Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

The false confession could stand, but at this point isn't most of the evidence pointing towards it only part of the civil case?

The evidence proving coercion (mostly circumstantial I admit but still evidence none the less) is the case closed press conference statement the next day where it is admitted that they kept at her until she admitted to what they already knew.

You can argue that this is possibly misleading, but how does that explain the fact that after the statements, they immediately went out and arrested Patrick without any investigation, on her word alone?

Of course, they did bring the three into court in order to legally allow the prosecution to hold them for a year and there was evidence presented to accomplish this. Now the question I have about this is when did they get this evidence and if it was before they arrested Patrick and if that's true, then they didn't need Amanda's statements at all. Her two statements were really irrelevant, especially when you read them. It is just plain weird in its congruent inconsistency,

But this is just my opinion,

Dave

Dave she was given one year for calumnia, which is why she has one extra year.

My point was merely that Hellman could keep that charge without having her guilty of any "real" crime.

Agree completely on the statements.

 

[Dougm]

On the issue of the two being possibly convicted of lesser charges, then released on time served, to me that will depend in who Hellmann really is, and if he wants to solve this "problem" they have there by papering it over with some compromise, or if he is going to be brave enough to overturn the whole thing.

Either way, he is going to have to explain it in the motivation report, and if he overturns the verdict, I would think he can't do it without explaining how badly the evidence collection was, and/or how the prosecution theory never made sense in the first place. The police and prosecution are so invested in this thing that if he says they all screwed up big time, that will really send some waves around, and he knows that.

On the other hand, if he decides to paper it over, he will have to explain that as well. If it were me, I would rather come to a decision I can explain clearly and back up with facts, so that, even though people might be angry at first, they will understand once they hear about and/or read the reasoning. If he convicts them of some lesser charge like that they were "involved" somehow, that is too vague.

The only one I can see holding up is the false accusation charge, and although I don't think she did that either, if they uphold that one, there would not be a world outcry or anything. I think that even Amanda wishes she could take back that statement, if she could relive the moment.

Here's hoping Hellmann has the integrity and courage to do the right thing, and throw it all out.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I had wondered why Mignini fell asleep...

But then I remembered from reading in Nina Burleigh's book Fatal Gift of Beauty that Prosecutor Mignini, (who, IIRC, was cheatin' on her when he had moved to Germany), came back home to Italy and then did marry his old girlfriend, a woman 15, yes, that is not a typo, 15 years younger than he is! Yikes, what an age difference! Thank goodness for Viagra, and Levitra. And don't forget Cialis, heck, an old geezer has gotsa luv the weekend warrior!

I recall reading of PMF.org's member H9 calling Chris, Amanda's step dad, this: "Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy".

With that in mind, some of my surfer bros who dig younger gals might imagine Mignini saying this during an intimate encounter: "Who's your Daddy"!
Hahaha

Sorry for the black humor, as AmyStrange calls it, but, ah, the pro-guilt folks have ben pickin' on Chris Mellas age difference for so long that when I found out Mignini also has a much younger spouse, well...

See ya,
RW

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/09/25/amanda-knox-prosecutor-ignore-science-demand-life/

from the Dempsey piece:

Comodi freely insulted the judge’s hand-picked experts, a risky and desperate strategy. Rather than cite any errors in technique, she resorted to name-calling. Their work was “embarrassing,” she claimed and they had failed their task, “betraying” the court.


Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, convicted of abuse of office, nodded off through much of this rhetoric. The previous day, he had accused Amanda of “Nazism,” an insult to her German mother and grandmother. Without irony, he complained about a trial by media that he created and continues to feed via his numerous contacts with the press. He spoke of Amanda supporters as if they were foreign spies, amusing ex-FBI agent and vocal critic Steve Moore, who was in the stands, unbeknownst to the prosecutor.

I recall from Nina Burleigh's book - in addition to having to please a young wife - that Mignini takes a lot of antihistamines and remedies for his allergies. Probably makes him doze off, but one would think he could have remained alert at this crucial trial moment.

