Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I guess I was guilty of looking at this through the lens of the American court system in my post above; I should have said that AK and RS have been convicted of the crime. My apologies.

Nope, you're still getting it wrong. They are not yet convicted of these crimes. They have been found guilty in the first trial, but they are still innocent in law until and unless they are also found guilty in the first appeal and the Supreme Court appeal. A possible term for their current status might be "provisionally convicted".

And incidentally, just FYI, the reason why Knox and Sollecito are currently sitting in jail has nothing to do with the prison sentence handed down by Massei's court. That sentence will only come into operation (with possible amendment by the first appeal and Supreme Court appeal) if they are finally convicted. They are actually currently merely remanded into custody, on account of a judge deeming that the serious nature of the crime, a potential risk of reoffending, and/or flight risk meant that the defendants needed to be incarcerated during the trials process. If they are ultimately convicted by the Supreme Court, then their time spent in custody up to that point will be deducted from their actual sentence. But they are currently not sitting in jail because of any conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

And as Michael Caine might have said (except he never did say it...): "Not a lot of people know that!"

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I feel it necessary to point out that AK and RS have been found guilty in a court of law.

/CTer

That's because the court was corrupt and ignored the evidence. Duh.

/

 

[Draca]

I feel it necessary to point out that AK and RS have been found guilty in a court of law.

I've heard for a year and half now that 'I trust the Italian court system to have gotten it right, it's not like they're a third world country'.

There are major systemic problems that helped lead to this conviction. It shouldn't have even gone to trial, the conviction was a disgraceful joke.

 

[Draca]

/CTer

That's because the court was corrupt and ignored the evidence. Duh.

/

Correct. Massei more than ignored the evidence he obfuscated the truth.

 

[komponisto]

I guess I was guilty of looking at this through the lens of the American court system in my post above; I should have said that AK and RS have been convicted of the crime. My apologies.

"Convicted at the first level" would be an appropriate phrasing in English, I think.

EDIT: LondonJohn's "provisionally convicted" is probably more to the point, though it doesn't distinguish between the first two levels of Italy's three-level system.

 

[Alt+F4]

...most or all of the people who people who wrote and signed the open letter of 19 November 2009 on the DNA evidence have published multiple articles in internationally known forensics journals.

No one is disputing that those who signed that open letter are experts in their fields, but so what? The letter has not been submitted as evidence and none of those who signed it have testified. The letter means nothing.

Dr. Hampikian seems to be quite keen on helping the defense, why hasn't he testified for them? Here we have a DNA expert willing to testify and what does the defense come up with? A guy that beat a baby to death with a shovel. There much more going on behind the scenes here even though those advocating innocence claims that if there was anything important happening we would know about it.

 

[tsig]

/CTer

That's because the court was corrupt and ignored the evidence. Duh.

/

Correct. Massei more than ignored the evidence he obfuscated the truth.

Scrut, you're being too subtle here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

open letter

No one is disputing that those who signed that open letter are experts in their fields, but so what? The letter has not been submitted as evidence and none of those who signed it have testified. The letter means nothing.

Dr. Hampikian seems to be quite keen on helping the defense, why hasn't he testified for them? Here we have a DNA expert willing to testify and what does the defense come up with? A guy that beat a baby to death with a shovel. There much more going on behind the scenes here even though those advocating innocence claims that if there was anything important happening we would know about it.

Alt+F4,

I have answered this question several times already. The defense wished to call several expert DNA witnesses. It is reasonable to assume that Dr. Hampikian would be among them, but the list of who they would have been was not made public, to the best of my knowledge. However, Judge Hellman asked for a review by Conti and Vecchiotti instead. His call, not the defense's call.

The letter is important because it casts doubt on two pieces of evidence that some think are critical to the case put forth by the prosecution. The persuasiveness of the letter is partially a function of the credentials of those who authored or signed it. If Conti's and Vecchiotti's report fails to address the issues raised in the open letter, I would not take their report seriously. However, I doubt that we will find ourselves in that situation when the report is released.

