Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[AmyStrange]

I would say that the consensus among sceptics who have taken time to become well-enough informed on what is quite a complex case is that Knox and Sollecito should be found not guilty of the murder.

I am not sure whether there is a consensus among well-informed sceptics as to Knox's/Sollecito's actual factual innocence. Personally, I think that the most rational viewpoint to take on that issue is that the available evidence suggests that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, but that one cannot be entirely certain about that. However, in this regard it's worth bearing in mind that it should never be necessary for Knox, Sollecito, or anyone else, to prove their innocence, and often it's flat-out impossible to do so. If the state (or anyone else) accuses a person of a crime, then it's totally up to the accuser to prove that accusation - otherwise the accused person must be considered innocent. So I have no problem at all in not having 100% certainty in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence, and nor should anyone else.

-

Thank you LJ,

I stand corrected. I change my calculation to 10 to 1 in favor of not guilty,

Dave

 

[JREF2010]

Haha no, this is yet more stupidity and incomprehension.

What happened was something like this:

1) Comodi made the reference to the Guede Supreme Court ruling.

2) Dalla Vedova jumped to his feet and said something along the lines of "Your honour, the prosecutor cannot bring this up: it is improper and inadmissible in front of this court".

3) Hellmann called a recess to consider Dalla Vedova's objection.

4) Hellmann returned and announced that the objection was upheld. He ruled - correctly - that the Guede Supreme Court ruling was not admissible in his court, and that Comodi should not therefore have brought it up.

Commodi busted for being dishonest or ignorant...

 

[Dougm]

Much of the argument from both the prosecution and the guilters about the DNA is that C&V is wrong because they did not show how the contamination could have happened.

Of course, it should not be necessary for the either C&V or the defense to show this -- it is simply the clear possibility of contamination (or probability, depending on how one wants to read it) that makes the DNA unreliable as evidence.

Trying to prove how the contamination happened just plays into the prosecution's bogus argument. However, would it make sense for the defense to show up with a list of say, 100 options as to how the contamination of the bra clasp could have happened? I am not sure about this as a strategy, but since so many seem to be fixated on this "how could it have happened" idea, I am thinking that maybe that showing that, because of lack of protocols followed, there is a huge list of possibilities, it might hammer home the idea of how we will never know how, and it doesn't matter.

PS -- as I typed this, I think I have talked myself out of this as a good idea, but wanted to know what others think.

Thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, Do you understand the reduced sentence possibility? How would that become possible, or for what imaginary reasons?

I dozed off like Mignini..... when I awoke todays closing was over!

What was the Hellman "denied" issue?

This has been so different than the Massei trial, due to Hellman....everything else seems to be the same accusations.

Hellmann has the discretion to reduce the sentences if he finds Knox and/or Sollecito guilty. He appears to have quite a degree of latitude in this respect - contrary to some paralegal opinions from elsewhere. But that's a moot argument, as Knox and Sollecito will be found knot guilty and acquitted by Hellmann's court.

The "denied" issue right at the end of prosecution closing arguments today was a slap in the face for Comodi and the prosecution. Comodi had attempted to include elements of the Supreme Court ruling on Guede into here closing argument - presumably to leave a "zinger" out there at the end of her spiel. Specifically, she was trying to argue that since the Supreme Court had ruled that the lower courts had correctly applied the law in finding that Guede committed the murder with other people, the Supreme Court had therefore in some way established a higher-court ruling that others were involved alongside Guede. Hellmann ruled - correctly - that the Supreme Court ruling on Guede was inadmissible in his court, and that it should not therefore be considered in any arguments, deliberations or verdicts.

And you're right that things are very different in Hellmann's court than they were in Massei's court. From all publicly-available evidence, the prosecution's closing argument was a damp squib in terms of actually trying to prove Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. What's more, though, both Mignini and Comodi appear to have made a number of significant mistakes amid all the bluster and bravado.

 

[AmyStrange]

100 questions or maybe just one...

Much of the argument from both the prosecution and the guilters about the DNA is that C&V is wrong because they did not show how the contamination could have happened.

