Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

Kaosium,

So it comes down to a claim that Stefanoni is/was lying? This still feels like the same argument from 2009.

I don't think that is correct, shuttlt. It seems to me your argument is restricting the answer. Stefanoni's claim to have conducted a test of the knife cannot be repeated. Because it cannot be repeated, her claim is in a certain sense indestructible.

This is the sense in which nothing has changed. And only because it is impossible to challenge, in that sense, ultimately you are left either accepting or rejecting it.

To say the C&V report added no new information from which to judge is not true, I do not believe. They reported at length on the seemingly random nature of the approach Stefanoni seems to have taken towards her analysis of the knife, as well as her procedural mistakes. Moreover, they tested the same knife that Stefanoni tested and (in my mind amazingly) found additional material on it, substantial quantities that the police completely missed - all starch. What they failed to detect was additional DNA.

On another point, you have said that you neither accept or reject the knife as the murder weapon. I would like to challenge you on that. Are you saying you refuse to accept the knife as the murder weapon because you cannot defend your argument but nevertheless you also refuse to reject it? Why? Or are there other reasons?

 

[smkovalinksy]

OK - assuming an acquittal - will ILE be able to hold AK in Italy (perhaps under house arrest) if the prosection appeals and another year or two go by while that case is heard by the Itlian Supreme Court? If not then RS should get the hell out too!

I had wondered this, too - and also had gotten a sort of intuitive sense that if there are full acquittals, the case has exhausted itself. Other charges will be dropped, Mignini will wash his hands of all and move on, etc. To me, there is the sense that all is black or white now: Either convictions and sentences stand, or full acquittals and all is over. I wonder if my intuition is right or not??

 

[Ammonitida]

LOL!

Something just occurred to me, something it appears both you and Shuttlt forgot, or were not aware of. Professors Conti and Vecchiotti couldn't perform any new tests, the knife sample was 'consumed in testing' and the bra-clasp 'consumed in storage' (neat trick that!) thus all they could do was check the old work which they invalidated. Thus there never was any DNA on either item, they never should have been allowed in Massei's court. Thus this has been officially decided, which is merely one giant leap towards totally overturning everything decided by the Massei court.


Fancy a swim?

[qimg]http://www.foreign-independent-tours.com/images/tourdetails/RomeSummerSpecialTiberRiver.jpg[/qimg]

But how did Stephanoni separate the "peaks" she attributed to Meredith from the background noise? In court, according to Frank, she gave a detailed explanation about this but I haven't been able to find any further details. In the "forensicdnaconsulting" article, the author mentioned that this information was important in determining the reliability of her results.

 

[Dan O.]

The lab didn't have the proper LCN negative pressure, IIRC, ventilation system which would allow DNA to remain in the testing area.

The independent experts mentioned something about using a fume hood at the lab. A fume hood creates a negative pressure inside to protect the lab tech from the sample and reagents being used. What is needed for the extremely sensitive LCN testing is a positive pressure to protect the sample from contamination floating around in the lab.

Other requirements of LCN testing labs are a regiment of cleaning and sterilizing every surface, the use of ultra-violate lighting that will destroy stray DNA and separation of work areas and duties to prevent post PCR amplified results from getting back to the sample extraction area.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Saw the following comment on PMF re the exchange here between LondonJohn and I:

I was considering a foray into the trenches over at the JREF and I noticed LooneyJohn advising Smkovalinsky thus.......

"In fact, it's far more accurate to refer to the Massei trial as the "preliminary" trial, and the Hellmann trial as the "main" trial: the judicial dynamic of the process is exactly the same as if the two trials carried these descriptors. In other words, if defendants are found not guilty in the preliminary trial, they are acquitted and the process finishes; but if they are found guilty in the preliminary trial, they then progress to the main trial, in which they also must be found guilty or not guilty (in a process entirely independent form the preliminary trial)."

I decided not to bother.........what a complete idiot.