 

[komponisto]

I've heard for a year and half now that 'I trust the Italian court system to have gotten it right, it's not like they're a third world country'.

Needless to say, this is a false dichotomy if there ever were one. No country's court system can expect to have an accuracy rate of literally 100%. Even if Italian first-level verdicts are the most accurate in the world (not likely, given the high reversal rate), we should still expect to hear about occasional miscarriages of justice.

The fallacy here is that people are treating this case as if it were randomly selected from the set of all cases in Italy. But it obviously isn't; there are a number of factors that make it much more likely than the typical case to be an example of a wrongful conviction. First among them is the mere fact that it is controversial.

 

[Danceme]

Because you (and many others) still don't seem to be able to grasp the situation properly. The defence's claim was this: there are two groups of people - a group of 4 (including Alessi), and Aviello - who have made potentially significant claims regarding this case. Neither the defence, nor the prosecutors, nor the police, nor the courts have any real idea just how accurate, truthful or reliable either of these claims is, mainly because the police and prosecutors declined to investigate properly when they first came to light, and because Judge Massei arbitrarily refused to let the claims be investigated in the first trial.

Therefore, the defence demanded that these claims were investigated in open court so that everybody could determine their veracity. The defence are not asserting that either or both of these groups of people are telling the truth - and nor have they ever made this assertion. Their view is that either one might be true, or both might be false, but until and unless the claims were subjected to official court scrutiny, it would be near-impossible to investigate them properly (i.e. courts have powers of investigation and subpoena that defence lawyers (or even prosecutors) don't have).

This request was all about allowing the claims to be properly investigated. What it emphatically was not was the defence claiming that one or both of these claims was necessarily forming part of its defence against the murder charges. Obviously, if either of the claims turns out to have any substance, then the defence will likely use that information to its benefit. But if both claims turn out to be lies, then the defence will be satisfied that they were investigated properly and found to have no substance, and move on accordingly.

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, the is NOT the adversarial (prosecution vs defence) anglo-saxon justice system, where each side only produces witnesses who support that side's case. The Italian courts retain elements of an inquisitorial approach, and also have an investigative role to play in and of themselves. I wish people were able to understand the differences, and to therefore appreciate the real reason why the defence wanted these inmate witnesses heard and examined in court.

If I remember correctly, these claims were initially investigated and came up lacking. Didn't both Mignini as well as the defense teams send people to talk to these guys? And didn't Guede immediately write a rebuttal letter?
Regardless, I think your interpretation is off. Putting stock in jailhouse informant testimony where certainly one, Alviello, is completely out to lunch, is especially desperate looking no matter where you stand on guilt or innocence, unless you believe his story is even remotely possible, exonerating Rudy along with the other two. Including him has absolutely no merit to the argument.
I tend to agree with others who think it was a strategy to get Guede on the stand.

 

[LondonJohn]

No one is disputing that those who signed that open letter are experts in their fields, but so what? The letter has not been submitted as evidence and none of those who signed it have testified. The letter means nothing.

Dr. Hampikian seems to be quite keen on helping the defense, why hasn't he testified for them? Here we have a DNA expert willing to testify and what does the defense come up with? A guy that beat a baby to death with a shovel. There much more going on behind the scenes here even though those advocating innocence claims that if there was anything important happening we would know about it.

Is it seriously necessary to explain once again how this appeal trial is proceeding? Oh well, here we go again....

Prior to the start of proceedings in the appeal trial, the defence and prosecution can both produce submissions to the court, in which they can list areas in which they believe the first trial erred or was deficient. In these submissions, they can also request that the appeal court allows certain additional evidence or witness testimony, along with their reasoning why they feel the court should allow the new evidence/testimony.

Are you with me so far?

So, the first substantial ruling that the lead judge in the first appeal trial (here, Hellmann) has to make is about which (if any) of the prosecution or defence requests for additional evidence/testimony he will allow. The evidence/testimony that he decides to allow is then introduced into the court, and is added to the body of evidence/testimony carried over from the first trial.

