Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

No, it makes perfect sense. We have no way of knowing that AK did not have her PORTABLE computer

Amanda implies more than once her computer was at her home. And you need to *know* if she had her computer with her and where it was, in order to have an alibi.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

alphabet soup

I'm kidding of course, I spent hours myself trying to determine how to make that conversion and find out WTF an 'AU' even is! Then I just looked at the damn pictures from both studies, noted the change in luminosity compared to different dilution levels, and that a mere three times wouldn't seem to be anywhere close to enough, and it finally occurred to me even if it did, then I was back to where it could be any number of things and felt really stupid about it.

Kaosium,

Ordinarily AU stands for absorbance units. Absorbance units are a way of measuring how much light passes through a colored solution. It might mean something different in the context in which you read it. BTW, the word "noise" is used in two very different ways when people discuss DNA electropherograms, and it can be confusing. It can either mean the fuzzy stuff in between peaks (that is how a spectroscopist would use it), or it can mean the presence of extra alleles in the e-gram. RFU stands for relative fluorescence units, as you probably know. If you send me what you found, I will try to look at it this weekend.

 

[daydreamer]

Legal Questions

Let me see if I have the process correct. Both teams have to wait for the Motivation Report from Hellmann then submit their respective appeals. The SC can only rule on issue of law, not the interpretation or validity of the evidence or decisions. So the appeal process will start this January.

So the prosecution will probably question the legality of C&V report and some other issues.
The defense, I assume, will go after the legality of the “interrogation” and as a result, the calunnia charges from Patrick. If the interrogation is found to be illegal, would that negate the slander ruling?

Another question, who has the onus to pursue criminal charges against Mignini, Comdi and Stefanoni. Does Hellmann address that in the Motivation Report or can the defense team bring charges against them. Submitting false documents, lying under oath, and presenting a statement from Rudy that he could not read or understand is surely contempt of court at a minimum.

 

[komponisto]

Independently from the prosecution's theory, they could well be guilty even if one of them of both of them left the cottage for a while, or if one remained home for longer. It is obvious to a judge they can be guilty, assessment doesn't have to depend to any specific prosecution's theory.

So let me get this straight: according to you, a defense case has to be based on specific alternative scenarios, and not just doubt about the prosecution's theory. Meanwhile, however, the same does not apply to a case for guilt; there doesn't need to be a specific scenario, it just needs to be "obvious to a judge that they can be guilty".

Simple question: do you agree with the following statement, or not?:

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense.

 

[Machiavelli]

So let me get this straight: according to you, a defense case has to be based on specific alternative scenarios, and not just doubt about the prosecution's theory.

Let's say that this is true, with some caveats and limiataions. The point is the prosecution does not have a burden to pursue only one specific scenario, and not only the proscution can bring up guilty scenarios, in the discussion, all the parties can, also the preliminary judges can bring their own scenarios. The court does not need to say "yes" or no to one specific scenario, not necessarily. The court can well change and make their own elaboration to parts the scenario as long as this falls within the scope of the accusation.

To make a visual comparison: you may think an ideal "pure" adversarial trial as if the accusation is a line, that points straight in one direction, and the defense's task is an attempt to show the line broken or interrupted or deviated or manage to shift the defendant's position from the line.
Wheresas in the Italian sytem the accusation may be thought as a circle, never going straight to demonstrate a point but drawing a circle around, define an area, possibly a progressively narrower circle to find a truth that resemples the actual truth with best approximation, and show if the defendant falls within the circle.

This is not the same as to say that the defense has to object to any specific scenario. However the defense, if their line is to show reasonable doubt, they have to show the possibility of at least one reasonable scenario.
They don't have to demonstrate the scenario. But they have to base the concept of reasonable doubt on one or more reasonable alternatives.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense.[/B

I agree that the burden of proof is on the accusation side (which includes judges, not just prosecutors).
But this is not equivalent to say that the defense have no burden. They don't have a burden of proof regarding innocence, but they have a burden to bring arguments, as codified by jurisprudence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let me see if I have the process correct. Both teams have to wait for the Motivation Report from Hellmann then submit their respective appeals. The SC can only rule on issue of law, not the interpretation or validity of the evidence or decisions. So the appeal process will start this January.

