Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[AmyStrange]

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

Thanks Grinder,

that makes more sense, but so utterly unfair, but so are a lot of the legal processes in the US also, but being as the victim has not "real" rights makes everything seem so unbalanced either. True justice is not easy in the least especially when you throw in all of human (and each individual's) preconceptions and misperceptions, it seems impossible.

Confessions of ANY kind should be illegal across the board, but THAT ain't never gonna happen. Sigh,

Dave

 

[Kaosium]

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.

///

Thanks, Fine!

As I understand it there's something like seventeen people charged in this one now? A conspiracy to conceal that the mother and daughter were involved, and some of the ones who originally provided 'evidence' such as the flower handler who reconsidered having 'seen' someone stuff poor Sarah in a car and now thinks they must have 'dreamt' it, thus found themselves charged as well?

Have they released anything more about the 'evidence' outside the few minute gap in texts, the signal connecting to that tower, the 'God' transmission, and the 'idea' that the gravedigger couldn't have moved something without the help of his daughter?

 

[AmyStrange]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!

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.

-

Thank you Doug,

and that last is just one of the many things that pisses me off about authority, not that they do it. Like Amanda said (paraphrasing), they are just trying to do their job.

It's the whole idea that it's mostly assumed by way more people than not that they don't lie. Why would they?

Let me repeat, "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!"

Sorry,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rep. 199

Here is an interesting analysis on the Luminol prints I would like to address:

RoseMontague,

The argument that non-blood items that would cause a reaction with luminol were excluded does not work for me for a couple of reasons. One of them is something that you brought up with respect to Rep. 199. Based on my understanding of Diastole's comments, this sample was positive by TMB but negative by a confirmatory test. Why would they even bother with a confirmatory test if they had ruled out other substances?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm more than sure that Maresca will do a better job than the two clowns from the prosecution. Not that there's much to do with this "no case", but still, Maresca will fight till the end. Not sure what is his motive here(obviously, I'm not talking about motive of killing, since we know there is no motive at all), but he will do anything and everything just to make sure Knox is a sex deviant and Sollecito a violent - manga - comics crazed young man.

I'm, actually, much more worried about tomorrow than I was on Saturday. The prosecutors did a bad job. Nothing that they've said, proves AK and RS's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Wonder what will Maresca say.

Don't be worried. There's nothing Maresca (or Pacelli) can say. He may have slicker delivery and more courtroom style than any of the prosecutors, but as the saying goes: you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There's no lawyer in the world that could take the reliable evidence in this case to build a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

 

[AmyStrange]

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.

-

GAWD Halides1,

that is just so true. If contamination was really as impossible as a meteor (earthquake, lightning or whatever) hitting that courthouse, why even bother bagging the evidence up at all or wearing biohazard suits or gloves?

Why not just stick it all in their bra or down their pants and then go disco dancing? What a bunch of...

Dave

P.S. according to some scientific hypothesis and theories, thousands and thousands of meteors (most of them smaller than the eye can see) are hitting the earth every second of every day and a probable small percentage of them might actually have hit that courthouse not too long ago or will in the future, not to mention gamma rays, x-rays etc. etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course you are correct. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Kercher's will change their position and/or strategy at this point.

Tragically, you're absolutely right. A sad feedback loop has now been created: Mignini and Maresca pulled the wool over the Kerchers' eyes to convince them that Guede, Knox and Sollecito jointly murdered Meredith. The Kerchers now have this belief woven so deeply into their consciousnesses that I suspect they will be actively encouraging Maresca to go all-guns-blazing for Knox and Sollecito in his closing argument.

As I've said before, I deeply sincerely hope that after the acquittals, the Kerchers are able to find the truth of the matter, and that they are ultimately able to come to terms with the fact that Guede alone murdered Meredith. I hope that any malice or disgust that they hold towards Knox and Sollecito will dissipate after they realise that the prosecutor and their own lawyer sold them a bogus line when they were in a vulnerable position. I hope they can find peace, together with some measure of satisfaction that the killer - Guede - has been caught and brought to justice. And I hope that they will realise that injustice and suffering (albeit to a far lesser extent) was perpetrated on two other people - Knox and Sollecito - both of whom now deserve the chance to rehabilitate themselves fully into society.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Tragically, you're absolutely right. A sad feedback loop has now been created: Mignini and Maresca pulled the wool over the Kerchers' eyes to convince them that Guede, Knox and Sollecito jointly murdered Meredith. The Kerchers now have this belief woven so deeply into their consciousnesses that I suspect they will be actively encouraging Maresca to go all-guns-blazing for Knox and Sollecito in his closing argument.