Still with me?

The argument phase of the appeal trial can then begin, based on the combination of the evidence/testimony carried across from the first trial and the additional evidence/testimony introduced in the appeal trial.

Does it make sense?

So...... where are we right now? Well, the defence teams made a number of requests for additional evidence/testimony in their submissions to the appeal court. Judge Hellmann has ruled (last December) that he would immediately allow a full independent review of all the DNA evidence from the first trial. At the same time (last December) he added that he agreed to recall Curatolo to the stand. And also at the same time, he stated that he reserved the right to allow other evidence/testimony from the defence requests on an ongoing basis - mainly subject to the receipt and discussion of the new independent DNA report.

Sure enough, since the DNA report was delayed in its submission (thanks to the obstruction of world-renowned forensic examiner Stefanoni), Hellmann decided to use the time in allowing the inmate witnesses to be heard. Then, following their testimony yesterday, he also agreed to allow Guede and Benedetti (Guede's Skype friend) to testify. All additional grants by Hellmann on an ongoing basis. The defence didn't "come up with a guy that beat a baby to death with a shovel", as you so prosaically and pejoratively put it. The request to hear the inmates was just one of many requests made by the defence in its submissions several months ago - it just happens to have been allowed (correctly) by Hellmann while he is waiting for the DNA report to be submitted to his court.

And once the DNA report is submitted and discussed (by the end of July), Hellmann again has given himself the room to allow yet more new evidence or testimony. My guess is that he might allow the pillowcase stain to be tested, and that he will likely allow the alleged new computer evidence (and associated testimony) to be introduced.

Regarding DNA, I think you may well find that the report prepared by Conti and Vecchiotti addresses (and agrees with) most of the concerns raised by Dr Hampikian. If that's the case, then the defence need not require him (or any other expert in the field) to testify as to just how rotten the DNA evidence was in this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

CTer? been there, done that

Scrut, you're being too subtle here.

tsig,

No, he wasn't. I have heard the CTer thing so many times, I try to ignore it. However, kaosium did a good job of explaining who the real CTer is on another thread.

tsig or TCS,

What time do you think that Meredith died and why?

 

[LondonJohn]

If I remember correctly, these claims were initially investigated and came up lacking. Didn't both Mignini as well as the defense teams send people to talk to these guys? And didn't Guede immediately write a rebuttal letter?
Regardless, I think your interpretation is off. Putting stock in jailhouse informant testimony where certainly one, Alviello, is completely out to lunch, is especially desperate looking no matter where you stand on guilt or innocence, unless you believe his story is even remotely possible, exonerating Rudy along with the other two. Including him has absolutely no merit to the argument.
I tend to agree with others who think it was a strategy to get Guede on the stand.

Like I said before, the people involved (the five inmates and Guede) could say what they liked to prosecutors and defence lawyers who visited them in prison - or they could choose to say nothing at all if they desired. It is only the courts that can oblige them to testify under oath, with significant penalties if they either refuse to answer questions or give false testimony. It's therefore only the courts which have the power to get the closest to the truth, one way or the other. Again I would add that courts in Italy function in a different way to courts in the US or UK - Italian criminal courts have an inquisitorial and investigative function, whereas UK/US criminal courts are only empowered to make legal judgements of guilt or non-guilt of the accused, based purely upon the arguments of the prosecution and defence teams.

 

[LondonJohn]

tsig,

No, he wasn't. I have heard the CTer thing so many times, I try to ignore it. However, kaosium did a good job of explaining who the real CTer is on another thread.

tsig or TCS,

What time do you think that Meredith died and why?

I'd be extremely interested to hear a coherent and supportable argument from anyone for a time any later than 10pm.

But somehow I get the feeling that I won't be getting interested by such an argument any time soon.....

 

[platonov]

I've heard for a year and half now that 'I trust the Italian court system to have gotten it right, it's not like they're a third world country'.

