Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

...
Your thought here is that there is a technical consultant with a similar face and physique as Mignini that might have been walking around taking pictures with a small point and shoot camera at the crime scene? And that he sold the copyright to Barcroft? And that the police and Mignini thought this was OK so they just him do it without any repercussions? Is this common practice in Italy to have private consultants walking around crime scenes taking pictures for profit?

Absolutely not. Again, in all this the person who takes the photo has no role in the play. I don't know who took the photos, and you don't know neither. But it is obvious that the photo was taken by someone who was allowed by the police or was working with the police. This is something to be given as obvious.
I have no Idea if Mignini was there taking photos since I didn't see that scene of the video. But I repeat: whoever took the photos, it was among the police. These photos are all potentially documents that belong to the investigation. There is no private taking private photos here.

The qustion about ho took it has no relevance: the only question that might have an interest is who gave it to British journalists, and why, exactly for what purpose. For what use.
I remark that nothing about this photo or about a bathroom "soaked with blood" ever appeared in the Italian press.

The question why the Procura didn't investigate the "leak", is a non-issue. This, the appearence of a photo from an investigation file in a foreign tabloid, is not something for which the Procura may open an investigation.

There are two possible violations that may occur in the publication of this kind of material; there are two law articles that may be involved.
The first possible crime is art. 684 c.p. "pubblicazione di atti processuali" (to disclose judical acts from a trial). This is an administrative violation, it is punished with mild fees, and the only person guilty of the crime is the journalist or media who publishes them, not the source who provides them. Moreover, there must be a party (individual, subject) who complains for it, in order to prosecute this crime. And the complaint must be filled within a short time like 90 days from the fact.

There is a possible more serious violation which is art. 326 c.p. "rivelazione del segreto d’ufficio" (to disclose to the public secret acts from an office).
This one is more serious, involves also the person who leaks them. However there are conditions and caveats: in order to commit the crime, the file must be secret, the secretive nature of the file means that also the parites involved in the investigation are prevented from knowing its existence, it is not visible to any preliminary judge and not accessible to lawyers. The second condition to make it prosecutable, is that the publication of the secretive file must damage the work of the office. Which means, it must be demonstrated that a damage to the investigation, to the Procuras' work, has come from the revelation of that file. The office from which the file was leaked must complain to prosecute this crime: the art. 326 only protects the office, not the reputation or interests of private individuals.

Given the conditions and requirements, it is impossible to expect that an investigation for the publication of "pink bathroom" picture in the UK could ever stem from an initiative of the Procura. A Procura would never investigate such "leak" by its own initiative.

 

[Mary_H]

The significance of the "bathroom soaked in blood" picture is that many people, at least up until early 2010 when I started to take an interest in this case, seemed to believe that Amanda took her shower with the bathroom in this state. Needless to say, this was taken by some of the lynch mob as a certain indication of her part in the murder, as what innocent person would shower in such surroundings?<snip>

I have found that it wasn't the photo itself that formed people's opinions of the matter, but rather the word of mouth that it created. I have seen it written several times, "She showered in a blood-soaked bathroom". That photo started a myth, and it didn't matter to people whether they saw the bathroom pic or not. They simply heard about Amanda doing this unthinkable act, and that's the damage.

You guys are absolutely right. I forgot about the claim that Amanda had showered in the blood-soaked bathroom.

 

[Mary_H]

Wow, just wow.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

I thought all trials in the second instance were "new" trials and everything would be looked at with new eyes.

It seems very odd that you demand proof and names if anyone here thinks the police or Mignini did something untoward, but you allow yourself the luxury of this accusation of judicial malfeasance.
There was so much to doubt of the CSI work, I don't see how you feel C&V's work is questionable.

According to Machiavelli, there is quite a bit of corruption in the Italian courts after all.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Frankly, I feel this verdict is "dirty". I think it may be something like Tinebra's verdict on the via d'Amelio massacre, like the Cogne Appeal verdict, like the Andreotti-saving Cassazione verdict, like the Ustica criminal section verdict, or like many Carnevale's Cassazione verdicts. Or like Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia's acquittals, like the aborted Woodcock's investigation in POtenza, or like the aborted investigation by De Magistris in Catanzaro. May be instead only a wrong conclusion, like the Stasi first instance verdict; but more likely I feel it was like the above mentioned, I am more inclinded to think this, like the ones listed above, was not a mistake.

Is there rivalry between Massei and Hellmann? Other than the evidence, what would motivate Hellmann to change Massei's decision?

 

[Ammonitida]

Is there rivalry between Massei and Hellmann? Other than the evidence, what would motivate Hellmann to change Massei's decision?

This guy believes that the Sollecito family is very powerful and has connections to the freemassons (and mafia?). So I think he believes the influence of the Sollecito family is behind the acquittals.

 

[Kaosium]

Wow, you are good.

I just spent 15 minutes or so working with a photo manipulation program to compare an on-line profile image of Mignini with the crime scene image Dan O. posted and with my photo comparison skill level and the images available on-line of Mignini I would say that the two images match to the point that there is nothing that rules out the possibility that they are of the same individual and that the match is good enough that given the circumstances it is very likely that the crime scene image is of Mignini.

Unfortunately I don't have your skills, and I am not doubting them or LJs very interesting find, however when going through things like this I'm often forced to use other methods. Perhaps they may add to the understanding of the possibilities as I'd note that the data available for comparison is limited in that photograph, and elsewhere I have seen Mignini's picture of a few years ago compared to an artist's sketch of the Monster of Florence serial killer and the similarity is striking. That doesn't mean I think there's any (reasonable) possibility they are one and the same, but that Mignini's phenotype is perhaps not that unusual for an area with a common genetic heritage.