 

[Kaosium]

On the highlighted part, I would love to see a cite where Italy is an expert at LCN DNA. I don't believe it for one minute after watching their top people preform on this case.[/I]

That's not exactly what they're saying, it's more along the lines of 'the inquisitorial systems of Europe have been using LCN DNA to convict people for years now.' I assume, like the Italian system, their inquisitorial roots incorporate the prosecutor as an 'incorruptible' purveyor of Truth and thus allow them to introduce just about anything they want as 'evidence.' DNA seems to have 'magic' qualities about it, if the prosecutor finds DNA anywhere for any reason it seems to translate to 'they done it' with some people.

Unfortunately with LT DNA, for which the risks of contamination are extreme compared to high copy number DNA analysis, it is often very difficult to say where the DNA came from. With blood, semen or saliva left at a crime scene there's at least a physical representation of what they found, notably 'So-and-so left their saliva in a bite wound;' or 'we found this blood at the crime scene attributable to so-and-so.' It makes sense what they're saying, not so much with the LT-DNA analysis done in this case.

Here they're saying they found Meredith's DNA on a knife that tested negative for blood and didn't match the wounds, and they don't know where it came from, that part is 'hypothesis'--but it must be a result of Amanda wielding that knife in a death struggle with Meredith. That's where the 'magic' comes in. With Raffaele on the bra clasp the situation is similar, somehow his DNA gets on that bra clasp, and by making those same untoward assumptions instead of the question being: 'how did that DNA get on that clasp along with at least two other males,' it instead becomes 'Raffaele's DNA must be the result of him handling the clasp in the course of the murder'--or maybe its contamination, but what are the 'odds' of that again?

No matter how improbable the scenario, to some people Meredith's DNA on that knife or Raffaele's on the clasp must either be the result of the murder or contamination, and comparing it to contamination rates in labs required by outside entities to keep track of contamination leads one to the (spurious) conclusion it must be a minimal concern. However, as you've noted before with the link from New Zealand, with LT-template DNA analysis they're basically looking for contamination level DNA--and thus they're much more likely to find it, especially in labs not equipped for the stringent new protocols devised to prevent such accidental exposure.

So with these inquisitorial systems they don't have outside agencies or even their own judges in some cases determining what is valid evidence, thus they produce DNA on a zucchini, say some of the wounds are compatible with being bludgeoned by a summer squash, and presto! Conviction! It may not be a coincidence that of the EU members the inquisitorial systems dominate the ECHR in violations under the category 'right to a fair trial' for this and other reasons. Looking at that former chart, including EU members only, and juxtaposing the per-capita approach also offered by that excerpt from the legal tome, one is left with this list of violations under the 'right to a fair trial' category:

1. Italy 194
2. France 161
3. Britain 61
4. Greece 56
5. Austria 45

Thus Italy and France dominate by raw numbers, and the UK is present, but is more comparable to the next two, which are also inquisitorial systems. Off the top of my head, Britain must have at least five times the population of Greece and Austria, which makes their per-capita 'advantage' profound.

In the long run I don't think it will be to the advantage of either LCN DNA analysis or the inquisitorial system for it to be said now that the inquisitorial systems of Europe are 'ahead of' the United States and other countries a bit more leery of this kind of DNA analysis, the foundation of which is the fallacy of equivocation: LT-DNA is not that same thing inherently as finding someone's blood, saliva or semen (or other truly traceable signs) and attributing it to the suspect through DNA analysis. It's the presence of the biological material that's incriminating, the DNA analysis just more properly attributes it than blood type and the like could do in the past. Trying to find criminal meaning--and only criminal meaning--in specimens that leave no actual traces outside what can be divined by LT/LCN DNA analysis is an entirely different thing.

 

[AmyStrange]

Dave she was given one year for calumnia, which is why she has one extra year.