It is this sort of attitude - all-pervasive on that site, I found to my complete chagrin - while at the same time claiming that it was perfectly alright for Miss Represented to be conveyed as a professional psychologist with years of clinical experience on TJMK and PMF - which has made me lose respect for such a site.

In fact, while researching Italian jurisprudence at many scholarly sites, 2 such are :

http://www.canestrinilex.it/eng/risorse/trial.html

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2002073784.pdf

among many others, I found their appellate process to be so different from in the U.S., that in the case of Knox and Sollecito, I would say Londonjohn's description is apt.
In any case, if there is Providence, the case will wrap and those people will sputter out, or find a new venue in which to spew their hate and arrogance. Good afternoon, I am off.

 

[Diocletus]

OK - assuming an acquittal - will ILE be able to hold AK in Italy (perhaps under house arrest) if the prosection appeals and another year or two go by while that case is heard by the Itlian Supreme Court? If not then RS should get the hell out too!

That one I'm not sure about. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the prosecution appeals an acquittal by Hellmann because, well, they're nuts.

But, since she's already been in jail for 4 years, when she's acquitted by Hellmann it would seem cruel to keep her effectively detained (i.e., on bail) for God knows how much longer, if that's even possible. It seems odd to me to restrict the freedom of someone who has been acquitted of a crime, even if at an intermediate stage of a proceeding, but who knows how they operate their bail system.

Hellmann could go a long way in resolving the whole ball of wax by acquitting Knox on the colunnia charge on the grounds that she has raised a defense of coercion that creates reasonable doubt about the voluntariness of her "accusation." That would probably get rid of the collateral civil and criminal colunnia cases. Not sure if he will go that far, though--depends on how pissed he is at Comodi and how thoroughly he thinks Knox got screwed over.

 

[LondonJohn]

Saw the following comment on PMF re the exchange here between LondonJohn and I:


It is this sort of attitude - all-pervasive on that site, I found to my complete chagrin - while at the same time claiming that it was perfectly alright for Miss Represented to be conveyed as a professional psychologist with years of clinical experience on TJMK and PMF - which has made me lose respect for such a site.

In fact, while researching Italian jurisprudence at many scholarly sites, 2 such are :

http://www.canestrinilex.it/eng/risorse/trial.html

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2002073784.pdf

among many others, I found their appellate process to be so different from in the U.S., that in the case of Knox and Sollecito, I would say Londonjohn's description is apt.
In any case, if there is Providence, the case will wrap and those people will sputter out, or find a new venue in which to spew their hate and arrogance. Good afternoon, I am off.

Not to mention this gem from "The Machine":

Looney John seems to have been posting comments on JREF and lurking on PMF and TJMK 24/7 for months on end. He doesn't seem to have a job, partner, friends or any kind of life in the real world. It makes me wonder if he's in some kind of institution where he has unlimited access to the Internet. I can't think of any other explanation.

He does seem to have got pretty upset about something. And I'm wondering why the word "projection" seems to keep coming to mind when reading this post

 

[LondonJohn]

And BTW, yes I made a mistake when saying that a not-guilty verdict in the first trial is the end of the process: the prosecution has the right of appeal. It would be interesting, though, to find out a) the proportion of cases where a not-guilty verdict has been appealed by the prosecutors, resulting in a second trial, and b) in such cases, the proportion in which second trial has resulted in a guilty verdict.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the majority of not-guilty verdicts in the first trial were not appeal, and that therefore this was the end of the process. Nevertheless, I was incorrect to say that if a defendant is found not guilty in the first trial they are acquitted and the process ends. Nonetheless, I still think that my description of "preliminary" trial and "main" trial is still a far more accurate way to consider the two main trial processes in serious Italian criminal cases, and such an approach minimises the confusion over the word "appeal" in regard to the second trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and there still seems to be confusion elsewhere over the provenance and accuracy of Comodi's astonishing accusation of judicial bias, as made to (and reported by) Nick Pisa yesterday. Firstly, some people seem unable to grasp the fact that Comodi clearly made these alleged remarks to Pisa before the court session started yesterday morning: Pisa had filed a report to the London Evening Standard by mid-morning UK time. There were then clearly subsequent attempted "clarifications" of the position of Comodi - and the prosecutors in general - that were issued later on in the day. It's my view that there's a clear relationship between these two events: Comodi stuck her foot in her mouth at around 8am, both she and the Prosecutors' Office realised that she'd made an almighty error, so by mid-afternoon both Comodi and the Prosecutors' Office were ringing round the media trying to pour water on the fire with anodyne statements to the effect of "Of course prosecutors are aware of the possibility of acquittal, but we're still very confident of conviction".