So the prosecution will probably question the legality of C&V report and some other issues.
The defense, I assume, will go after the legality of the “interrogation” and as a result, the calunnia charges from Patrick. If the interrogation is found to be illegal, would that negate the slander ruling?

Another question, who has the onus to pursue criminal charges against Mignini, Comdi and Stefanoni. Does Hellmann address that in the Motivation Report or can the defense team bring charges against them. Submitting false documents, lying under oath, and presenting a statement from Rudy that he could not read or understand is surely contempt of court at a minimum.

There will be no criminal charge of sort and no element has ever emerged to suspect any wrongdoing.
Your allegations are false: they just never happened.

 

[Diocletus]

There will be no criminal charge of sort and no element has ever emerged to suspect any wrongdoing.
Your allegations are false: they just never happened.

Well, Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results.

Also, Stefanoni lied about the PCR quantification and doing negative control tests.

The cops lied about getting to the house before Raf called 112.

Also, the cops lied about not going into the murder room.

I'm not sure that Mignini and Comodi lied (although Comodi very well could have been complicit in the Stefanoni lies and Mignini could very well be lying about the interrogation). They did, however, engage in serious unethical behavior: they failed to disclose exclupatory evidence, were biased in their prosecution, made prejudicial statements with no basis in evidence, and were responsible for false, prejudicial "leaks" (lies) to the presss.

So, obviously, people should be charged with wrongdoing. Unfortunately, it appears that Italy has no system in place for correcting such abuses by authorities.

 

[JREF2010]

Well, Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results.

Also, Stefanoni lied about the PCR quantification and doing negative control tests.

The cops lied about getting to the house before Raf called 112.

Also, the cops lied about not going into the murder room.

I'm not sure that Mignini and Comodi lied (although Comodi very well could have been complicit in the Stefanoni lies and Mignini could very well be lying about the interrogation). They did, however, engage in serious unethical behavior: they failed to disclose exclupatory evidence, were biased in their prosecution, made prejudicial statements with no basis in evidence, and were responsible for false, prejudicial "leaks" (lies) to the presss.

So, obviously, people should be charged with wrongdoing. Unfortunately, it appears that Italy has no system in place for correcting such abuses by authorities.

Perjury in Perugia?

 

[snook1]

There will be no criminal charge of sort and no element has ever emerged to suspect any wrongdoing.
Your allegations are false: they just never happened.

Your opinion is both ignorant and lacks logic.
It did happen, many times.

However, I agree that there will be no criminal charges. It's Perugia we're talking about! It's Mignini we're talking about!

Carlo Della Vedova, when asked about Mignini, was polite and said basically nice things about the office. That was something that convinced me there will be no actions taken against them. However, I would like to see Commodi being charged with something. She's a witch!

 

[snook1]

Google Translator didn't help me alot, but what I was able to understand is that Raffaele is preparing a lawsuit. Is that correct?

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-sollecito-denuncia-4-giornalisti-diffamazione

 

[Diocletus]

Google Translator didn't help me alot, but what I was able to understand is that Raffaele is preparing a lawsuit. Is that correct?

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-sollecito-denuncia-4-giornalisti-diffamazione

The way I read the google translation is that the prosecutor from Sollecito's neighborhood has re-activated an old defamation complaint that Sollecito made back in 2008. It sounds like the prosecutor has asked the Perugian police to investigate whether some reporters reported a bunch of lies.

In particular, it seems like Sollecito is complaining about:
1) Reports that he was using massive amounts of drugs
2) Reports that DNA of Sollecito and Guede were found on the bra
3) Reports that Sollecito's shoe print was found

Hmmm. What if the reporters say that they were only reporting what the Perugian police told them? Could be interesting, particularly since the investigation is in the hands of a Puglia prosecutor.

 

[daydreamer]

There will be no criminal charge of sort and no element has ever emerged to suspect any wrongdoing.
Your allegations are false: they just never happened.

If you fail to agree that these things did happen, then discussion over, you are blind to the truth. It's no wonder that you have trouble with the verdict, you refuse to look at the whole picture.

 

[davefoc]

The way I read the google translation is that the prosecutor from Sollecito's neighborhood has re-activated an old defamation complaint that Sollecito made back in 2008. It sounds like the prosecutor has asked the Perugian police to investigate whether some reporters reported a bunch of lies.

