Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Are you happy that the knife is not being tested, or would you rather see it tested?

Halides1

The question is irrelevant the parameters of the re-examination DNA tests on the knife and Meredith’s bra clasp have been defined.

I prefer to limit my views to the appeal as you know and so far I am disappointed once again as with the trial I read comments of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters and expected a de novo trial (appeal) all witnesses, all evidence being reviewed but that was nipped in bud several months ago. I remain curious to see whether anything Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters have written about so verbosely here is actually raised during the closing stages of the appeal.

And yes I have answered your question in the manner of my choosing.

PS
Okay I don’t plan spending the rest of my Sunday evening being the” play thing” of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters, I’ll respond during the week.

 

[komponisto]

My point is that when Conti and Vecchiotti’s made the request the defence agreed yet they had several months to compile their submissions and make the request from a position of confidence of the outcome.

Frankly I believe the defence scored an own goal, simultaneously claiming confidence of a negative result but then missing a possible opportunity to make that point to the lay judges and judges.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem coherent, and nor does it seem like you understood what I wrote. There was no need for the defense to make specific requests about the details of how the experts would conduct the review; the fact that they made the request for a review in general, nonspecific terms does not imply that they secretly suspected that certain tests might fail to support their case. Quite the contrary: one would expect that if they were worried about that, they would try to make their request as narrow as possible, so as to avoid tests that might further incriminate their clients.

I get the strong feeling that you're conducting a deliberate search for counterarguments, rather than just updating on the evidence as it comes in. Because, frankly, the idea that the defense was at all worried about opening the knife is simply ludicrous. As Rolfe pointed out, they might very well have objected even if they were confident the knife wasn't the weapon. And yet, they didn't! The prosecution were the ones who objected!

 

[AmyStrange]

Sorry not sure I follow your post, C & V as you say would have been the one's dismantling the knife, therefore any concerns with previous tests wouldn't apply.

-

CoulsdonUK,

I see your point.

Let me put it this way. before their report was released, how could the defence know for sure C&V wouldn't just do what they thought Dr. Steffi had done and create another false positive which wouldn't be good for the defence.

They had been saying this from the very beginning that the DNA analysis had been botched, which was also why they wanted independent analysis from the very beginning too, which was rejected by Massei in the first trial,

Dave

-

 

[RoseMontague]

The point with the knife is that it should have been done by Ms. Steffanoni to begin with. The prosecution was claiming the knife was cleaned, this is where a cleaning could have missed.

As I pointed out earlier, I think 99 out of 100 forensic scientists testing that knife, break it apart.

I don't think the prosecution wanted it tested and objected in the appeal because they already know the knife is bogus and there is nothing there.

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides1

The question is irrelevant the parameters of the re-examination DNA tests on the knife and Meredith’s bra clasp have been defined.

I prefer to limit my views to the appeal as you know and so far I am disappointed once again as with the trial I read comments of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters and expected a de novo trial (appeal) all witnesses, all evidence being reviewed but that was nipped in bud several months ago. I remain curious to see whether anything Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters have written about so verbosely here is actually raised during the closing stages of the appeal.

And yes I have answered your question in the manner of my choosing.

PS
Okay I don’t plan spending the rest of my Sunday evening being the” play thing” of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters, I’ll respond during the week.

The highlighted section indicates that you still appear not to comprehend the situation properly. The appeal trial is a de novo trial. All the evidence will be reviewed/addressed (if the respective parties - prosecution, defence, victim's representative, court - want to address it), but in the argument phase of the trial. This phase has not even started yet in Hellmann's court. It will start once the evidence/testimony phase has concluded.

I'll try and explain the evidence/testimony situation in Italian criminal appeal trials once again. In order mainly to save time and effort, all the evidence and testimony from the first trial is automatically introduced into the appeal trial. But the prosecution or defence can petition the appeal court judge to say essentially this: "We believe there is additional evidence/testimony that was not introduced in the first trial, which is crucial to the court's understanding of the case; we now want to introduce this additional evidence/testimony into the appeal trial". The appeal court judge can agree that the requests have merit, and can therefore allow the additional evidence/testimony to be introduced, or the judge can disagree that the requests have merit, and refuse them. In this particular case, Hellmann agreed to some of the defence teams' requests, which is why we've had Curatolo back on the stand, why the court has called the inmate witnesses to determine if their stories had any truth, and why the independent review of the knife/clasp was carried out.