And second, Pisa quotes Comodi directly in his articles. Her alleged words are contained within quotation marks - albeit that she obviously would have said the original words in Italian. It's inconceivable that Pisa would have misquoted Comodi, either in translation or in meaning, since Comodi's words as published in Pisa's articles have potentially serious ramifications. I think it's almost certain that The Standard (and The Mail, where the quotes also appeared) would have gone over them legally. I suspect that Pisa has Comodi on tape saying this stuff. I also therefore suspect that both the Prosecutors' Office and Hellmann might very soon be contacting Pisa for a copy of the tape.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Not to mention this gem from "The Machine":




He does seem to have got pretty upset about something. And I'm wondering why the word "projection" seems to keep coming to mind when reading this post

I find your posts very informative and robust; consider the source, and yes, "projection" comes to mind.....oy, vey....let this end soon... they say we "lurk" over there, but how come they keep seeing these JREF posts?

 

[smkovalinksy]

And BTW, yes I made a mistake when saying that a not-guilty verdict in the first trial is the end of the process: the prosecution has the right of appeal. It would be interesting, though, to find out a) the proportion of cases where a not-guilty verdict has been appealed by the prosecutors, resulting in a second trial, and b) in such cases, the proportion in which second trial has resulted in a guilty verdict.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the majority of not-guilty verdicts in the first trial were not appeal, and that therefore this was the end of the process. Nevertheless, I was incorrect to say that if a defendant is found not guilty in the first trial they are acquitted and the process ends. Nonetheless, I still think that my description of "preliminary" trial and "main" trial is still a far more accurate way to consider the two main trial processes in serious Italian criminal cases, and such an approach minimises the confusion over the word "appeal" in regard to the second trial.

I still like your description, and makes sense from an American viewpoint. I hope the prosecution , if the 2 defendants are acquitted, will want to move on, and not appeal.....

 

[smkovalinksy]

Oh, and there still seems to be confusion elsewhere over the provenance and accuracy of Comodi's astonishing accusation of judicial bias, as made to (and reported by) Nick Pisa yesterday. Firstly, some people seem unable to grasp the fact that Comodi clearly made these alleged remarks to Pisa before the court session started yesterday morning: Pisa had filed a report to the London Evening Standard by mid-morning UK time. There were then clearly subsequent attempted "clarifications" of the position of Comodi - and the prosecutors in general - that were issued later on in the day. It's my view that there's a clear relationship between these two events: Comodi stuck her foot in her mouth at around 8am, both she and the Prosecutors' Office realised that she'd made an almighty error, so by mid-afternoon both Comodi and the Prosecutors' Office were ringing round the media trying to pour water on the fire with anodyne statements to the effect of "Of course prosecutors are aware of the possibility of acquittal, but we're still very confident of conviction".

And second, Pisa quotes Comodi directly in his articles. Her alleged words are contained within quotation marks - albeit that she obviously would have said the original words in Italian. It's inconceivable that Pisa would have misquoted Comodi, either in translation or in meaning, since Comodi's words as published in Pisa's articles have potentially serious ramifications. I think it's almost certain that The Standard (and The Mail, where the quotes also appeared) would have gone over them legally. I suspect that Pisa has Comodi on tape saying this stuff. I also therefore suspect that both the Prosecutors' Office and Hellmann might very soon be contacting Pisa for a copy of the tape.