Of course, it should not be necessary for the either C&V or the defense to show this -- it is simply the clear possibility of contamination (or probability, depending on how one wants to read it) that makes the DNA unreliable as evidence.

Trying to prove how the contamination happened just plays into the prosecution's bogus argument. However, would it make sense for the defense to show up with a list of say, 100 options as to how the contamination of the bra clasp could have happened? I am not sure about this as a strategy, but since so many seem to be fixated on this "how could it have happened" idea, I am thinking that maybe that showing that, because of lack of protocols followed, there is a huge list of possibilities, it might hammer home the idea of how we will never know how, and it doesn't matter.

PS -- as I typed this, I think I have talked myself out of this as a good idea, but wanted to know what others think.

Thanks.

-

Interesting Doug,

you could come up with a hundred or just one. I would argue that the prosecution would have to prove that they didn't transfer Raf's DNA from the door knob (that Raffaele obviously tried before attempting to force Meredith's door open) to the metal part of the bra clasp. There's evidence this may have happened due to the video, now prove it didn't happen.

Am I imagining things, but did someone here say (with documented proof) that it's easier to transfer DNA (as in "secondary" transfer?) to metal than cloth?

Dave

 

[davefoc]

I have not been following this case as closely as many of you have.

Is there a general consensus among skeptics as to Knox's guilt / innocence?

I asked a similar question quite awhile ago. It was my assumption that since there seemed to be regular participants in this forum on both sides of the issue that the reality was that this was just one more thing in the world that we couldn't know the truth of.

Since then I have become quite a bit more familiar with the issues of the case. I was surprised. The evidence points to the likelihood that what is going on here is a weird prosecutorial vendetta. There is literally no probative evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in this crime whatsoever. And what is even more surprising there appears to be moderately good evidence that RS/AK could not have been involved with this crime.

One thing that seems to have happened before I began following this thread is that the regular JREF posters that argued for guilt have left the thread. I'm not clear on what happened with regard to that. Did some of them change their view? Some of them seem to have actually left the forum because of bad feelings about this discussion and the people that argued for innocence.

No matter what, it is hard for me to imagine that an objective person could look at what as gone on here and not believe that the probability of the guilt of AK/RS is substantially reduced from what it was when the authorities' characterization of the evidence was the principal source of information about the case. No significant prosecution claims about the nature of the evidence have turned out to be true. The prosecution's theory is of a wildly unlikely crime to be committed by newly met young lovers without a history of violence or any appreciable connection to the man who certainly killed Kercher and they have no credible evidence to back up their theory. It boggles the mind that this horror show has been allowed to go on for four years. I see an analogy between this and the American McCarthy hearings.

 

[Dougm]

-

Interesting Doug,

you could come up with a hundred or just one. I would argue that the prosecution would have to prove that they didn't transfer Raf's DNA from the door knob (that Raffaele obviously tried before attempting to force Meredith's door open) to the metal part of the bra clasp. There's evidence this may have happened due to the video, now prove it didn't happen.

Am I imagining things, but did someone here say (with documented proof) that it's easier to transfer DNA (as in "secondary" transfer?) to metal than cloth?

Dave

Dave --

My thought is that it would be a mistake to bring up one example, no matter how strong, because then the argument moves to a discussion of that example, which takes it away from the "the exact way doesn't matter" argument.

I was thinking along the lines of the "getting the flu" argument, or LJ's food poisoning analogy. One could make a list of 100 places they might have gotten the flu virus, and only a few may be disprovable. But the large list shows that it doesn't matter which one, just that it got there via one of 100 possibilities and there could be 100 more.

 

[pilot padron]

Enough 'pride' to go around

Do you think that someone should tell most of the pro-guilt commentators on .org (you know, the site that's devoted to seeking "justice for Meredith") that the past few hours they have spent lampooning what they think are two photos of Joseph Bishop have mainly in fact been spent lampooning not Joseph Bishop (who's in the right-hand photo) but the individual in the left hand photograph - who is not Joseph Bishop but a film character called Milton Waddams (played by the actor Stephen Root) from the film "Office Space"?