So once Stefanoni is done with in early September, the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial will be complete. We then move on to the most critical part of the trial: the argument phase. This phase consists of all parties arguing their case, based on the evidence/testimony related to the case. And in an appeal trial, the body of evidence/testimony on which all the legal arguments will be based consists of both the entirety of evidence/testimony from the first trial plus the additional evidence/testimony allowed by the appeal judge.

So what does this mean in practice in this particular case? It means that when the prosecutors stand up to make their argument, they will have all of the evidence/testimony from Massei's court to base their argument upon, plus all the new evidence/testimony from Hellmann's court. Of course it's likely that the vast majority of the prosecution argument will be based on evidence/testimony carried over from Massei's court - since most of the new additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann is significantly unhelpful to the prosecution case. Conversely, I am guessing that a fair proportion of the defences' arguments will utilise the new evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann, but plenty of their arguments will also be based on evidence/testimony from Massei's court.

So, in summary, this is a de novo trial. The most important way in which it can be described as de novo is in respect to the argument phase - which hasn't even started yet in this trial. Hellmann's judicial panel will base its deliberation and verdict entirely upon these de novo arguments, without any reference whatsoever to arguments (or verdicts) from Massei's court or any other court. That is essentially what is meant by a de novo trial in this case.

 

[RoseMontague]

For those interested, another suspect has been charged in the Sarah Scazzi murder case. Total number now equals 16. HERE

Wikipedia/Italy has an outline of this complicated case, HERE. According to this account, the national media has reached a "nearly unanimous" opinion that Sabrina and her mother, Cosima, did it.

[qimg]http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/campania/media/foto/2011/08/13/sabrina--190x130.jpg[/qimg]
Sabrina, left. Sarah, right

///

Wow, reading the wiki article it is difficult to find any evidence against Sabrina or her Mom. A dream and a cell phone tower connection of 37 seconds, suspicion of jealousy. Am I missing something here? I don't see the evidence.

The town is joining in as a civil party??? This case is one big joke. Italy should be embarrassed.


Did anyone else happen to follow the link to the medical examiner statement:
Here it is and no I am not making this up:

The medical examiner - "The lesions found on the victim's neck are also compatible with the action of a female person, not particularly graceful. The force used to strangle Sarah Scazzi would therefore "compatible with that of a woman if not particularly thin" are the words of Louis Road coroner who performed the autopsy on the body of fifteen.

Thanks Fine for the update and link to the wiki article.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: I hope that people will stop conflating the terms "Knox/Sollecito supporters" and "people arguing for acquittal". There is a huge difference between the two. To use the "supporters" term implies a level of emotional attachment to the fate of Knox/Sollecito that is simply not necessary in order to believe (and argue) that they should be acquitted.

I am sad for Knox and Sollecito (and their families and friends) for the injustice I perceive as having taken place against them, and because in my view they have spent at least three out of their four years in jail unnecessarily and unjustly. I also strongly believe they should - and shall - be acquitted in Hellmann's appeal court. But there is no way whatsoever that I would personally describe myself as a "Knox/Sollecito supporter". If I believed there was evidence showing their participation in Meredith Kercher's murder, I'd be fully supportive of the prosecution's case and fully in agreement with conviction and punishment. But it's obvious to me (and getting more obvious all the time) that this is simply not the case. That's why I argue for acquittal (and that Knox/Sollecito most likely played no part whatsoever in the crime). Not because I "support" them per se.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The highlighted section indicates that you still appear not to comprehend the situation properly. The appeal trial is a de novo trial. All the evidence will be reviewed/addressed (if the respective parties - prosecution, defence, victim's representative, court - want to address it), but in the argument phase of the trial. This phase has not even started yet in Hellmann's court. It will start once the evidence/testimony phase has concluded.