Pisa is a professional journalist; he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He would not risk his career; he secured a tape, and yes, he will likely soon be asked for it, which he will calmly hand over....

 

[LondonJohn]

Pisa is a professional journalist; he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He would not risk his career; he secured a tape, and yes, he will likely soon be asked for it, which he will calmly hand over....

I suspect that he does have Comodi's remarks on tape. Most reporters these days carry small digital dictaphones with them, so that they can make sure that a) they catch all of an interview subject's words, and can replay them over and over during transcription for an article, and b) they have legal protection in the event that the interview subject subsequently claims that (s)he as been misquoted. I would therefore be pretty surprised if Comodi's amazing outburst has not been captured in nice clear digital audio on Mr Pisa's machine.

By the way, would it be deemed newsworthy if a member of Meredith Kercher's close family had been actively (and extremely frequently) engaging on internet message boards, blogs and comments sections, campaigning very aggressively in favour of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito? I think it would be extremely newsworthy.......

 

[ForTruth]

Dont worry: Quennell has no idea what he is talking about, and is exhibiting blind bias in an attempt to rationalise the situation and defend his near-indefensible position.

He has no idea of juicial process - either in US/UK or Italian courts. He therefore is not only ignorant of the fact that Guede's trials (including the Supreme Court ruling) have zero material effect upon Hellmann's court's ruling, but he's also ignorant of the fact that the appeal trial is a completely de novo trial. This is not about "overturning" or "upending" the verdict in the Massei court (or any of the Guede rulings for that matter). Hellmann;s court will determine its verdict in total isolation from all other rulings related to this case, and will purely use the evidence/testimony and arguments presented in the Hellmann courtroom to determine a very specific issue: whether sufficient proof was presented in Hellmann's courtroom to prove Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason.

Hellmann's court therefore has nothing to do with any other ruling on this case. The only way in which there is any connection with the Massei trial is that all of the evidence/testimony introduced into Massei's court is automatically introduced into Hellmann's court. This is primarily a time- and cost-saving measure: it makes no sense to call all the same witnesses all over again just to give the same testimony and introduce the same evidence. The exception to this, of course, is if new evidence/testimony will offer a different perspective to Hellmann's court. This is exactly why the independent DNA report was ordered by Hellmann, and why Curatolo was recalled to the stand.

Quennell's stuff about the Guede Supreme Court ruling is nothing more than ignorant nonsense. If Quennell or "our Italian lawyers*" knew anything about separation of judicial processes, they would know that Knox's/Sollecito's trial process is empowered to reach verdicts entirely independent from any other trial process. It's actually one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence (although those idiots don't know it). In fact, evidence for this is sitting right in front of the idiots' faces: the same Supreme Court ruling on Guede ruled that the lower courts were correct in their finding of fact that the murder occurred at some time before 10.30pm, whereas Massei's court found that the murder took place between 11.30pm and 11.45pm.

I repeat: Quennell simply doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a sad, deluded individual with an agenda to pursue and protect. I'm afraid he's fiddling while Rome burns.

* I love how Quennell consistently refers to things such as "our Italian lawyers" - clearly intending to mislead readers into thinking that TJMK is some sort of organised multinational concern, with bustling offices and a group of dedicated professionals across the globe. In reality, it's one small (in intellect) man sitting in a windowless room stuffed with papers, who has some internet contact with a disparate group of misguided, intellectually-challenged individuals; together, they form a self-deluding self-supporting little group of misfits.

