Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

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.

Can we just pretend you disagree? I am looking for a decent debate with both sides represented well.

 

[Draca]

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.

Murder on Trial in Italy

Quote: “The system you have over here is absolutely insane”

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I've got to disagree here. We've cited any number of cases to show that the adversarial system you are lauding here is vulnerable to exactly the same kind of railroading: the Norfolk Four were convicted under an adversarial system, as was Stefan Kiszko. The adversarial system pretends that its rituals are justified by better outcomes, but that's a faith-based position not an evidence-based position, and it's put about by a community (defence lawyers) with an enormous vested interest in the circus that is the adversarial system continuing as it currently exists.

The fact is the inquisitorial system convicts at a far higher rate, yet there is no evidence that it convicts at a far higher false positive rate. The evidence is consistent with the common-sense view that allowing partisan lawyers to control the truth-finding process leads to the truth being lost, and that giving defence lawyers an array of arcane privileges to exclude relevant evidence from the courtroom leads to more false negatives.

As appalling miscarriages of justice go, the Kercher murder verdict is far superior to the Molseed murder verdict because Massei/Christiani's faulty reasoning had to be explicated in public and the subsequent appeal can review idiotic findings of fact. If I had to be falsely convicted in one system or the other I'd rather be falsely convicted in Italy thanks: my odds of exoneration seem far better and the timeframe to be exonerated in much shorter.

 

[RoseMontague]

For anyone that has not taken the time to view all of these videos please do so. My favorite one is Number 9 (Is that a Chicago CD I see?). This one the tech goes thru Meredith's mail reading the stuff and throwing what he read in the clothes hamper then he picks up the bloody jacket off the clothes hamper and proceeds to touch every square inch of the bloody thing, then goes with the same gloves on to hunt under Meredith's bed for more evidence.

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

 

[Paninaro]

The resolution was that Conti and Vecchiotti could come back to Hellmann with the request if they found it necessary. Apparently they didn't.

If I understand correctly the two parties, defence and prosecution, agreed that instead of opening the knife they took the samples H and I?

With the agreement of the parties, two further samples were taken from the point of contact between the blade and the handle, on opposite sides of the knife, and these samples were indicated with the letters H-I.

http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...item-36-knife/laboratory-analysis-of-item-36/

It's great to see how Stefanoni shows her concern over possible contamination, btw.

Dr. Stefanoni notes that the Real Time PCR reaction was prepared on the counter without using a fume hood to guarantee the absence of contamination.

 

[katy_did]

For anyone that has not taken the time to view all of these videos please do so. My favorite one is Number 9 (Is that a Chicago CD I see?). This one the tech goes thru Meredith's mail reading the stuff and throwing what he read in the clothes hamper then he picks up the bloody jacket off the clothes hamper and proceeds to touch every square inch of the bloody thing, then goes with the same gloves on to hunt under Meredith's bed for more evidence.

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

I'm only up to Part 2, but that bit where she's scrubbing away at the blood stains on the wall, then first uses the top of the specimen jar to stop the swab from falling, then drops the swab, picks it back up and continues scrubbing?! Wow, just wow.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm only up to Part 2, but that bit where she's scrubbing away at the blood stains on the wall, then first uses the top of the specimen jar to stop the swab from falling, then drops the swab, picks it back up and continues scrubbing?! Wow, just wow.

It's like the Southern Vampire series, it keeps getting better.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've got to disagree here. We've cited any number of cases to show that the adversarial system you are lauding here is vulnerable to exactly the same kind of railroading: the Norfolk Four were convicted under an adversarial system, as was Stefan Kiszko. The adversarial system pretends that its rituals are justified by better outcomes, but that's a faith-based position not an evidence-based position, and it's put about by a community (defence lawyers) with an enormous vested interest in the circus that is the adversarial system continuing as it currently exists.

The fact is the inquisitorial system convicts at a far higher rate, yet there is no evidence that it convicts at a far higher false positive rate. The evidence is consistent with the common-sense view that allowing partisan lawyers to control the truth-finding process leads to the truth being lost, and that giving defence lawyers an array of arcane privileges to exclude relevant evidence from the courtroom leads to more false negatives.