I'll try and explain the evidence/testimony situation in Italian criminal appeal trials once again. In order mainly to save time and effort, all the evidence and testimony from the first trial is automatically introduced into the appeal trial. But the prosecution or defence can petition the appeal court judge to say essentially this: "We believe there is additional evidence/testimony that was not introduced in the first trial, which is crucial to the court's understanding of the case; we now want to introduce this additional evidence/testimony into the appeal trial". The appeal court judge can agree that the requests have merit, and can therefore allow the additional evidence/testimony to be introduced, or the judge can disagree that the requests have merit, and refuse them. In this particular case, Hellmann agreed to some of the defence teams' requests, which is why we've had Curatolo back on the stand, why the court has called the inmate witnesses to determine if their stories had any truth, and why the independent review of the knife/clasp was carried out.

So once Stefanoni is done with in early September, the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial will be complete. We then move on to the most critical part of the trial: the argument phase. This phase consists of all parties arguing their case, based on the evidence/testimony related to the case. And in an appeal trial, the body of evidence/testimony on which all the legal arguments will be based consists of both the entirety of evidence/testimony from the first trial plus the additional evidence/testimony allowed by the appeal judge.

So what does this mean in practice in this particular case? It means that when the prosecutors stand up to make their argument, they will have all of the evidence/testimony from Massei's court to base their argument upon, plus all the new evidence/testimony from Hellmann's court. Of course it's likely that the vast majority of the prosecution argument will be based on evidence/testimony carried over from Massei's court - since most of the new additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann is significantly unhelpful to the prosecution case. Conversely, I am guessing that a fair proportion of the defences' arguments will utilise the new evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann, but plenty of their arguments will also be based on evidence/testimony from Massei's court.

So, in summary, this is a de novo trial. The most important way in which it can be described as de novo is in respect to the argument phase - which hasn't even started yet in this trial. Hellmann's judicial panel will base its deliberation and verdict entirely upon these de novo arguments, without any reference whatsoever to arguments (or verdicts) from Massei's court or any other court. That is essentially what is meant by a de novo trial in this case.

You know really please you do not have to provide another verbose explanation, I simply do not agree with your point of view.

 

[RoseMontague]

PS: I hope that people will stop conflating the terms "Knox/Sollecito supporters" and "people arguing for acquittal". There is a huge difference between the two. To use the "supporters" term implies a level of emotional attachment to the fate of Knox/Sollecito that is simply not necessary in order to believe (and argue) that they should be acquitted.

I am sad for Knox and Sollecito (and their families and friends) for the injustice I perceive as having taken place against them, and because in my view they have spent at least three out of their four years in jail unnecessarily and unjustly. I also strongly believe they should - and shall - be acquitted in Hellmann's appeal court. But there is no way whatsoever that I would personally describe myself as a "Knox/Sollecito supporter". If I believed there was evidence showing their participation in Meredith Kercher's murder, I'd be fully supportive of the prosecution's case and fully in agreement with conviction and punishment. But it's obvious to me (and getting more obvious all the time) that this is simply not the case. That's why I argue for acquittal (and that Knox/Sollecito most likely played no part whatsoever in the crime). Not because I "support" them per se.

I support Raffaele and the Knox girl can ride in the back.

 

[RoseMontague]

You know really please you do not have to provide another verbose explanation, I simply do not agree with your point of view.

POV? I don't follow your response to LJ. What he is talking about is the process and I believe he has stated it correctly. He is not giving you an opinion of guilt or innocence.

The appeal court opened the session with a statement that they were starting with only one proven fact and that was Meredith Kercher was murdered. They stated when they ordered the expert testing on the bra clasp and knife that they did not fully share the first court's opinion on reasonable doubt. They can ask for new testimony or expert review/testing if they think it is necessary, otherwise they can use the existing evidence to come to their own conclusion, regardless of the conclusion of the first court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow, reading the wiki article it is difficult to find any evidence against Sabrina or her Mom. A dream and a cell phone tower connection of 37 seconds, suspicion of jealousy. Am I missing something here? I don't see the evidence.

The town is joining in as a civil party??? This case is one big joke. Italy should be embarrassed.


Did anyone else happen to follow the link to the medical examiner statement:
Here it is and no I am not making this up:



Thanks Fine for the update and link to the wiki article.