Yeah - I agree with LondonJohn that Quennell's posting is nothing to worry about. If I were to ever compliment him on anything, it would be his ability to spin anything based on absolutely nothing. He follows a very regimented pattern, spin anything positive for Amanda as negative and anything negative for the prosecution as positive.
Just look at what happened when the DNA report came out. They were saying... oh that is just the conclusion, there are so many pages that have yet to be read, there will be such damning information in it!
Over and over again - he repeats since he started (long before the first verdict), "I don't see anything good for the defendants out of today's session", even when clearly it was good. Don't get me wrong, sometimes he was right, because obviously a lot of bad things have happened along the way, but as things have non-ambiguously turned in favor of the defendants, he kept repeating the same message. This guy has no credibility. If he is not motivated by anything else, it is the satisfaction that one of us may read his material and believe it, even to a small degree thus incurring a morale blow. Like in story of the boy who cried wolf, I have long since stopped caring about what he writes (other than for pure entertainment purposes).
It's just too bad he doesn't have a liking for the word ominous like his mechanical colleague there.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems that some people elsewhere also don't understand the difference between the evidence/testimony phase of a trial and the argument phase. The case for guilt (and any defensive case) is only made during the argument phase, and is based on the evidence/testimony from the previous phase. Indeed, in most jurisdictions it's forbidden to argue the case during the evidence/testimony phase.

Here's an example: Suppose Mr A is on trial accused of shooting Mr B dead. During the evidence/testimony phase, a gun might be entered into evidence, plus evidence of Mr A's fingerprints on the gun and a receipt showing that Mr A bought the gun three days before the murder. A police officer might give testimony saying that the gun was found in a drawer at Mr A's house (where he lived alone) during a search the day after the murder. Also, a bullet might be entered into evidence, which the autopsy pathologist testified was removed from Mr B's body, and which the pathologist rules was responsible for the death of Mr B. A forensic scientist might testify that comparative tests on the bullet showed that it was definitely fired from the specific gun that was found at Mr A's house.

So, all of that happens in the evidence/testimony phase. At this point, there has been no actual argument related to the guilt (or non-guilt) of Mr A. However, once the evidence/testimony phase is over, the trial moves into the argument phase. It is here that the evidence/testimony from the previous phase is used by the various parties to argue their case. Clearly, in this case the prosecution would argue that the evidence and testimony show that Mr A fired the gun whose bullet killed Mr B, and that Mr A should therefore be found guilty of shooting Mr B dead (whether murder, manslaughter or accidental death, depending on other factors).

In Hellmann's court, the evidence/testimony phase has just concluded. The argument phase will begin on September 23rd. It is only then that all parties will begin to argue their respective cases. And they will have the entire body of evidence/testimony from the first (Massei) trial, plus the additional new evidence entered between December-September in the appeal (Hellmann) trial to base their arguments upon. Therefore if the prosecution want to include..... for example...... the so-called "staging" in their argument, they are perfectly at liberty to do so, based on evidence and testimony in this area from the Massei trial. Similarly, if the defence choose to bring up time of death in their argument, they can do so using the evidence and testimony from the Massei trial. It seems highly unlikely that the prosecutors (or Maresca) will use any of the additional new evidence/testimony in their arguments - since it was pretty much all horribly damaging to the prosecution case. But of course the defence will almost certainly incorporate pretty much all the new Hellmann evidence/testimony in their arguments, as well as all the useful parts of evidence/testimony carried over from the Massei trial.

 

[shuttlt]

On another point, you have said that you neither accept or reject the knife as the murder weapon. I would like to challenge you on that. Are you saying you refuse to accept the knife as the murder weapon because you cannot defend your argument but nevertheless you also refuse to reject it? Why? Or are there other reasons?

I don't feel compelled to come to a conclusion on the knife. I don't mind that other people feel a high degree of certainty. There have been things about the case I have been convinced are wrong/misleading - "she confessed after 57 hours of interrogation in which she was denied food water and sleep" always struck me as a willfully misleading choice of words and I argued with Bruce about it for quite a while. Things like that pissed me off. That people stuck to them and insisted they weren't misleading pissed me off. If you want to disbelieve in the knife because it has starch on it, then that's fine by me.

 

[Rolfe]

For those who think a sizeable conspiracy among police officers to convict an innocent man is impossible.