I'm sure Meredith would have been so very, very proud......

Do you think someone should tell most pro innocence commentators on JREF that your argument is horribly misleading and typically self praising ??

Surely you noticed that the Administrator of PMF had previous to your post identified Mr Waddams as a 'dead ringer for Bishop.
This as she was observing the lighthearted lampooning.
You know the Administrator that comes in for constant bashing in arguments here daily.
On that trusted site that you lurk at 24/7 and import arguments back to here incessantly

Since Skep had identified Waddams at at least an hour before your cut n' paste argument to here of the exact info she previously stated, may I observe?

I'm sure Mr Randi would be equally proud of one of his light, lively, friendly'skeptics' making such a misleading argument.
Then shamelessly erroneously passing the argument off as an example of superior argumentative knowledge, rather than the simpleton cut n pasting that it undeniably was.... (again)

 

[Dougm]

I asked a similar question quite awhile ago. It was my assumption that since there seemed to be regular participants in this forum on both sides of the issue that the reality was that this was just one more thing in the world that we couldn't know the truth of.

Since then I have become quite a bit more familiar with the issues of the case. I was surprised. The evidence points to the likelihood that what is going on here is a weird prosecutorial vendetta. There is literally no probative evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in this crime whatsoever. And what is even more surprising there appears to be moderately good evidence that RS/AK could not have been involved with this crime.

One thing that seems to have happened before I began following this thread is that the regular JREF posters that argued for guilt have left the thread. I'm not clear on what happened with regard to that. Did some of them change their view? Some of them seem to have actually left the forum because of bad feelings about this discussion and the people that argued for innocence.

No matter what, it is hard for me to imagine that an objective person could look at what as gone on here and not believe that the probability of the guilt of AK/RS is substantially reduced from what it was when the authorities' characterization of the evidence was the principal source of information about the case. No significant prosecution claims about the nature of the evidence have turned out to be true. The prosecution's theory is of a wildly unlikely crime to be committed by newly met young lovers without a history of violence or any appreciable connection to the man who certainly killed Kercher and they have no credible evidence to back up their theory. It boggles the mind that this horror show has been allowed to go on for four years. I see an analogy between this and the American McCarthy hearings.

I have mostly stayed out of the "pro-guilt" vs. "pro-innocence" posters, because it ends up being a distraction from the case facts. However, it does seem interesting in a debate context that here, which seems to be set up as a "neutral" forum in which to debate the facts, that mostly posters from one side are left, and the posters from the other side only post occasionally, and don't even attempt to stay and argue their points, but just post, usually with a topic about the other poster's style here and then leave.

Elsewhere in life, if having an debate with someone who uses tactics of that type, it would appear they do not have sufficient facts to win the argument. The people posting from a pro-guilt point of view say it is because the pro-innocence posters are somehow nasty and gang up on them, but I have not seen that. There are, of course, more pro-innocence people here, but that seems to say something about the evidence as well, in my view.

 

[AmyStrange]

I asked a similar question quite awhile ago. It was my assumption that since there seemed to be regular participants in this forum on both sides of the issue that the reality was that this was just one more thing in the world that we couldn't know the truth of.

Since then I have become quite a bit more familiar with the issues of the case. I was surprised. The evidence points to the likelihood that what is going on here is a weird prosecutorial vendetta. There is literally no probative evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in this crime whatsoever. And what is even more surprising there appears to be moderately good evidence that RS/AK could not have been involved with this crime.

One thing that seems to have happened before I began following this thread is that the regular JREF posters that argued for guilt have left the thread. I'm not clear on what happened with regard to that. Did some of them change their view? Some of them seem to have actually left the forum because of bad feelings about this discussion and the people that argued for innocence.

No matter what, it is hard for me to imagine that an objective person could look at what as gone on here and not believe that the probability of the guilt of AK/RS is substantially reduced from what it was when the authorities' characterization of the evidence was the principal source of information about the case. No significant prosecution claims about the nature of the evidence have turned out to be true. The prosecution's theory is of a wildly unlikely crime to be committed by newly met young lovers without a history of violence or any appreciable connection to the man who certainly killed Kercher and they have no credible evidence to back up their theory. It boggles the mind that this horror show has been allowed to go on for four years. I see an analogy between this and the American McCarthy hearings.