Both the Scazzi case and the Kercher case would appear to illustrate the two fundamental current problems with the Italian criminal system:

Firstly, Italian criminal justice is still hamstrung by the remnants of the Fascist governments of the 1930s. The criminal codes were essentially rewritten under Mussolini's command to reflect his fascist views on law and order. Unfortunately for Italy, when democracy was restored after WW2, the existing criminal code was not just torn up (as it should have been), and replaced root-and-branch with a democratic code based on earlier pre-Fascist statutes. Instead, it was kept largely intact - with only the most egregious Fascist elements removed. However, the code still retained large elements of Mussolini-era statutes, most of which were terribly anti-libertarian, and redolent of a totalitarian state.

As a result, the criminal codes have taken decades to evolve slowly away from the Mussolini-era model. And the transition still has not completely taken place. For example, pre-trial detention periods are still far, far longer than nearly every other country - a clear throwback to Mussolini's fondness for codifying the practice of detention without trial.

The second problem with the current Italian criminal justice model is that it is an uneasy hybrid of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Inquisitorial justice is - in the view of most experts in jurisprudence - one of those concepts, like communism, that may seem utopian and ideal in theory, but which are unworkable and counter-productive in practice. It's naive and simplistic to think that the various parties in an inquisitorial justice system can be properly motivated by a simple desire to establish "the truth". Human beings live and think (and usually seek reward) in an adversarial way: as a a result, the best way to establish to establish accountability for a crime is to charge suspects and place them in front of an adversarial court system. If one party (the prosecutors) is arguing for guilt, and another party (the defence lawyers) is arguing for acquittal, the court has the best chance in practice of determining something close to "the truth". The adversarial system is not perfect, but it's demonstrably far, far better at achieving equitable, just results than the inquisitorial model.

The problem for Italy is that old concepts die hard. Even though the pure inquisitorial system is clearly riddled with flaws, the Italian legislature and judiciary appear to have been unwilling to dispense with it altogether. Instead, they've evolved an uneasy hybrid of the inquisitorial and adversarial approaches, which solves some problems but creates others. Even today, there appear to be many members of the Italian judiciary who find it hard to adapt to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim of the adversarial approach - a maxim that is now finally enshrined in Italian law. And the court process still retains many unnecessary and somewhat-unworkable vestiges of the inquisitorial system - most notably the active representation of the victim (or victim's family) in the trial process, and the unhealthily close nature (from an adversarial perspective) of the relationship between judges and prosecutors.

It's my view - and, I'd suspect the view of many observers with an interest in criminal justice systems - that these problems have manifested themselves in the trial processes of both Scazzi and Knox/Sollecito. That's not to say that there aren't a number of good things about the Italian criminal justice system - for example the judges' post-verdict reports and the appeals system are both things that could benefit the anglo-saxon model (albeit at considerable potential expense). But I wonder if the ultimate acquittals of Knox and Sollecito in particular will shine a light onto what I would consider the two systemic problems with the Italian model.

 

[katy_did]

Did anyone else happen to follow the link to the medical examiner statement:
Here it is and no I am not making this up:

You almost expect him to follow up with "I'm seeing the initials S.M."...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

compatible? I think that Mario Spezi took this word apart

RoseMontague,

Quote:
The medical examiner - "The lesions found on the victim's neck are also compatible with the action of a female person, not particularly graceful. The force used to strangle Sarah Scazzi would therefore "compatible with that of a woman if not particularly thin" are the words of Louis Road coroner who performed the autopsy on the body of fifteen.
Endquote

I used to think that the most ridiculous think I had heard with respect to these two cases was Ms. Stefanoni's claim that she could tell from the position of DNA on the knife that it had been used for stabbing and not chopping. At first I thought that this quote is even more absurd; however, then I noticed the all-purpose weasel-word "compatible." The statement above means absolutely nothing unless one knows what would not be compatible. However, if the medical examiner claimed that the force were incompatible with a man, I would say that such a claim is worse than absurd.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

looking forward to it

Halides1

The question is irrelevant the parameters of the re-examination DNA tests on the knife and Meredith’s bra clasp have been defined.

CoulsdonUK,

If you chose to answer my question, I will read it with interest.

 

[RoseMontague]

You almost expect him to follow up with "I'm seeing the initials S.M."...

