test results (ethically and perhaps legally) should have been disclosed to the defense. Dr. Stefanoni's initial denial might have been artful dodging of the question as opposed to mendacity, but that question is beside the point. My understanding is that PM Mignini has an obligation to disclose exculpatory information, and forensic scientists should be scientists not advocates for law enforcement. MOO.

 

[Alt+F4]

The letter is illuminating in that it spells out which specific Italian laws were broken in the prosecution.

What a joke. He doesn't even understand that under Italian law they aren't considered convicted.

 

[Matthew Best]

What a joke. He doesn't even understand that under Italian law they aren't considered convicted.

Gosh, that really invalidates everything in the letter!

 

[Alt+F4]

Gosh, that really invalidates everything in the letter!

Everything in the letter has already been invalidated. That judge is a moron, he's not helping AK's situation at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

What a joke. He doesn't even understand that under Italian law they aren't considered convicted.

As surprising as you might find it, I agree with you on both points. He is incorrect in his assertion that Knox (and Sollecito) currently stands convicted: they are not considered convicted until and unless a) they are found guilty in the first appeal trial, and b) the verdicts of both the original trial and the first appeal are upheld in law by the Supreme Court. And if all the above transpires, it is only after the Supreme Court hearing and judgement that they will be considered convicted and start their sentences*.

But on the wider issue of the letter itself, I think it's pointless grandstanding by Judge Heavey and the other signatories. Firstly, there is..... ooh about a 0.001% chance that Obama will ever even get to hear that this letter was sent to him - let alone actually read it himself. Secondly, even if he did read it (or, far more likely, it was passed to a junior official in the White House to deal with), nothing will be done: the letter does not even specify what action Heavey et al want to be taken anyway, apart from Obama "looking into it".

Thirdly, the issues raised in the letter are primarily for the Italian authorities to deal with (apart from the areas where it is alleged that the US Embassy/Consulate failed in its duty of care). The US State Department (and far less the Office of the President) has no business at all intervening. If various articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure were breached by law enforcement during the investigation, then these are issues to be addressed by the Italian courts (chiefly the Supreme Court). The US has no business telling the judiciary of a sovereign nation (a friendly one and a NATO ally) how to operate. If mistakes have been made, it's entirely up to the Italian system to put them right. That's simply the way it works. Countries just do not meddle in the internal workings of another sovereign nation's government (judiciary is a branch of government), even if one of their citizens is involved**.

In short, I think the letter was ill-judged, ill-conceived and pointless (in that its authors have no hope whatsoever of action being taken on its account). The authors of the letter should - in my view - have sat tight and waited for the justice process in Perugia to run its course. And if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty in the first appeal, the Supreme Court in Rome will most likely want to address some of the points raised in the letter anyhow. But in that context, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court already ruled that Knox's 1.45am and 5.45am statements were both inadmissible for exactly the reasons given in this letter (although I believe the Supreme Court would be extremely interested in discussing how the judicial panel got to hear these statements anyhow, thanks to the concurrent Lumumba slander trial).

Just my opinion...


* They are currently actually on remand due to possibility of flight risk and/or risk of re-offending. They are not in prison serving the sentences handed down by the first court, although any final sentence they might be given will allow credit for the 3.5-years-plus that they have already spent in prison.

** Unless it's the US intervening in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, of course....

 

[babycondor]

What a joke. He doesn't even understand that under Italian law they aren't considered convicted.

OK, let's quibble over semantics.

What English words would you use to clearly, accurately and succinctly describe the current legal status of Amanda and Rafaelle under Italian law?

What about the remainder of the letter?

Do you have anything of substance to say about the questions it raises?

 

[LondonJohn]

Everything in the letter has already been invalidated. That judge is a moron, he's not helping AK's situation at all.

I don't think that there are many invalid points per se in the letter though. I merely think it was pointless, grandstanding, incorrect and improper to have written to the US President to complain in this way.

 

[Alt+F4]

In short, I think the letter was ill-judged, ill-conceived and pointless (in that its authors have no hope whatsoever of action being taken on its account).

And...the judge doesn't know the proper format for a formal letter!

 

[Alt+F4]

OK, let's quibble over semantics.