As appalling miscarriages of justice go, the Kercher murder verdict is far superior to the Molseed murder verdict because Massei/Christiani's faulty reasoning had to be explicated in public and the subsequent appeal can review idiotic findings of fact. If I had to be falsely convicted in one system or the other I'd rather be falsely convicted in Italy thanks: my odds of exoneration seem far better and the timeframe to be exonerated in much shorter.

Oh, I'm absolutely not suggesting that the adversarial system is some sort of universal panacea. It clearly has its own faults. But I (and many experts in jurisprudence) would still strongly argue that of the two systems (inquisitorial and adversarial), the adversarial system is by some margin the "less bad" of the two in practice.

An inquisitorial system depends on everyone involved (even including the suspects!) cooperating in a mutual and collegiate manner to "search for the truth". In theory, this seems to make very good sense; in practice, it's almost unworkable. After all, it requires the state to readily agree to release the suspect if the state believes that there's insufficient evidence of guilt, and it also requires the suspect (or his/her lawyer) to agree guilt if that's where the evidence points. But human beings don't work in this way. Most defendants who are factually culpable will continue to plead innocence (or non-guilt) unless there is a watertight case against them; and most state lawyers (aka prosecutors) judge their competence (and often their remuneration) by the number of "successes" - i.e. convictions.

So in practice, the least-bad way of ascertaining guilt is to set aside all pretence of collegiate cooperation to "seek the truth" - and to admit that the defendant will present a sometimes-biased case for acquittal, while prosecutors will present a sometimes-biased case for conviction. Once the pretence of mutual cooperation is removed, the court can then understand that every player in the trial has a naked vested interest in the verdict going one way or the other. And it's then the court's job to carry out a totally objective, disinterested assessment of the partisan arguments, to come to a reasoned verdict.

I would certainly agree with you that the anglo-saxon form of adversarial system could usefully be altered for the better. And if I were to put my "naive optimistic idealist" hat on, I'd actually say that an inquisitorial-based system would be far better. But the whole point is that the real world is a different proposition, and that in the real world it's impossible to have a system of mutual cooperation and collaboration involving the court, the state, the victim and the suspect. And yes, I'd also agree that the anglo-saxon adversarial system has been responsible for many grotesque miscarriages of justice - but it's also worth pointing out that the genesis for most of these miscarriages occurred well before the trial stage.

And that leads to another very interesting and relevant point: the one link in the chain in the anglo-saxon system that still does operate under the pretence of neutrality and a "search for the truth" is the police. We are supposed to believe that the police act in a scrupulously disinterested way in regard to persons being investigated, arrested and charged. But of course this too is idealistic nonsense. Police have targets for arrests and convictions, and they have individual and group pride to protect. And this all-too-often leads to police malpractice in an attempt to secure convictions.

It's fascinating (and, in hindsight, incredible) that prior to the big miscarriages in the UK exposed in the 80s and 90s, courts were generally disposed to treat the evidence and testimony of the police as unimpeachable and utterly trustworthy/reliable. Of course, we all (including the criminal justice system) now know far better - but to me it's a potent indication of how every link in the criminal justice chain is affected by personal/group self-interest.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

For anyone that has not taken the time to view all of these videos please do so. My favorite one is Number 9 (Is that a Chicago CD I see?). This one the tech goes thru Meredith's mail reading the stuff and throwing what he read in the clothes hamper then he picks up the bloody jacket off the clothes hamper and proceeds to touch every square inch of the bloody thing, then goes with the same gloves on to hunt under Meredith's bed for more evidence.

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

A Chicago CD! OMG!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

For anyone that has not taken the time to view all of these videos please do so. My favorite one is Number 9 (Is that a Chicago CD I see?). This one the tech goes thru Meredith's mail reading the stuff and throwing what he read in the clothes hamper then he picks up the bloody jacket off the clothes hamper and proceeds to touch every square inch of the bloody thing, then goes with the same gloves on to hunt under Meredith's bed for more evidence.

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

I have watched the videos in their entirety several times and each time I see something else that shocks me. I wonder why that guy is walking around the cottage taking personal photos on his cell phone? Could be nothing but looks odd to me.

I always stress that the luminol testing was done on the floor after all of those people trashed the cottage. Look at how many booties walk through that hallway.

 

[komponisto]

The fact is the inquisitorial system convicts at a far higher rate, yet there is no evidence that it convicts at a far higher false positive rate.