There are major systemic problems that helped lead to this conviction. It shouldn't have even gone to trial, the conviction was a disgraceful joke.

You seem to have forgotten where this started.

The father of the victim, whose 6 mth old article, 'we' are currently discussing [for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me] bases his opinion of guilt on the evidence put forward and the ruling handed down in this 'first' trial apparently.

Now he may be a complete ignoramus relative to the many well informed posters here (as we have been told) but there you have it.

You and others may also wish to compare him (and his motives) unfavorably with 'the baby killer' & co - we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

tsig or TCS,

What time do you think that Meredith died and why?

Time? I don't know.

Why? Amanda Knox murdered her.

 

[LondonJohn]

Time? I don't know.

Why? Amanda Knox murdered her.

The "why" referred to "why do you think that was the ToD". But you knew that of course.

And your admittance that you don't know what time you think Meredith died merely goes to show that you're not properly equipped to argue cogently about this case. But thanks for stopping by.......

 

[Alt+F4]

And your admittance that you don't know what time you think Meredith died merely goes to show that you're not properly equipped to argue cogently about this case. But thanks for stopping by.......

TCS, your Googling skills are not up to speed!

 

[Alt+F4]

The father of the victim, whose 6 mth old article, 'we' are currently discussing [for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me] bases his opinion of guilt on the evidence put forward and the ruling handed down in this 'first' trial apparently.

To deflect the fact that the defense had a horrible day in court and their super witnesses had contradictory testimony which only weakened the defense's case.

Shovel wielding baby killer starts writing to Amanda in 3,2,....

 

[Kaosium]

I feel it necessary to point out that AK and RS have been found guilty in a court of law.

They are still considered innocent by Italian law until the end of the three trial process. This is not a mere technicality in the Italian System, it is very relevant in those proceedings. The results of a trial of the first instance is overturned somewhere on the order of 40% of the time. (wish I had definite statistics but estimates vary from 33-60%--that includes sentence reductions as well) Like the old joke about grand jury indictments, you could find a ham sandwich guilty in an Italian trial of the first instance. In the first trial, the jury foreman worked for a legal firm that assisted the prosecution in the preparation of the case:

"Most important, however, is the change in Italian public opinion. Unlike in the U.S., where jurors are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, in Italy they are known as "civilian judges," and are free to hold preconceived opinions and to drink deeply from the media well. Indeed, in Knox's first trial, the jury foreman was a criminal lawyer whose firm had briefly participated in the investigation."
There are different jury standards for the first appeal, which unlike American or British systems is an entirely new trial, a trial de novo. In a sense the first trial is a test run for the prosecution, their case is presented, and despite the reasonable doubt standard and the 'official' presumption of innocence introduced into the Italian Constitution in 2006, the tendency is for jurors is to expect the accused to prove innocence which was once required under the Inquisitorial system, as seen in this case and posted numerous times here where the juror was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'it was still possible they did it.' In the second trial, 'The Defense Strikes Back.'

It may seem cruel to dare question the father of the victim who writes articles suggesting everyone who thinks the verdict in the trial of the first instance was unsound to shut up, but seeing as both Raffaele and Amanda have their effective lives on the line, and their lawyer Maresca is representing those who are trying to silence any criticism of the prosecution, when legally and morally they are both still considered innocent, is it not fair to point out they have not actually been found guilty of the crime under Italian law and the 'evidence' in those articles isn't based on facts?

Of course some think the motivation behind the articles and the insistence upon their guilt is different, they filed a civil case concurrent with the criminal one and were awarded a large settlement. Oftentimes that is irrelevant, being as most that murderers aren't exactly wealthy, however Raffaele inherited property directly from his mother that purportedly is worth on the order of three million Euros.

I think it's something else, I think like Barbie Nadeau he bought into Mignini's delusions that any who dared question him was part of the 'shadowy network arrayed against' him. In Mignini's terms it's the 'PR campaign' and the Masonic affiliations of the Sollecito family, in John Kercher's it appears to be 'cultists.'