As I've said before, I deeply sincerely hope that after the acquittals, the Kerchers are able to find the truth of the matter, and that they are ultimately able to come to terms with the fact that Guede alone murdered Meredith. I hope that any malice or disgust that they hold towards Knox and Sollecito will dissipate after they realise that the prosecutor and their own lawyer sold them a bogus line when they were in a vulnerable position. I hope they can find peace, together with some measure of satisfaction that the killer - Guede - has been caught and brought to justice. And I hope that they will realise that injustice and suffering (albeit to a far lesser extent) was perpetrated on two other people - Knox and Sollecito - both of whom now deserve the chance to rehabilitate themselves fully into society.

I agree with all you say and hope for. However, if there are acquittals - IF - then I for one cannot imagine the Kerchers being anything but outraged, and sticking with that. As you say, Mignini and Maresca have convinced them that Knox and Sollecito not only were involved, but may have masterminded the attack. This is imprinted within their psyches. Mignini and Maresca have taken on the role of father-confessors, high priests, comforters to the Kerchers in their grief. I cannot imagine their reversing all they think anytime in the near future....

 

[AmyStrange]

If contamination was really as impossible as a meteor (earthquake, lightning or whatever) hitting that courthouse, why even bother bagging the evidence up at all or wearing biohazard suits or gloves?

And before the pro-guilters start howling, when large quantities of DNA are found (like large amounts of semen) the probabilities of contamination are substantially lower when compared to the probability of LCN contamination, which is a whole other ball of DNA wax and what we're specifically talking about here,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

-

<snip>

Also, false confession studies should be required curriculum in grammar schools and high schools all over the world.

Well, while I might not totally agree with that, I would suggest that false confession studies, together with detailed study of all known fallibility in justice systems, is intensively taught at law schools and within internal training programmes in the judiciary.

Airline pilots, for example, spend a vast amount of time training for the very rare situations where something goes wrong on the flight: two or more engines are lost, or hydraulics fail, or there's a decompression in the cabin, or landing gear won't lower, etc. Most airline pilots spend their entire flying career never needing to use these emergency drills, but they are required to practise them relentlessly. By contrast, it's very rare to see such contingency training in other professions, including medicine or law, where errors or systemic fallibility might be equally rare but might have equally disastrous consequences for some.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

The murder charge, the criminal slander charge against Lumumba, and the criminal slander charge against the police, while all connected, are all subject to totally separate proofs. Indeed, it is entirely possible to fine any permutation of guilt and non-guilt in relation to these three charges. For example, it's possible to conclude that a) Knox should be acquitted of the Lumumba slander charge, but convicted of the other two charges; or that b) she should be acquitted of the murder charge, but convicted of the two criminal slander charges; or that c) she could be convicted of the Lumumba slander charge, but acquitted on the other two charges. And so on, for every permutation.

However, I think that it's highly likely that when Hellmann acquits on the murder charge, he will also direct acquittal on the Lumumba slander charges. I also suspect that he will then indicate to prosecutors that he is not minded to pursue charges on the police slander issue. I therefore think it's likely that Knox will walk out of Capanne prison in a couple of weeks' time with no criminal convictions hanging over her head.

 

[AmyStrange]

Well, while I might not totally agree with that, I would suggest that false confession studies, together with detailed study of all known fallibility in justice systems, is intensively taught at law schools and within internal training programmes in the judiciary.

Airline pilots, for example, spend a vast amount of time training for the very rare situations where something goes wrong on the flight: two or more engines are lost, or hydraulics fail, or there's a decompression in the cabin, or landing gear won't lower, etc. Most airline pilots spend their entire flying career never needing to use these emergency drills, but they are required to practise them relentlessly. By contrast, it's very rare to see such contingency training in other professions, including medicine or law, where errors or systemic fallibility might be equally rare but might have equally disastrous consequences for some.

-

LJ,

your suggestion would certainly be a good start.

And, I would like to add that they be included in basic psychology courses. That would be another good start too,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Yes. Any direct previous experience he has with forensic DNA analysis seems to have been in the very early years of DNA typing. It's very likely that he has no real knowledge or experience of STR PCR DNA typing in forensic investigation, let alone low-template levels of STR PCR DNA typing. He very probably has experience of extracting low template volumes of DNA strands from material in the lab, and subjecting this DNA to STR PCR amplification techniques. But this is a very different game to the issues surrounding the handling, collection, storage and testing of samples that come from a forensically-messy crime scene.