What about the fact that the rate of reversal is so much higher in Italy than in Anglo-Saxon countries?

(And if you restrict the meaning of "conviction" to guilty verdicts confirmed by the Cassazione, then it seems likely that the rate of conviction would no longer be "far higher".)

 

[Draca]

I have watched the videos in their entirety several times and each time I see something else that shocks me. I wonder why that guy is walking around the cottage taking personal photos on his cell phone? Could be nothing but looks odd to me.

I always stress that the luminol testing was done on the floor after all of those people trashed the cottage. Look at how many booties walk through that hallway.

I agree Bruce. Every time I have watched the video my blood boils. How dare they be this incompetent, this careless, this disregarding of standards and protocols.

Another point about those booties, that walked all over the floor during the time the bra clasp and luminol prints were being collected, is that they were one piece hazmat suits where the boots could not be changed. The potential cross-contamination between the rooms was immense.

I posted on this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466379&postcount=2086

 

[JREF2010]

For anyone that has not taken the time to view all of these videos please do so. My favorite one is Number 9 (Is that a Chicago CD I see?). This one the tech goes thru Meredith's mail reading the stuff and throwing what he read in the clothes hamper then he picks up the bloody jacket off the clothes hamper and proceeds to touch every square inch of the bloody thing, then goes with the same gloves on to hunt under Meredith's bed for more evidence.

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

I just watched that today for the first time. I didnt even catch that he kept the same gloves on...I was already in shock from watching him rub the bloody jacket over and over and over,...and I thought "shouldn't he just pick it up and put it in a sealed crime scene bag or something?"

It was as bad or worse as the bra clasp being handed around and rubbed with the thumbs. It still boggles my mind to wonder "what were they doing that for?"

I mean seriously a viewer almost expects one of them to start picking their nose.

 

[christianahannah]

I agree Bruce. Every time I have watched the video my blood boils. How dare they be this incompetent, this careless, this disregarding of all standards and protocols.

Another point about those booties, that walked all over the floor during the time the bra clasp and luminol prints were being collected, is that they were one piece hazmat suits where the boots could not be changed. The cross-contamination between the rooms was immense.

I posted on this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466379&postcount=2086

I am not so sure the cross-contamination between the rooms was immense. After all there were some 200 evidence items collected with over 400 reference samples analyzed. From those 400 samples, only a few yielded any results - especially few results for the DNA of Amanda or Raffaele.

 

[JREF2010]

I have watched the videos in their entirety several times and each time I see something else that shocks me. I wonder why that guy is walking around the cottage taking personal photos on his cell phone? Could be nothing but looks odd to me.

I always stress that the luminol testing was done on the floor after all of those people trashed the cottage. Look at how many booties walk through that hallway.

Not to be a couche-expert, but it seems there would be some protocol.

Arrive to check the burglary out.
The door is opened and everyone was told to leave, its now a crime scene. That makes sense.

But from there on I would assume a very standard list of who goes in, who follows that team etc..

Within reason, there should be some type of formal standardized procedure as you go through the house. The entry way first for example, and then the back of the cottage last, or something like that.

I wouldnt think a trained team wouldn't just "jump in" and start putting their foot through the door windows, as they did in the downstairs.

Its been very strange to watch.

 

[Draca]

I just watched that today for the first time. I didnt even catch that he kept the same gloves on...I was already in shock from watching him rub the bloody jacket over and over and over,...and I thought "shouldn't he just pick it up and put it in a sealed crime scene bag or something?"

It was as bad or worse as the bra clasp being handed around and rubbed with the thumbs. It still boggles my mind to wonder "what were they doing that for?"

I mean seriously a viewer almost expects one of them to start picking their nose.

And WHY was the jacket thrown in the laundry hamper instead of collected in the first place?! It was clothing Meredith Kercher was wearing that night, it was found near her head, the sleeves were found inside out from being removed from her. How could it possibly NOT have been some of the very first evidence collected? Instead it is just thrown in the laundry hamper! The forensic collection is disgusting, enraging. They truly disrespected Meredith and her family.


Meredith Jacket on Nov 2, 2007

 

[RandyN]

I have watched the videos in their entirety several times and each time I see something else that shocks me. I wonder why that guy is walking around the cottage taking personal photos on his cell phone? Could be nothing but looks odd to me.