What English words would you use to clearly, accurately and succinctly describe the current legal status of Amanda and Rafaelle under Italian law?

What about the remainder of the letter?

Do you have anything of substance to say about the questions it raises?

It's nothing but a bunch of FOA talking points. It raises nothing new. Obama will never see it. The judge has little understanding of how the executive branch of the United States goverment works, the duties and responsibilites of the Secretary of State, the State Department and the Italian judicial system.

 

[babycondor]

....nothing will be done: the letter does not even specify what action Heavey et al want to be taken anyway, apart from Obama "looking into it".

You may be right that nothing will be done, but it never hurts usually does no harm to ask.

Thirdly, the issues raised in the letter are primarily for the Italian authorities to deal with (apart from the areas where it is alleged that the US Embassy/Consulate failed in its duty of care).

Most of the letter seems to focus on the failures of the Consulate. To my mind, it's appropriate to bring these failures to the attention of the U.S. authorities, of which Obama is the highest in the land.

The US has no business telling the judiciary of a sovereign nation (a friendly one and a NATO ally) how to operate. If mistakes have been made, it's entirely up to the Italian system to put them right. That's simply the way it works. Countries just do not meddle in the internal workings of another sovereign nation's government (judiciary is a branch of government), even if one of their citizens is involved**.

The letter doesn't ask Obama to intervene in the affairs of the Italian judiciary at all. It just asks him to look into the failings of the U.S. consular officials in Rome. I think it's a very good letter. I'm glad someone cared enough to write it.

 

[LondonJohn]

And...the judge doesn't know the proper format for a formal letter!

Well, true. But I think (and hope) that people are less obsessed with formal salutations, valedictions and formats than they were 50 years ago or so. Jeez, I long ago gave up making sure I used "Yours sincerely", "Yours faithfully" and "Yours truly" in the correct places. I think that aside from strict diplomatic protocols (which are absurd in the extreme) and perhaps certain professions, most of the English-speaking world is abandoning the pointless adherence to nonsensical rules like those.

(I did business in Japan and South Korea a few years ago, and it took me about a week of reading to get to grips with the arcane customs (written, verbal, visual, action, deferential) that one must still observe in order to gain respect there. But, as they say, when in Rome............)

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, true. But I think (and hope) that people are less obsessed with formal salutations, valedictions and formats than they were 50 years ago or so. Jeez, I long ago gave up making sure I used "Yours sincerely", "Yours faithfully" and "Yours truly" in the correct places. I think that aside from strict diplomatic protocols (which are absurd in the extreme) and perhaps certain professions, most of the English-speaking world is abandoning the pointless adherence to nonsensical rules like those.

Usually bad letter writing doesn't bother me, but yikes, when writing to the president he should have got it right.

 

[zeb]

As surprising as you might find it, I agree with you on both points. He is incorrect in his assertion that Knox (and Sollecito) currently stands convicted: they are not considered convicted until and unless a) they are found guilty in the first appeal trial, and b) the verdicts of both the original trial and the first appeal are upheld in law by the Supreme Court. And if all the above transpires, it is only after the Supreme Court hearing and judgement that they will be considered convicted and start their sentences*.

But on the wider issue of the letter itself, I think it's pointless grandstanding by Judge Heavey and the other signatories. Firstly, there is..... ooh about a 0.001% chance that Obama will ever even get to hear that this letter was sent to him - let alone actually read it himself. Secondly, even if he did read it (or, far more likely, it was passed to a junior official in the White House to deal with), nothing will be done: the letter does not even specify what action Heavey et al want to be taken anyway, apart from Obama "looking into it".

Thirdly, the issues raised in the letter are primarily for the Italian authorities to deal with (apart from the areas where it is alleged that the US Embassy/Consulate failed in its duty of care). The US State Department (and far less the Office of the President) has no business at all intervening. If various articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure were breached by law enforcement during the investigation, then these are issues to be addressed by the Italian courts (chiefly the Supreme Court). The US has no business telling the judiciary of a sovereign nation (a friendly one and a NATO ally) how to operate. If mistakes have been made, it's entirely up to the Italian system to put them right. That's simply the way it works. Countries just do not meddle in the internal workings of another sovereign nation's government (judiciary is a branch of government), even if one of their citizens is involved**.