 

[Kaosium]

However, I think that it's highly likely that when Hellmann acquits on the murder charge, he will also direct acquittal on the Lumumba slander charges. I also suspect that he will then indicate to prosecutors that he is not minded to pursue charges on the police slander issue. I therefore think it's likely that Knox will walk out of Capanne prison in a couple of weeks' time with no criminal convictions hanging over her head.

Does he still have jurisdiction over the calunnia charge filed by the police? I thought that had moved on to Matteini who refused to recuse herself, that's the last I recall hearing about it. Can he stifle that even now, because it was a result of the Massei court?

 

[pilot padron]

I had an extremely hard time following your post, so excuse me for just pulling out one piece.

The idea that because Marriott once worked for CBS, and so therefore has the ability to affect what they report now shows an ignorance of how business, the media, and PR work. And to say that, because someone worked for a CBS local affiliate, that they have strong influence over the national CBS network and/or the US media as a whole shows ignorance on a much larger scale.

It just doesn't work that way.

I happen to think it very well does.
I have good reason to so think.

I do not think that because you do not believe as I do that this shows any ignorance of anything.

ETA:
If you say in a later post that this topic annoys you so, may I suggest you do not read much less reply twice about it.
....eh....?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Actually, all of Knox's signed statements (including the 1.45am and 5.45am ones) are evidence in the Lumumba criminal/civil slander case. In the criminal case, the onus is on the prosecutors to prove that Knox was lying, and in the civil case the onus in on Knox to prove she wasn't lying. I suspect that Hellmann will correctly rule that the police should be able to provide far more evidence of what actually took place in that 5th/6th November interrogation, and that Mignini is being evasive (at best) about what happened between his arrival at the police HQ and Knox's 5.45am statement. I think therefore that Hellmann will throw these cases out.

 

[Dougm]

Don't be worried. There's nothing Maresca (or Pacelli) can say. He may have slicker delivery and more courtroom style than any of the prosecutors, but as the saying goes: you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There's no lawyer in the world that could take the reliable evidence in this case to build a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

LJ --

I sure hope you are right. However, my concern is not that Maresca and/or Pacelli can make a logical argument for guilt out of the availalble evidence. It's that none of the pro-guilt attorneys did so the first time, but they got the decision to go their way anyway. Hellmann has seemed much more rational in his other decisions that Massei, but I would never have thought that anyone could convict the first time. This leads me to be hopeful for justice this time, but still not sure what will happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

I happen to think it very well does.
I have good reason to so think.

I do not think that because you do not believe as I do that this shows any ignorance of anything.

ETA:
If you say in a later post that this topic annoys you so, may I suggest you do not read much less reply twice about it.
....eh....?

So let's all hear why you have "good reason so to think".

I'd be interested to hear how a man who was a TV news reporter for a CBS affiliate station (not network news) some 35 years ago holds sway over the news and current affairs departments of the CBS network. Specifically, I'd be interested to hear how and why Mariott exerts influence over Jeff Fager - the head of CBS News and current Executive Producer of "60 Minutes". It appears that Fager didn't even graduate from college until after Marriott had left the world of local TV news for the world of communications and PR.

Over to you. The floor is yours. Thanks in advance for your detailed and informative explanation.

 

[LondonJohn]

-

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

It's impossible to assign any meaningful odds in the way you're suggesting. But it's also not necessary. The general (and well-reasoned) rule on this issue is as follows: if investigators took all reasonable steps to minimise the chance of contamination of evidence, then it's entirely incumbent on the defence to prove any claim of contamination with exact and precise details of how, where and when the contamination occurred. If, however, it can be shown that investigators did not take reasonable care to minimise contamination, then the defence can successfully (although not automatically) argue contamination without needing to prove exactly how, where and when such contamination occurred.

 

[AmyStrange]

So let's all hear why you have "good reason so to think".

I'd be interested to hear how a man who was a TV news reporter for a CBS affiliate station (not network news) some 35 years ago holds sway over the news and current affairs departments of the CBS network. Specifically, I'd be interested to hear how and why Mariott exerts influence over Jeff Fager - the head of CBS News and current Executive Producer of "60 Minutes". It appears that Fager didn't even graduate from college until after Marriott had left the world of local TV news for the world of communications and PR.

Over to you. The floor is yours. Thanks in advance for your detailed and informative explanation.

-

pilot,

before you do that, maybe you could start by explaining how CBS (an American broadcasting medium) has sway over SBS (an Australian broadcasting medium) which are the originators of the interview that started this whole discussion fiasco,

Dave