Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Any bets on how much longer they will be in the slammer? For some reason I can see this dragging out, or even having to be appealed again. It's the cynic in me.

There's no "having to be appealed again". This is the appeal trial which automatically follows the first trial.

It's not like the anglo-saxon situation, where people are convicted, then they can apply to appeal, but only if new facts or evidence come to light. If the appeal gets granted they get an appeal hearing - in which they have to actively prove to the appeal judges that the conviction is unsafe with evidence (whether it's new evidence or a refutation of existing evidence). If their appeal fails, they go back to prison, and can only then re-apply for an appeal if further new facts or evidence come to light.

Basically, if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty in this appeal trial (and if the verdicts are confirmed by the Supreme Court), they will find it very difficult indeed to appeal again. They will then be in the same situation as convicted criminals in the anglo-saxon model: in other words, they will need to prove that there is significant new evidence (or a refutation of existing evidence) that was not available to the original trial courts, and they will need to meet the burden of proof in this regard.

But I think all this is moot anyway. I think that Knox and Sollecito will very probably be acquitted in this appeal trial. I have argued this for a very long time, based on what I believe to be a rational and reasonable analysis of all the evidence in this case. I (and many others here) have long argued that much of the so-called "key" evidence in the first trial was deeply flawed - and we've articulated the reasons why we think this. I think we are right. The independent DNA report and the unravelling of Curatolo are the first two vindications of our position. I think that various other elements (Quintavalle and Capezzali, computer/phone records, ToD*, bathmat print, blood in bathroom, prints on hallway floor) will also play out largely as we have predicted. We'll have to wait and see, of course, but my money is on Knox and Sollecito being acquitted by November.

* And, contrary to what you might read elsewhere from people who are either uninformed or aiming to mislead, ToD will most definitely be addressed in the appeal trial. Whether Hellmann decides to allow addition expert testimony about ToD is still uncertain; but regardless of whether he does or not, ToD will absolutely certainly be argued in the appeal trial. And there's in fact already ample testimony on the record to destroy the ToD accepted by the court in the first trial, and to place it before 10pm - in which case, it's very hard to argue that Knox and Sollecito were involved (and it destroys the testimony of Capezzali in and of itself).

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a wonderful post. Too often in the heat of the discussion and the cauldron of debate, it's forgotten that it's also real people's lives. I hate to think what Meredith would have thought of the actions of the Perugia Police and the way they and the courts have treated people who were her friends. I also would hate to know what she would have thought of Maresca and his actions on her behalf.

If the trial continues the way it has been going, and the ToD and Computer logs play out as suspected, then hopefully AK, RS and the Kercher family can finally put this ugly and sorry incident behind them, grieve for Meredith, and be able to move on with their lives knowing that the real killer is in jail. It's just a shame he won't be there for the lifetime he deserves.

So true. Even though I don't have any connection to any of the players in this sad drama, I still find it obscene that certain factions not only use "justice for Meredith Kercher" as a shield for their actions and words, but (even worse) insinuate that those arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal somehow don't care about the victim or her family/friends.

I'm detecting a subtle but significant shift in the thinking amongst some pro-guilt commentators. It would appear that the full impact of the DNA report might now be just beginning to sink in. And the emphasis is consequently shifting from "mountains of evidence" and "they will rot in jail" to one of "well, they might get acquitted on a technicality, but everyone will always know that they are nasty little sex killers nonetheless". In other words, there appears to be a certain amount of pre-emptive rationalisation taking place in preparation for the prospect of acquittals.

Most irrationally (and nastily) of all, some are even suggesting that the independent DNA report (which was commissioned, monitored and received by Judge Hellmann) was somehow the product of bribery by Knox's family (with the help of the dastardly evil PR geniuses Gogerty Marriott, of course!). The idiocy continues....