It is sad, is it not? If the Kercher trial ends I urge everyone here to continue to follow this one. I hope Frank continues his interest in the case as well. Perhaps there is something we can do to show Italy that we support Sabrina and her Mom. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[Rolfe]

You know really please you do not have to provide another verbose explanation, I simply do not agree with your point of view.

Er, that wasn't a point of view. It was an explanation of the legal process, which you appear to be unclear about.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Quote:
The medical examiner - "The lesions found on the victim's neck are also compatible with the action of a female person, not particularly graceful. The force used to strangle Sarah Scazzi would therefore "compatible with that of a woman if not particularly thin" are the words of Louis Road coroner who performed the autopsy on the body of fifteen.
Endquote

I used to think that the most ridiculous think I had heard with respect to these two cases was Ms. Stefanoni's claim that she could tell from the position of DNA on the knife that it had been used for stabbing and not chopping. At first I thought that this quote is even more absurd; however, then I noticed the all-purpose weasel-word "compatible." The statement above means absolutely nothing unless one knows what would not be compatible. However, if the medical examiner claimed that the force were incompatible with a man, I would say that such a claim is worse than absurd.

What female person is it that is not particularly thin who just happens to reside in prison at this time? Unbelievable. The not particularly graceful comment is beyond the pale.

 

[Rolfe]

It would appear that you and Komponisto disagree which is okay, it’s not like you members of a rebuttal unit for Raffaele and Amanda .

Exactly. I'm merely following this thread out of interest.

As for the rest of your observation of “dodgy forensic results”, this has not been proven in court nor have prosecution had an opportunity to respond to the report presented by Conti and Vecchiotti; of course you are entitled to your opinion.

And whaddayaknow, if you read my post, you'll see the words "apparently dodgy forensic results". I find it most interesting that you chose to omit the bolded word from your quote, and then criticise me for a position I had not adopted.

If you actually read what I wrote, I was giving my opinion of how the defence might view the situation. They see forensic results they consider to be dodgy, so they might be forgiven for thinking twice before demanding any more forensic results from the same or a closely associated source.

I do not agree, most if not all of Raffaele and Amanda supporters here have stated the reason the defence agreed to the dismantling request from Conti and Vecchiotti was because there were confident nothing would be found.

As has been pointed out before, most people here would probably not see themselves as "Rafaelle and Amanda supporters". A view that the evidence doesn't come close to supporting guilt beyond reasonable doubt is something rather different.

I don't imagine the defence were expecting anything would be found. However, there was no great benefit as far as I can see for the defence to be actively demanding these tests. Defence strategies are to some extent tactical, and firing off all over the place demanding that everything in sight be tested is not usually good tactics.

I believe the prosecution and Maresca for that matter saw the defence’s agreement as a backdoor method of expanding the scope of the re-examination outside of their own appeal submission, once again if the defence had no issue as many have said and as they demonstrated in court then my question still remains; why didn’t they submit it?

Because there was no significant benefit to them in doing that, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion of course. You seem to have a very particular belief in this matter, and you are entitled to that of course.

Rolfe.

 

[komponisto]

It would appear that [Rolfe] and Komponisto disagree

This isn't even really true, by the way: although the absence of blood would be evidence in favor of the defense, in my opinion it wouldn't compare to the evidentiary strength that the presence of blood would have for the prosecution.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>They just pulled that $1M figure out of their asses! No one knows if David Marriott did more than send some e-mails and make phone calls and give very basic instructions like don't talk to the tabloids that are trying to burn Amanda at the stake. Information anyone could have told them. They just made it all up, and those reading the website regularly lapped it up wholesale, including the Italian reporter who then gives a sinister spin to stuff anyone with three digit IQ could have told them! Running Guilt Incorporated and pretending you're a 'neutral' that doesn't 'know' if Amanda is guilty and are just trying to fight the 'Marriott spin machine' is mendacity incarnate.<snip>

Just as a point of information -- if I recall correctly, the $1,000,000 figure comes from an interview with Curt Knox for the CBS 48 Hours show American Girl, Italian Nightmare. The question, though, was about how much the family had spent on legal fees up to that point. Nothing was said about any other financial activity.

Given that the program first aired in April 2009, I am going to guess the expenditures for defending Amanda in court have surpassed a million by now. Pretty much everyone in the extended family has remortgaged their properties.