-

Not sure Grinder,

but wasn't the calumnia based on her recant (gift statement)? I could see her "accusations" being used in the civil part of the case (per the supreme court ruling), but I do not see how they could be used to prove criminal charges. It would mean the SC ruling was ignored, but I could be wrong,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

SNPs versus STRs

His CV is interesting and the main focus is medicine. I did find this bit somewhat ominous in terms of retrocausality.

RoseMontague,

The only involvement in forensics I can recall from his CV is in the area of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), not the short tandem repeats (STRs) that constitute almost the whole of present-day DNA forensics. That is not to say that SNP research is useless (far from it), but rather that I would take what Dr. Hampikian or Dr. Krane say about present-day techniques more seriously because they have more directly applicable experience. MOO.

 

[Grinder]

-

Not sure Grinder,

but wasn't the calumnia based on her recant (gift statement)? I could see her "accusations" being used in the civil part of the case (per the supreme court ruling), but I do not see how they could be used to prove criminal charges. It would mean the SC ruling was ignored, but I could be wrong,

Dave

In addition to the charge that she and Sollecito murdered British student, Meredith Kercher, Knox is also on trial for claiming bar owner Patrick Lumumba was at the scene of the crime. He was held for two weeks and then cleared and is suing her for an extreme form of defamation known here as calumnia, which carries a sentence of up to twelve years. The defense claims Knox named Lumumba under intense pressure from police questioning.

 

[AmyStrange]

Here they're saying they found Meredith's DNA on a knife that tested negative for blood and didn't match the wounds, and they don't know where it came from, that part is 'hypothesis'--but it must be a result of Amanda wielding that knife in a death struggle with Meredith. That's where the 'magic' comes in. With Raffaele on the bra clasp the situation is similar, somehow his DNA gets on that bra clasp, and by making those same untoward assumptions instead of the question being: 'how did that DNA get on that clasp along with at least two other males,' it instead becomes 'Raffaele's DNA must be the result of him handling the clasp in the course of the murder'--or maybe its contamination, but what are the 'odds' of that again?

-

Brilliant analysis Kaosium,

what are the odds that it happened during the murder rather than as a result of contamination instead, especially considering no other DNA on the rest of the bra at all or in the room what so ever, and then when you throw in the video of them getting the bra clasp to be tested, it just reduces the odds for contamination vs murder substantially, and just makes more sense that it was contamination, even when you throw in all the evidence proving TOD before 9:30,

Dave

 

[AmyStrange]

In addition to the charge that she and Sollecito murdered British student, Meredith Kercher, Knox is also on trial for claiming bar owner Patrick Lumumba was at the scene of the crime. He was held for two weeks and then cleared and is suing her for an extreme form of defamation known here as calumnia, which carries a sentence of up to twelve years. The defense claims Knox named Lumumba under intense pressure from police questioning.

-

It just doesn't make sense Grinder,

what was the point of the Supreme court ruling if the "accusations" could be used as evidence to prove criminal charges? I still think the recant ("gift" statement) was used as proof instead,

Dave

ETA: maybe I'm getting the legalese wrong. Here in the US, civil cases do not usually result in prison time. Maybe they do in Italy. My bad.

 

[Kaosium]

Michael brings up a good point about Meresca and the Kerchers. Will they instruct Maresca to support the prosecution call for life sentences? Tomorrow should be interesting. I expect to hear better arguments from Maresca than the rants we got from Comodi and the slime we got from Mignono.

I expect the Jackal Maresca ("You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.")
to outdo both Mignini and Comodi in the category of 'slimy ranting.'

However, I must have gotten mixed up, I thought tomorrow was when the Good Guys had the floor?

 

[Fine]

For those interested in the Sarah Scazzi murder case, Monday will be a big day for the two principal suspects, Sabrina and her mother Cosima, charged with premeditated murder and kidnapping. The Italian Supreme Court will decide whether they are granted house arrest and change of venue. Maybe, in explaining their decisions they'll provide some insight into the nature of the evidence against them. Right now, the public's understanding of the evidence is sketchy, though most everyone is sure they did it anyhow.