 

[Fine]

My whole personal belief is that Knox did kill her daughter. From what I've seen on the news, she has no emotion, I know that if I were going on trial for killing a child I would be in scared out of my mind. You don't even see fear in her eyes, her face, in her anything. I hope they find her guilty and give the death penalty. If you kill a child, you know exactly what you are doing. That's one of the most hanous crimes anyone could do. If you kill someone else's child you deserve to die. If you kill your own child...... No words can express the discust I have. There's a very special place in hell for people like her.

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

I have the full expert report on my docstoc page (Italian).

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

Huge thanks! Where did you get it from ?

I'm trying to decipher portions with google translate help. It's interesting that experts paid very close attention to the video of investigative methods at the crime scene. They are very critical

 

[Kaosium]

So true. Even though I don't have any connection to any of the players in this sad drama, I still find it obscene that certain factions not only use "justice for Meredith Kercher" as a shield for their actions and words, but (even worse) insinuate that those arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal somehow don't care about the victim or her family/friends.

What is most...curious...is the absolute insistence in certain quarters that justice for Meredith Kercher must be tied to the guilt of Amanda Knox. That's irrational of course, and in fact if Amanda is innocent those advocating wholesale for her guilt will of course have committed an absolute obscenity in the name of the person they seek justice for. If the evidence suggests Amanda is innocent, then justice for Meredith Kercher is intrinsically tied to seeking to punish those who attempted to prosecute her unjustly.

I'm detecting a subtle but significant shift in the thinking amongst some pro-guilt commentators. It would appear that the full impact of the DNA report might now be just beginning to sink in. And the emphasis is consequently shifting from "mountains of evidence" and "they will rot in jail" to one of "well, they might get acquitted on a technicality, but everyone will always know that they are nasty little sex killers nonetheless". In other words, there appears to be a certain amount of pre-emptive rationalisation taking place in preparation for the prospect of acquittals.

It's too bad there's no one posting here to accuse you of 'mind-reading!'

I've not seen posts of that nature, but I only made a cursory survey, those that stuck out to me were the ones who were somehow trying to pretend the DNA expert's report was less damning than it was, and even if it was then it was just a minor part of the case.

Most irrationally (and nastily) of all, some are even suggesting that the independent DNA report (which was commissioned, monitored and received by Judge Hellmann) was somehow the product of bribery by Knox's family (with the help of the dastardly evil PR geniuses Gogerty Marriott, of course!). The idiocy continues....

That might be because the report Hellmann commissioned was so very similar to the letter Dan Krane, Elizabeth Johnson et al wrote and signed some three and a half years ago. The most interesting thing about the whole 'PR campaign' meme is it seems to have never occurred to any of them they even if there was a million dollar PR campaign with tentacles everywhere that they could still be right! The best 'spin' is the truth told prettily...

 

[Katody Matrass]

The report is referencing Toothman 2008 study about DNA in household dust, pointng out that no samples of ambient dust were tested for comparison to prove that the contamination didn't come from it. I got a feeling I've seen it mentioned before. Was is on this forum ?

The artifact was recovered 46 days after the crime, in an environment highly suggestive of contamination . The risk of incorrectly interpreting environmental contaminants such dust could be minimized only by having the foresight to establish very strict control procedures, including analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked in sterile buffer passed to pick up on environmental surfaces dust samples, a procedure that has not been implemented; (google)

 

[RoseMontague]

Huge thanks! Where did you get it from ?

I'm trying to decipher portions with google translate help. It's interesting that experts paid very close attention to the video of investigative methods at the crime scene. They are very critical

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

 

[Katody Matrass]

About the knife the experts are simply asking WTF?? time after time :

Despite the negativity of the test for the diagnosis of blood and omitted surveys for research of cells (hence the lack of identification of the material removed from the exhibit 36) CT suggested the presence of "alleged cells exfoliation" on the handle of the material taken knife (tracks ADF) and "alleged biological material" other (likely given the blood-specific investigations in search of blood peroxidase) on material taken from the blade (tracks BC - EG).