In short, I think the letter was ill-judged, ill-conceived and pointless (in that its authors have no hope whatsoever of action being taken on its account). The authors of the letter should - in my view - have sat tight and waited for the justice process in Perugia to run its course. And if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty in the first appeal, the Supreme Court in Rome will most likely want to address some of the points raised in the letter anyhow. But in that context, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court already ruled that Knox's 1.45am and 5.45am statements were both inadmissible for exactly the reasons given in this letter (although I believe the Supreme Court would be extremely interested in discussing how the judicial panel got to hear these statements anyhow, thanks to the concurrent Lumumba slander trial).

Just my opinion...


* They are currently actually on remand due to possibility of flight risk and/or risk of re-offending. They are not in prison serving the sentences handed down by the first court, although any final sentence they might be given will allow credit for the 3.5-years-plus that they have already spent in prison.

** Unless it's the US intervening in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, of course....

LJ
you are right in one thing, that the president cannot do nothing, but there again he is runing for a new term in office.
Bring Amanda home, will in my view, help him alot.
but you are right in what you have writen.

 

[LondonJohn]

You may be right that nothing will be done, but it never hurts to ask.



Most of the letter seems to focus on the failures of the Consulate. To my mind, it's appropriate to bring these failures to the attention of the U.S. authorities, of which Obama is the highest in the land.



The letter doesn't ask Obama to intervene in the affairs of the Italian judiciary at all. It just asks him to look into the failings of the U.S. consular officials in Rome. I think it's a very good letter. I'm glad someone cared enough to write it.

Well, as I read it, points 1-4 of the letter are the only ones which point to specific failures by Consular officials to intervene ("Why did consular officials do nothing" etc). But in fact there is very little that US consular officials in Italy could have done about the events of the night of November 1st/2nd. All they could have done (and it would have been improper for them to have done so in any case) would have been to demand that the Italian courts ruled that the evidence gathered against Knox during this time period was inadmissible in any future trial. But that's exactly what happened, without any (visible) US intervention whatsoever. The Italian courts successfully managed their own affairs in that instance.

Points 5-7 start to drift off (in my opinion) into a generic complaint about the prosecutor and other members of Italian law enforcement. I can't even see where the letter's authors thought the US might have intervened in this area, let alone whether such an intervention might have been either proper of successful.

I reiterate though: I think that most of the arguments set out in the letter have varying degrees of validity. However, not only is the trial process still ongoing (with the consequent chance for the Italian courts to address most if not all of the issues raised here), the US has no role to play in what happens to Knox.

To give a possibly facile analogy: suppose I drove to France and got a parking ticket in Paris which I disputed. I might be in the midst of an appeals process with the Paris parking enforcement authorities, and I might have a very strong case. But it would be both pointless and worthless for me to write a letter to my own UK member of parliament to set out my case and ask for his help - my MP is powerless to intervene, even if he wanted to get involved in a parking dispute. My only hope is to trust that the French appeals system for dealing with parking ticket resolutions is fair and balanced. Otherwise it's just too bad for me.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ
you are right in one thing, that the president cannot do nothing, but there again he is runing for a new term in office.
Bring Amanda home, will in my view, help him alot.
but you are right in what you have writen.

I think that even if Obama believed his personal popularity might receive a boost by a public intervention in Knox's situation, he would quickly be advised by his officials that to do so would be to open a huge, HUGE can of worms in Italian-US relations, and would be in total breach of international diplomatic and legal protocol. It's simply not going to happen.

By the way, Obama might believe - if he's even considered the case, that is - that she ought to be acquitted. Or he might believe she ought to be convicted. Either way, he shouldn't (and won't) say anything about this case until its conclusion. I suspect that if Knox is acquitted, he might then make an attempt to associate himself with the case (even if he disagreed with the decision to acquit), if he felt that it would help his popularity. We might soon see whether or not I'm right about that...

 

[Matthew Best]

Still, at least it wasn't signed by a little green frog.

 

[Alt+F4]

LJ
you are right in one thing, that the president cannot do nothing, but there again he is runing for a new term in office.
Bring Amanda home, will in my view, help him alot.
but you are right in what you have writen.

You say that the president can't do anything but that he should use AK's plight to help his reelection campaign. That makes no sense.