-

Dave,

the McCarthy hearings are a good example. I have studied the Salem Witch Trials and I see a lot of the same things going on here and the most obvious is the thread of hatred (and bias) that is evident in each,

Dave

 

[snook1]

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Clarification on document judge denied. A supreme court precedent was rejected not rudy's ruling. #amandaknox

 

[JREF2010]

Hellmann has the discretion to reduce the sentences if he finds Knox and/or Sollecito guilty. He appears to have quite a degree of latitude in this respect - contrary to some paralegal opinions from elsewhere. But that's a moot argument, as Knox and Sollecito will be found knot guilty and acquitted by Hellmann's court.

The "denied" issue right at the end of prosecution closing arguments today was a slap in the face for Comodi and the prosecution. Comodi had attempted to include elements of the Supreme Court ruling on Guede into here closing argument - presumably to leave a "zinger" out there at the end of her spiel. Specifically, she was trying to argue that since the Supreme Court had ruled that the lower courts had correctly applied the law in finding that Guede committed the murder with other people, the Supreme Court had therefore in some way established a higher-court ruling that others were involved alongside Guede. Hellmann ruled - correctly - that the Supreme Court ruling on Guede was inadmissible in his court, and that it should not therefore be considered in any arguments, deliberations or verdicts.

And you're right that things are very different in Hellmann's court than they were in Massei's court. From all publicly-available evidence, the prosecution's closing argument was a damp squib in terms of actually trying to prove Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. What's more, though, both Mignini and Comodi appear to have made a number of significant mistakes amid all the bluster and bravado.

Do you think that was the big surprise they spoke about?

I do. I think that was the big cannon shooting of their last shot.

Maresca will be powerful, because he exploits the Kerchers whom everyone has the highest regards for, for his own bias.

Parcelli will hopefully bring up enough dirt to stir someone's interest to begin a full investigation of the interrogations.. it' wont be the first time a group of humans abuse the power of the position, it happens daily around here it seems.

If the Sollecitos and Knoxs are awarded money after acquittal, I hope they donate some back to the Questura to buy Video recorders for all the Interrogation rooms.

 

[AmyStrange]

Dave --

My thought is that it would be a mistake to bring up one example, no matter how strong, because then the argument moves to a discussion of that example, which takes it away from the "the exact way doesn't matter" argument.

I was thinking along the lines of the "getting the flu" argument, or LJ's food poisoning analogy. One could make a list of 100 places they might have gotten the flu virus, and only a few may be disprovable. But the large list shows that it doesn't matter which one, just that it got there via one of 100 possibilities and there could be 100 more.

-

Very good point Doug,

and although I don't think the Defense should use the "throwing spaghetti against the wall and maybe something will stick" approach like the Prosecution does, what you say makes sense, and because I have been wrong more times than right; I'd rather see Amanda and Raffaele free than be right,

Dave

 

[Dougm]

-

Very good point Doug,

and although I don't think the Defense should use the "throwing spaghetti against the wall and maybe something will stick" approach like the Prosecution does, what you say makes sense, and because I have been wrong more times than right; I'd rather see Amanda and Raffaele free than be right,

Dave

Yeah, I actually think I am wrong in this case, just wanted to see if this idea had merit. After thinking about it a bit, I think they should clearly and powerfully pick the case apart, piece by piece. But for the C&V report, I think that C&V have said it very clearly already. Just agree with what they said in the report -- the one the court ordered.

 

[Rolfe]

This sounds more like the Keystone Cops than anything! Where was the coherent case for guilt? The prosecution seems to have been flapping around like a beached flounder. What exactly are Knox and Sollecito said to have done, and when? Do they think that simply throwing a strop about the DNA evidence was enough? Where was the incisive argument that if we agree that the DNA evidence has not been discredited, then this is what we allege this means?