The assumptions made by CT. about the nature of the material analyzed, are completely arbitrary as not supported by any scientifically objective feedback.


it is not understandable what criterion has been adopted in the evaluation of the quantification of the positive trace B and trace C of negativity since for both tracks got the same result was "too low". ie a value that must be considered not only below the threshold of sensitivity of the fluorimeter indicated in the manual (DNA concentrations of 0.2 ng / PJ), but below the value of 0.08 ng / tl. fluorimeter has detected that the value for track A.

And now they notice Patrizia simply lied on the stand:

Nor is understandable, given the negative results on Track B, as reported by Dr. Stefanoni during interrogation GUP (p. 178) when it states that the DNA in Track B, quantified by Real Time PCR (please note that the quantification as well as confirmed at the hearing has never been enforced, least. there has been no documentation to support this assertion). was "in the order of a few hundred picograms," value, this, that does not emerge from any of the acts give yourselves (SAL, reports of the fluorometer, the Real Time reports, RTIGF).

(google translate all the way)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

I hope so

The PDF I downloaded from your docstoc is OCR'd quite tolerably, it requires minor corrections and removing of "newlines" to get through google translate.

 

[Diocletus]

Some posters at PMF were making a big stink about the report making reference to "international standards," the implication being how dare they defer to these international standards when Italy is an advanced nation with its own justice system, etc., etc. This got me thinking.

First, I think it's clear from the conclusions that the indepenent experts looked at the overall picture, and were absolutely horrified at what happened, from evidence collection all the way through to testing. I think they thought to themselves that "people cannot be sent to jail in Italy based on work like this." And then they must have thought "Patrizia Stefanoni is one of our best scientists in this field--how can this have happened? . . ."

And they looked around, and they found that in reality, Italy doesn't have clear standards governing much of what was done in this case. And they asked "if this is happening here, in this high-profile case with a good scientist, what is going on in other cases? Are we routinely locking away people based on work like this? Momma mia."

But then they thought: "we are Italy's leading scientists in this field. We are La Sapienza. We are internationally known and respected. People will listen to us, and this case is a big stage. Let's do something about this."

So what we ended up with is a report that is half about this case, and half statement to the justice system. The part that is statement to the justice system cites extensively to international standards and says that they must be followed. The experts know that this report will be widely publicized and discussed in the forensics community in Italy, and they know that if the report is accepted by the court, then the standards and practices advocated by the report will become de facto standards in Italy.

These experts together have said to the Italian justice system "this new science is a valuable tool, but you must use it properly or you will destroy lives. Here is how we will use it."

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

 

[Rhea]

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

Hihi, that is funny …

 

[Loss Leader]

My whole personal belief is that Knox did kill her daughter. From what I've seen on the news, she has no emotion, I know that if I were going on trial for killing a child I would be in scared out of my mind. You don't even see fear in her eyes, her face, in her anything. I hope they find her guilty and give the death penalty. If you kill a child, you know exactly what you are doing. That's one of the most hanous crimes anyone could do. If you kill someone else's child you deserve to die. If you kill your own child...... No words can express the discust I have. There's a very special place in hell for people like her.

If this is a meta-comment on how criminal litigation has seeped into the popular culture as entertainment, then it's brilliant. However, seeing the thread about education that the poster started, I fear this may not be satire at all.

In any case, if Knox did kill her daughter, I'm sure the Italian courts would find her guilty ... whether there was evidence of it or not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some posters at PMF were making a big stink about the report making reference to "international standards," the implication being how dare they defer to these international standards when Italy is an advanced nation with its own justice system, etc., etc. This got me thinking.

First, I think it's clear from the conclusions that the indepenent experts looked at the overall picture, and were absolutely horrified at what happened, from evidence collection all the way through to testing. I think they thought to themselves that "people cannot be sent to jail in Italy based on work like this." And then they must have thought "Patrizia Stefanoni is one of our best scientists in this field--how can this have happened? . . ."

And they looked around, and they found that in reality, Italy doesn't have clear standards governing much of what was done in this case. And they asked "if this is happening here, in this high-profile case with a good scientist, what is going on in other cases? Are we routinely locking away people based on work like this? Momma mia."