///

 

[komponisto]

Back when the report had not been released but information was being leaked, (IIRC) there was something about finding a very minute trace on the handle, not the blade but I remember some confusion on this. The report is pretty clear they found nothing but starch on the blade from what I see. Another poster and I had this discussion at websleuths and he insisted there was a DNA trace found (I assume on the blade). I have seen a quote from Comodi that something was found but other quotes from Torre and Maresca indicating nothing was found. The fact that there is a sample and material on the blade is not in dispute it is whether it is DNA material. Maresca said something along the lines of how can they know it is not DNA on the knife if they don't test it further (with more sensitive machines). Perhaps the confusion is from the machine itself as I have seen testimony that indicates a too low reading means either less than 10 picograms or nothing at all. It is simply below the sensitivity of the machine. It appears some are taking this as something could be there and some are reading it as nothing is there.

Regardless, the point is that if Novelli thought that C&V should have done a test that they didn't do, he should have said so at the time, and it should have been included in the report (just like "Ms. Steffi"'s complaint about the absence of a fume hood).

Another point about Novelli's comments. In essence what he is saying is that Meredith's DNA did not show up on other samples tested after this gap that would tend to indicate something like machine or lab contamination. He is comparing apples and oranges on this one. <Dr Steffi only cranked up the knob on this one sample, if she had done the same with these others (including ones that showed the presence of some DNA under normal sensitivity), who knows if Meredith's DNA would show up or not? If she had not cranked up the knob on this sample, it would have (and should have) been reported as no DNA found to test.

Bingo. While you would think Novelli would know enough to look at the other results from a similar "zoomed in" perspective, his other comments have shown that he simply can't be trusted to use the full extent of his knowledge given who is paying him.

 

[snook1]

I expect the Jackal Maresca ("You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.")
to outdo both Mignini and Comodi in the category of 'slimy ranting.'

However, I must have gotten mixed up, I thought tomorrow was when the Good Guys had the floor?

Tommorow belongs to civil parties. Then, it's Tuesday and Thursday for the defense.

 

[Kaosium]

-

Brilliant analysis Kaosium,

what are the odds that it happened during the murder rather than as a result of contamination instead, especially considering no other DNA on the rest of the bra at all or in the room what so ever, and then when you throw in the video of them getting the bra clasp to be tested, it just reduces the odds for contamination vs murder substantially, and just makes more sense that it was contamination, even when you throw in all the evidence proving TOD before 9:30,

Dave

Yes, or secondary transfer which is another primary concern with LT/LCN analysis, DNA can be transferred in minute quantities very easily, and in a case like this, regarding the DNA 'evidence,' it is far more likely it was transferred that way than by being the only trace ever found of Raffaele and Amanda being involved in a death struggle for the reasons you note and others. DNA gets its 'magic' qualities from being a good identifier of people who left traces, not on how it got there.

 

[komponisto]

-

ETA: maybe I'm getting the legalese wrong. Here in the US, civil cases do not usually result in prison time. Maybe they do in Italy. My bad.

Calunnia is a criminal offense, for which Amanda and Raffaele have been charged by the state (i.e. Mignini et al.); however, the Italian system allows the victim of a crime to be a "civil party" to the criminal case, and to essentially hitch a civil suit to the criminal prosecution itself. This is what the Kerchers are doing with respect to the murder (via Maresca), and this is also what Lumumba is doing with respect to the "calumny" (via Carlo Pacelli).

 

[Grinder]

-

It just doesn't make sense Grinder,

what was the point of the Supreme court ruling if the "accusations" could be used as evidence to prove criminal charges? I still think the recant ("gift" statement) was used as proof instead,

Dave

ETA: maybe I'm getting the legalese wrong. Here in the US, civil cases do not usually result in prison time. Maybe they do in Italy. My bad.

Dave in Italy calumnia is a criminal charge. The supreme court ruled that the first two 'statements" couldn't be used in the murder trial, but they tried all the cases against Amanda together so they were able to bring in the statements in front of the same panel of judges.