Last time, as I understand it, there was a detailed explanation of how the kitchen knife was supposed to have arrived at the murder scene, and what was done with it. There were allegations of a selective clean-up by the accused, and the witness evidence was pulled together to support a time of death which was woven into the narrative. Where did all that go? I thought the arguments from the Massei court were not imported into the Hellman court, so where does that leave us?

I'm just astonished about what seems to have been left out. No argument at all about time of death? No explanation about what the accused are supposed to have done? Is Amanda the wielder of the knife, or was she outside the door egging the two men on? If she wasn't in the room, how do the prosecution know she wasn't in the kitchen with her hands over her ears?

Instead of dealing with that, we got a lot of irrelevant dreck about Amanda having a vibrator (hell, I have a vibrator, and I have the most boringly virtuous life you could possibly imagine), and condoms, and wait, did they forget to mention that she didn't always flush the loo and wasn't too great at doing her share of the cleaning?

And even more dreck about please convict these two anyway in memory of Meredith, and wouldn't it be so unfair to lay all the blame on the man whose DNA was all over the crime because hey, he's black and underprivileged blew his chances with the rich family who sponsored him.

And what happened to the case against Sollecito? What is going on here?

The thing that concerns me is that this is so amorphous it might actually be difficult to counter. The defence almost have to present their own scenario for innocence, because what else is there to do? It's risky to do no more than repeat that the DNA was ruled to have been subject to contamination, and the rest is irrelevant.

And then, the prosecution actually gets a second bite here. Is it at all possible they're saving saying anything even half-way coherent for the last word? Maybe delivered by the lead guy whose name I can't even remember? To give the defence no chance to come back on it?

I really don't understand what is going on.

Rolfe.

 

[katy_did]

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Clarification on document judge denied. A supreme court precedent was rejected not rudy's ruling. #amandaknox

Thanks snook. So that sounds like the prosecution asked to have this document admitted (Dalla Vedova objecting that the defence don't have it) and then the judge denied the request? Barbie still hasn't clarified much about what the document actually was...

 

[LondonJohn]

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Clarification on document judge denied. A supreme court precedent was rejected not rudy's ruling. #amandaknox

Exactly. Hellmann's court rejected the idea that the Supreme Court had any sort of precedent over the Hellmann trial on account of its rulings in the Guede case. Of course the Supreme Court ruling itself wasn't thrown out! That would not only be unconstitutional, it's also completely outside the power of Hellmann's court.

Just to be as clear as possible (even though it's quite complicated to describe!), the issue at stake here was whether the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled that the lower courts in Guede's trial had correctly (in law) determined that Guede had accomplices in the murder meant that this ruling should be considered in the findings of fact in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. And Hellmann's decision - correctly - was that it should play no part in determining any finding of fact or ruling in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. Hellmann could have ruled this immediately by himself, it's such a fundamental principle of justice. But I suspect that he wanted to confer with Zanetti and the popular judges because it was an important ruling that had to be seen to be properly conducted.

The point of law enacted by Hellmann's court today was that the Supreme Court ruling in a particular defendant's case should hold no precedent over the case of other defendants - regardless of whether the crimes with which both groups of defendants are charged is the same.

 

[RandyN]

I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised that Comodi's still appearing for the prosecution, if what she is reported as having said last week is accurate. Because if it is accurate, it's clear that Comodi was directly accusing Hellmann's court of bias and favouratism to the defence ("the judges are against us" etc). I feel very confident that had a prosecutor made such remarks out of court in the UK or US, there would have been immediate and serious repercussions.

I can only therefore suppose either that a) Comodi was misquoted (or mistranslated), or b) the Perugia Prosecutors's Office is unaware of the remarks, or c) Hellmann is unaware of the remarks, or d) the Prosecutors' Office is aware of the remarks but realises that it would be very damaging to pull Comodi from the trial at this point.