But then they thought: "we are Italy's leading scientists in this field. We are La Sapienza. We are internationally known and respected. People will listen to us, and this case is a big stage. Let's do something about this."

So what we ended up with is a report that is half about this case, and half statement to the justice system. The part that is statement to the justice system cites extensively to international standards and says that they must be followed. The experts know that this report will be widely publicized and discussed in the forensics community in Italy, and they know that if the report is accepted by the court, then the standards and practices advocated by the report will become de facto standards in Italy.

These experts together have said to the Italian justice system "this new science is a valuable tool, but you must use it properly or you will destroy lives. Here is how we will use it."

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

Having read more of the report now myself, I completely agree with your assessment here. I think the authors want to send a blanket message, in addition to destroying the specific personalities and procedures involved in this case.

The more I read, the more it's clear that Conti and Vecchiotti are astonished that this stuff ever made it into a courtroom in the first place, and - if anything - are even more astonished that Massei not only let all this stand, but used it as a key basis for his verdict. There are so many extreme mess-ups across so many areas concerning this DNA evidence that it would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious.

I can only start to think of what the consequences of all this will be - not only for Stefanoni (and everyone involved in the collection and storage of the evidence), but also for those who unequivocally endorsed the work being carried out. If anything, the latter group of people are even more culpable: it's perhaps marginally understandable for a person to defend his/her own work, even against perceived failings, but it's unforgivable for others - of even higher seniority - to sign off the shockingly bad work. And to sign it off not just as acceptable, but as "world class"!!

 

[Slayhamlet]

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the bigger idiots is still trying to assert that if it's Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, then he's "toast". This is of course arrant nonsense. Even if it were shown to be Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (and the report suggest that the electropherograms have been misinterpreted and it therefore may well not be his in any case), the report concluded that there is so much potential for contamination at so many levels (both within the cottage and at the lab), that anything found on the bra clasp is of no evidential value anyhow.

It's actually quite sad observing some of these people rage against the dying of the light. I think it's time for them to take some time out, and consider why they feel it so necessary to argue further and further away from logic and reason, simply in order to attempt to defend an increasingly indefensible position.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

That was my thought! And then I got a mental image of Elaine in Seinfeld:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCTZF61ey0

 

[Katody Matrass]

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

The dingo is innocent!

 

[Katody Matrass]

One of the bigger idiots is still trying to assert that if it's Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, then he's "toast". This is of course arrant nonsense. Even if it were shown to be Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (and the report suggest that the electropherograms have been misinterpreted and it therefore may well not be his in any case), the report concluded that there is so much potential for contamination at so many levels (both within the cottage and at the lab), that anything found on the bra clasp is of no evidential value anyhow.

I predict a huge come back of one of the more idiotic arguments, i.e. "where is the proof of contamination?"

 

[Dan O.]

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

The toolkit doesn't know how to handle tags within text so these have to be moved to between sentences. Keeping the original page numbers (ie: [403]) and attempting to preserve the look with hard newlines helps tremendously when comparing the converted text to the original. The toolkit could be a lot better if it did some of this mechanical stuff automatically. Somebody should write Google and tell them

It is also helpful to have a glossary of names that shouldn't be translated and technical terms that should have a specific translation. I can convert the Kercher Case People list from the wiki into the format needed for the glossary. Anybody else that wants to submit a list of terms used in these documents and their translation, I'll create a page to keep the master list.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lessons learned, part 1

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

Diocletus,

This is a very insightful comment. The Jaidyn Leskie case and the Farah Jama case (which Lionking brought to my attention indirectly) seemed to make some in Australia think long and hard about DNA evidence, IIUC. The Leskie case in particular was the subject of an extensive inquiry. And let me also echo LondonJohn's praise of Italy's automatic appeal system with its presumption of innocence, which is looking pretty good right now. Finally, there is a little snippet of Hampikian here.
EDT
I believe that both Leskie and Jama were cases from Victoria, a populous state.