I always stress that the luminol testing was done on the floor after all of those people trashed the cottage. Look at how many booties walk through that hallway.

I agree...each viewing shows more blunder. Did everyone catch the guy with his face mask pulled down below his nose as he closely examines the bra clasp??? Possible contamination? Who knows...faulty collection technique? Certainly..

Coulson...I don’t think anyone makes you a whipping boy or whatever term you used...the point was that it seems odd that the prosecution and Maresca rise to object opening the knife that they claim is the murder (well one of three anyway) weapon. You make some sort of oblique excuse for them to do that but the fact remains, what is it that they object to? Opening the knife means opening the knife...period. It would be logical to do this. Blood may possibly accumulate in this area by capillary action or it may simply flow there. Both the prosecution and Maresca should be happy to further investigate this evidence in search of the truth it can reveal. No excuse makes sense for them to object...unless they wish to keep an aurora of doubt surrounding this particular piece. What do you really think? I think they both know this knife is not the murder weapon and they want to inhibit further testing so that they can keep it in play with an element of doubt. It just might be the murder weapon...testing it any further would take that "ace" they hold up their sleeve away...but the fact is the whole rest of the thinking world already knows about this "hidden trick" they want to keep in play. That is why they object...no other reason.

The Scazzi case is another example of what Italy is trying to pass off as justice these days. You couldn’t make up anything dumber if you tried. 15 people are now charged and the town are somehow plaintiffs??? The video of Cosima's arrest and the perp ride with the townspeople spitting on the car as she rode by tells one how this disaster is going to turn out. Do Italians follow any sort of rules or is everything just based on emotion?

And as if stupid couldn’t get any dumber… the killer is out of jail and free.

 

[RandyN]

I am not so sure the cross-contamination between the rooms was immense. After all there were some 200 evidence items collected with over 400 reference samples analyzed. From those 400 samples, only a few yielded any results - especially few results for the DNA of Amanda or Raffaele.

These samples would include a blood soaked towel that was allowed to rot so as to render no "results" thus yielding a lower finding that you mention. These low results were a function of inept collection and storage by the scientific police. These "low results" in no way reflect the level of cross contamination which was certainly immense. Watching the videos shows that cross contamination is a foregone conclusion. That the scientific police in this case couldn’t reveal this cross contamination is meaningless. This group didn’t find Filomena DNA in her own room...and it seems to me there were some traces they missed in her room near and on the broken window and sill area...I remember reading about a hair ....oh well that couldn’t be important..............

 

[Draca]

The Scazzi case is another example of what Italy is trying to pass off as justice these days. You couldn’t make up anything dumber if you tried. 15 people are now charged and the town are somehow plaintiffs??? The video of Cosima's arrest and the perp ride with the townspeople spitting on the car as she rode by tells one how this disaster is going to turn out. Do Italians follow any sort of rules or is everything just based on emotion?

And as if stupid couldn’t get any dumber… the killer is out of jail and free.

Frank Sfarzo said the Meredith Kercher case is one where they did things better.

 

[christianahannah]

These samples would include a blood soaked towel that was allowed to rot so as to render no "results" thus yielding a lower finding that you mention. These low results were a function of inept collection and storage by the scientific police. These "low results" in no way reflect the level of cross contamination which was certainly immense. Watching the videos shows that cross contamination is a foregone conclusion. That the scientific police in this case couldn’t reveal this cross contamination is meaningless. This group didn’t find Filomena DNA in her own room...and it seems to me there were some traces they missed in her room near and on the broken window and sill area...I remember reading about a hair ....oh well that couldn’t be important..............

Well it would be important to know the various ways contamination can and does occur on a forensic level. Then we can see if this applies to the cottage and the evidence collected therein.

As for Filomena's DNA in her own room, well they didn't swab the whole room but very few areas. And even if they swabbed many areas maybe the reason her DNA wasn't found is that DNA doesn't shed or isn't deposited as easily as some think it is. It would be interesting to know the answer to that.

There were traces (or a trace and a hair) tested from the window sill but they yielded no results.

There were also many hairs of different colors and lengths collected and analyzed from the crime scene. They also yielded no results.