I think the matter has been reviewed by several and confirmed that Pisa had this one qouted correctly. Too bad no one sent this news article to the attention of the judge. I mean after all somehow the judge got Steffi Kerchers letter, and he got to listen to Rudys letter...it seems only fair that he hear about the Comodi statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

This sounds more like the Keystone Cops than anything! Where was the coherent case for guilt? The prosecution seems to have been flapping around like a beached flounder. What exactly are Knox and Sollecito said to have done, and when? Do they think that simply throwing a strop about the DNA evidence was enough? Where was the incisive argument that if we agree that the DNA evidence has not been discredited, then this is what we allege this means?

Last time, as I understand it, there was a detailed explanation of how the kitchen knife was supposed to have arrived at the murder scene, and what was done with it. There were allegations of a selective clean-up by the accused, and the witness evidence was pulled together to support a time of death which was woven into the narrative. Where did all that go? I thought the arguments from the Massei court were not imported into the Hellman court, so where does that leave us?

I'm just astonished about what seems to have been left out. No argument at all about time of death? No explanation about what the accused are supposed to have done? Is Amanda the wielder of the knife, or was she outside the door egging the two men on? If she wasn't in the room, how do the prosecution know she wasn't in the kitchen with her hands over her ears?

Instead of dealing with that, we got a lot of irrelevant dreck about Amanda having a vibrator (hell, I have a vibrator, and I have the most boringly virtuous life you could possibly imagine), and condoms, and wait, did they forget to mention that she didn't always flush the loo and wasn't too great at doing her share of the cleaning?

And even more dreck about please convict these two anyway in memory of Meredith, and wouldn't it be so unfair to lay all the blame on the man whose DNA was all over the crime because hey, he's black and underprivileged blew his chances with the rich family who sponsored him.

And what happened to the case against Sollecito? What is going on here?

The thing that concerns me is that this is so amorphous it might actually be difficult to counter. The defence almost have to present their own scenario for innocence, because what else is there to do? It's risky to do no more than repeat that the DNA was ruled to have been subject to contamination, and the rest is irrelevant.

And then, the prosecution actually gets a second bite here. Is it at all possible they're saving saying anything even half-way coherent for the last word? Maybe delivered by the lead guy whose name I can't even remember? To give the defence no chance to come back on it?

I really don't understand what is going on.

Rolfe.

Well, to deal with your last point first, the prosecution rebuttal right at the end is only allowed to rebut the argument made by the defence. Prosecutors cannot introduce new elements of their own arguments at this final rebuttal stage: they have to be made in the closing argument itself or they can't be made at all.

So what we have seen over the past two days is essentially the entire prosecution case for guilt. And it is, to use the vernacular, total pants. I think the defence should focus strongly on showing the court that there is simply no coherent, reliable evidence pointing to guilt. The one thing the defence has to be wary of is that in Italian criminal justice one remnant of the inquisitorial system is that the court can arrive at its own conclusion totally separate from that proposed by the prosecution, defence or any other party. For example, even though it appears that prosecutors didn't even bring up Quintavalle's testimony in their closing arguments, there is technically nothing to stop Hellmann's judicial panel examining this testimony independently, considering it reliable, and considering it a factor in determining Knox's guilt. They won't do that of course, as Quintavalle's testimony is also the proverbial pants (which is why prosecutors didn't seemingly bring it up today or yesterday), but the point is that it's technically possible in a way that's not possible in anglo-saxon common law courts.

I therefore think the defence should try to address all of the contentious evidence/testimony - regardless of whether or not prosecutors used it in their closing arguments. I think they just need to remain tightly focussed on the goal: to demonstrate that there is quite clearly insufficient evidence pointing towards Knox or Sollecito as participants in Meredith's murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the matter has been reviewed by several and confirmed that Pisa had this one qouted correctly. Too bad no one sent this news article to the attention of the judge. I mean after all somehow the judge got Steffi Kerchers letter, and he got to listen to Rudys letter...it seems only fair that he hear about the Comodi statement.

I too believe that Pisa accurately quoted Comodi, not least because the alternative could prove costly for various newspapers and Pisa himself. I think therefore that Comodi's comments are preserved on a digital dictaphone, as I think it's the only way that they would have been OK'd by various press legal departments.

But I expect that Hellmann (or someone else in the judiciary) will hear about these comments sooner or later. And I hope Comodi is appropriately called to account for them.