I think the panel was not supposed to consider the first two statements in the murder trial. A little like a judge telling the jury to "disregard that".

This should clear it up

From Times Online
March 15, 2009
Amanda Knox to face slander charge over police brutality claims
Richard Owen, Rome
Amanda Knox, the American student charged with the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher, faces an additional charge of slander for claiming that police struck her while she was being questioned.


ETA: Raffaele wasn't charged with calumnia

 

[Kaosium]

Tommorow belongs to civil parties. Then, it's Tuesday and Thursday for the defense.

Thanks, Snook, I've been out of it a little while, my brother's run of "Damn Yankees" just ended, which really chews into my free time. Last year I'd come home from watching The Crucible,--last years show--which was really kinda spooky as I'd come home to read about Raffaele's and Amanda's travails and the sort of 'evidence' that was produced against them.

This one didn't seem to relate as well, although I was reminded that the Bad Girl in that one wasn't all bad, and someone selling their soul in order to 'win' seems appropriate, though I don't think any of them were foresighted enough to negotiate an 'escape clause' like Joe Hardy did, or decent enough to employ one if they had.

 

[AmyStrange]

Calunnia is a criminal offense, for which Amanda and Raffaele have been charged by the state (i.e. Mignini et al.); however, the Italian system allows the victim of a crime to be a "civil party" to the criminal case, and to essentially hitch a civil suit to the criminal prosecution itself. This is what the Kerchers are doing with respect to the murder (via Maresca), and this is also what Lumumba is doing with respect to the "calumny" (via Carlo Pacelli).

-

Komponisto,

so what evidence are they using to prove Calunnia? The two accusations obtained during the interrogation, the recant, or both? If they are using the original accusations, I don't see the point of the Supreme court rulings or maybe I'm getting that wrong also.

Sorry for being so thickheaded and stupid, but I especially appreciate everyone's attempts to educate me regardless of my idiotness,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

future trials and the incentive to get it right

Yeah, all the 'ivory tower' / never done forensics collection / wedding reception nonsense levelled against C & V seems to be at least equally applicable to this dude.

Is everyone in agreement that his statements can be interpreted as an attempt to undermine a fundamental principle of forensics investigation?

Presumably, according to Novelli, it doesn't matter if you wear gloves or footcoverings, doesn't matter what you store evidence in, we should just rip out any section of any textbook or handbook that deals with prevention of cross contamination. Even if that happened, the burden of proof would still be with the accused to prove that contamination occurred (a practically impossible task).

There are so many burdens of proof being turned on their heads in this case, and the idea that any judge allows this without correcting the prosecution is very worrying to me.

bri1,

I have argued about the reversal of the burden of proof for some time. In addition to everything you have said, I would add one thing. Even if one accepts the prosecution's theory of how the DNA samples were deposited in this case, the fact that they used such poor technique would alone be enough to make one think about tossing the evidence. If the evidence is not excluded, then what about the next case? What incentive is there for the forensic police to do it correctly next time? MOO.

 

[Dougm]

-

Komponisto,

so what evidence are they using to prove Calunnia? The two accusations obtained during the interrogation, the recant, or both? If they are using the original accusations, I don't see the point of the Supreme court rulings or maybe I'm getting that wrong also.

Sorry for being so thickheaded and stupid, but I especially appreciate everyone's attempts to educate me regardless of my idiotness,

Dave

This is my understanding -- please correct me if anyone is 100% sure about this.

The evidence against her for Calumnia (Patrick) is the "gift" note. So, per your wording, it is "the recant". I believe the other two statements were ruled inadmissable because she did not have a lawyer. However, since the "gift" note was written by her of her own free will, and was not asked for by the police, that was ruled as being admissable. Especially for the calumnia charge, since that statement (which refers to and confirms what she told the police during the night) is the one that talks about Patrick.

Also, I believe that Mignini tried to claim she was not a suspect for the first statement, and that the second one was given spontaneously, so both should be admissable, but lost on both counts.