The Lynette White case.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

I will tell you why Mary this case is par for the course in Italy,in an Italian court room the facts are what the prosecutor says they are,lawyers and defendants and their families are to intimidated to protest and anyway no newspaper or tv station would report their objections calumnia charges are the method the bullies use to get their way
Anderson Cooper might have asked Mignini how did the tried and tested methods to convict innocent people fail in this case,it is as Frank and Rose reports business as usual in the Sabrina Misseri case,Mignini's answer would be something along the lines of (the calumnia charges proved very ineffective against Amanda Knox's American supporters)
Some people want to believe this case is just a blip in a modern justice system,I think they are wrong,being innocent in an Italian courtroom won't save you,I will watch with interest as the Italian economy slips dangerously close to bankruptcy what effect this case will have on their tourist industry,I have no doubt that the injustice visited on the two innocent students is far from unusual in Italy,like I have no doubt that the prosecutors the police and the cowardly judges involved in this case knew they were persecuting innocent people

Billy, Frank Sfarzo and many other Italians agree with you.

THEIR HORRIBLE WORLD

For Perugia’s lawyers, no problem, they didn’t react, they must be used to being treated like this. But Carlo Dalla Vedova jumped up in defense of Tagliabracci, who is not even his own consultant. Maybe because he comes from an international environment, he understands that this is not acceptable, that this is an abuse. He’s the only one. Bongiorno wasn’t there today, it would have been interesting seeing her reaction.

How beautiful the Stalin-like police-state they are building.

Some cities became like the territory of a boss, where you can’t talk, where you have to measure your words… Remember Fellini’s Amarcord, when a guy was arrested for having said “If Mussolini goes ahead like this, I don’t know…”.

That was fascism, or Fellini’s parody of it. But here it’s reality, a sad reality. A disgusting reality.
A clan of very backward people who are killing this country. That’s why people go away. Better leaving them alone, in their world made of hatred.

By the way, if Mignini and Comodi go ahead like this, I don’t know…

 

[AmyStrange]

I tend to agree with you...

I don't feel compelled to come to a conclusion on the knife. I don't mind that other people feel a high degree of certainty. There have been things about the case I have been convinced are wrong/misleading - "she confessed after 57 hours of interrogation in which she was denied food water and sleep" always struck me as a willfully misleading choice of words and I argued with Bruce about it for quite a while. Things like that pissed me off. That people stuck to them and insisted they weren't misleading pissed me off. If you want to disbelieve in the knife because it has starch on it, then that's fine by me.

-

Shuttlt,

about the 57 hour statement as being misleading. People really should say, "a total of 57 hours over 4 days (with major breaks of 12 hours or more in between and she wasn't in custody)" or something like that, rather than misleading people into thinking it was 57 hours straight. I Totally agree.

But do you get pissed off about the "mixed blood" and "Knox's bloody footprints" comments also, or do you think these are accurate? Just curious, not attacking you. You seem to be searching for the truth while using critical thinking at the same time. That's always a good thing in my opinion,

Dave

 

[katy_did]

I understand this argument. It still comes down to believing that Stef was lying though, surely? If the contamination can't have happened at the lab (6 days etc..), or at collection, then I guess it might have happened accidentally at the police station, but really, lying about procedures in the lab seems the most likely to me.

If the 6 day claim means anything (no idea if it does), surely it would only rule out contamination in the machine, rather than contamination in the lab in general? When the 6 day thing was reported, a lot of the news articles quoted Vecchiotti as saying "Cross-contamination from sample to sample is still possible" (or WTTE); obviously it's difficult to tell without the transcripts, but it sounds as if this was said in connection with the 6 day claim, that she was suggesting even if you were to rule out this particular contamination route, contamination by another means is still possible. Presumably this cross-contamination could have happened in the lab (e.g. other items present in the lab but not tested on that day) or as the items were stored or handled there. Obviously it could also have happened before its arrival in the lab too.

So I don't think this six day argument, even if valid, necessarily excludes lab contamination, nor that it requires Stefanoni to have lied about the procedures.