In particular, it seems like Sollecito is complaining about:
1) Reports that he was using massive amounts of drugs
2) Reports that DNA of Sollecito and Guede were found on the bra
3) Reports that Sollecito's shoe print was found

Hmmm. What if the reporters say that they were only reporting what the Perugian police told them? Could be interesting, particularly since the investigation is in the hands of a Puglia prosecutor.

This would be an interesting issue in the US depending on which press shield laws were in force if any.

The idea behind press shield laws is to protect whistle blowers, but people try to extend them, as they did in the Libby case to protect people who are committing a crime with their revelations.

So if a prosecutor leaks false defamatory information is he committing a crime and as such not subject to protection from press shield laws? Maybe, but leaking false information is one of the tools in a prosecutor's belt and declaring it illegal in all cases may not be beneficial overall.

At any rate, it would be interesting to see how this would play out in the US and it might be interesting to see how this plays out in Italy.

As an aside I just realized that Stefanoni's first name was Patrizia. Italians have the best names. Why do we say Patricia when we could be saying Patrizia?

 

[Rolfe]

It is obvious to a judge they can be guilty,

On that basis, half of Perugia can be guilty. Can doesn't cut it. Ever heard of "beyond reasonable doubt"? Just being in the same town at the right time isn't enough to convict anyone (apart from Robert Black).

 

[RoseMontague]

It was not accepted. It was first submitted, but then formally rejected by Hellmann's court after a decision.

I missed the news reports on this one. Do you have a cite?

To me this is incorrect. The defense update only contained an analysis of screensaver related logs. They also contained a mention of the "Naruto" file, but the genuinity of this datum alone is very disputable.

To me what you say is incorrect. The police computer experts were incompetent morons. That was probably very obvious to the judge. It will be interesting to see what he says about this in the report.

There is no real diatribe. Independently from the prosecution's theory, they could well be guilty even if one of them of both of them left the cottage for a while, or if one remained home for longer. It is obvious to a judge they can be guilty, assessment doesn't have to depend to any specific prosecution's theory.

I agree. When Massei just makes up his own theories, ones that the defense has not had a chance to refute, this becomes rather obvious. Something doesn't really sound very fair about this, but it is what it is.

This makes no sense, as far as we know AK's computer was in Via della Pergola that night.

I think the main thing the defense was interested in with Amanda's computer was to help counter claims about a negative relationship between MK and AK.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you fail to agree that these things did happen, then discussion over, you are blind to the truth. It's no wonder that you have trouble with the verdict, you refuse to look at the whole picture.

Take heart, maybe the cops feel the same way, Mignini and Stefi are not suspected of anything. This way when they are taken in for questioning for this non-suspicious activity the cops are free to slap them around a bit. I can't wait to see Mignini's 3AM spontaneous statement.

 

[davefoc]

This would be an interesting issue in the US depending on which press shield laws were in force if any.

The idea behind press shield laws is to protect whistle blowers, but people try to extend them, as they did in the Libby case to protect people who are committing a crime with their revelations.

...

I've thought of this a bit more. Would press shield laws apply to a civil case in the US? Probably not I think. Reporter A reports that man B's blood was found at a crime scene. The information turns out to be false. Man B sues reporter A. Reporter A says the source of information was police informant and he won't divulge name based on press shield laws.

I don't think that would stand as a defense against libel in the US although this is way out of an area that I know much about. My guess is that the reporter and his publication would lose a civil suit unless they revealed the name of the informant and showed a good faith basis for the published information.

 

[Diocletus]

Take heart, maybe the cops feel the same way, Mignini and Stefi are not suspected of anything. This way when they are taken in for questioning for this non-suspicious activity the cops are free to slap them around a bit. I can't wait to see Mignini's 3AM spontaneous statement.

OMG. Could you imagine if someone deprived that guy of food and bagno? Would not turn out well.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you fail to agree that these things did happen, then discussion over, you are blind to the truth. It's no wonder that you have trouble with the verdict, you refuse to look at the whole picture.

They absolutely never happened. On some this can be proven as obvious: for example, that Guede was not able to answer on the meaning of words he used in his letter is obviously false, you would never think that if you just look at the video recording of his testimony.

 

[Diocletus]

that Guede was not able to answer on the meaning of words he used in his letter is obviously false.

Here's another obviously false statement: there were “a few hundred picograms of DNA” on knife trace B per real time quantification.