What I find interesting is whether Mignini doing this would actually be all that unusual for the context of this case, and something you may be unaware of which might be related, certain elements that think Amanda and Raffaele guilty fight this one tooth and nail. By that I mean the distribution of the bloody bathroom pic from the 'House of Horrors.' Considering the litany of dis/misinformation produced by the police to the press at the time this photo was distributed, is it really all that out of character for them to have deliberately produced a highly damaging photo such as this? The 'bleach receipts,' the Harry Potter book, the 'clear cut' CCTV video (this claim lasted months), as well as others, some of which are detailed by a recent post by Curi0us, I collected some as well and reproduce those as they're sourced with links. Incidentally neither of these are complete, I don't think a post yet has been written here or elsewhere that notes and details with sources the entire pattern of police and prosecution mendacity and disingenuous activities in this case. While some might seem of little relevance, it is important to consider that these were all 'proof' that Amanda Knox was a 'compulsive liar' which is a devastating allegation regarding her credibility with some people especially in Italy according to many on both sides, and as you can see in that link a charge they leveled against very soon after her arrest.

Now some of these might be simple mindless mistakes, separating the incompetence from corruption in this case is quite a difficult task and requires a dedication to objectivity, however when a pattern like this emerges I do believe that should be taken into account as well. It also dovetails on something I got the impression you were interested in: where does it come from? Frankly I suspect there is more than one (main) source, notably Head of Homicide for the Squadra Mobile (Flying Squad) Monica Napoleoni, and Mignini himself, who as prosecutor (unlike in the US or Britain) actually was in charge of the 'investigation' in this case. He also demonstrated he was 'concerned' with possible leaks and wielded authority over them, dismissing the original forensic pathologist Dr. Lalli for 'leaking' to the press, Dr. Lalli also being the man who seemed quite adamant there could only have been one attacker with the wounds and the size of the room.

What I am wondering is whether the reason this specific contention is so steadfastly fought and denied is because you and LJ are right and there is a plausible possibility this is in fact Mignini, and getting to the bottom of this would reveal that he was in fact responsible for at least part of the disinformation campaign, and of course approved or refuse to take action against anyone one else engaging in it? That denial could have been transmitted quite innocently by one of the reporters PMF has had contact with, or there might have been someone close to the prosecution who wittingly or no told the 'true story' of the picture and that's why it is so thoroughly contested, or perhaps there could have been something more, who knows. It's just something that occurred to me having read your posts recently and this current subject. I did always find it odd it was so vigorously insisted throughout this debate that this had to be a press error, when it seems so apparent many others were not.

I wonder if Machiavelli has an opinion about this. He seems to be more familiar with Mignini than most of us. Perhaps he could look at the crime scene videos and make a better determination?

That could prove interesting no matter what he answers...

This certainly is consistent with what Dan O. noticed about the fact that the published images didn't quite match the image shown in the court file. And it certainly would explain the copyright issue. Mignini might view the situation that he owned the rights to the photo since he took the picture (a questionable legal view but plausible). It would throw a new light onto the issue of the intent of the individual who released the images.

At this point is it known whether any of the images taken by this unknown photographer (but probably Mignini) were made available to the defense.

I still remain confused as to what is the source for all these pictures. Dan O. seems to have access to some kind of case file photos, and some kind of collection of photos used in the trial and a video of the crime scene. Would it be possible for links to all these sources to be listed here? Perhaps Machiavelli has some sources that he would like to post links to on this?

The defense released their information publicly and Charlie Wilkes (FOA) distributed the crime scene photos and videos along with other documents to these threads and Injustice in Perugia. Unfortunately most of the links to them in the first three threads went dead due to the fallout resulting from an error earlier this year, however I and others have re-posted many of them since from IIP.

The legendary 10k page 'case file' is the prosecution's entire reserve of evidence, and would make very interesting reading if it were ever released to the public in my opinion. Barbara Nadeau and John Follain at minimum have claimed to have perused it and quoted documents from it, the nature of gross errors in translations and information from both those cause me to wonder if that casefile might be the ultimate source for many of the 'press errors' in this case. Off the top of my head I'd like to see Amanda's diary entry that was corrupted to appear to accuse Raffaele, the story Amanda wrote that went from two brothers fighting to a graphic rape description, and how Amanda's list of former partners went from in her lifetime to just in her two months in Italy to solidify her 'status' in certain quarters.

Barbara Nadeau released a book riddled with factual errors and distortions which were also reflected in her columns. The same occurred to John Follain whose book was twice delayed and will finally be released next month. I am wondering if perhaps (some of the) 'press errors' in this case are due to relying on a thoroughly corrupt 'official' source for even documents.

ETA: It would also explain why Mignini didn't initiate an investigation of what looks at first glance like an illegal release of information about the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is there rivalry between Massei and Hellmann? Other than the evidence, what would motivate Hellmann to change Massei's decision?

No, nothing personal as far as I know. On the other hand Hellmann went against the opinions of a large number of judges, not just Massei. Hellmann used to be not involved in criminal trials before this one, and Zanetti has been moved to Terni, a tiny, useless venue with no perspectives compared to Perugia, an unusual destination in the career of an appeal judge in his position.

The motivation I am thinking about is not for purposes of rivalry and career, but for brotherhood. You must grasp the concept that Italian socieaty is not made of free individuals, but of brotheroods, families, affiliations, organizations.
The disturbing question is put also by Giancarlo di Cataldo, a judge in a court of Assise in Rome who is also a writer: "But how would I feel if I had to judge on a brother?".
The first question actually was the renounce by the first judge and the consequent appointing of Hellmann.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Kaosium,
Do you think any of the pictures you have have the EXIF data left in them. I went looking around the web for the original digital pictures of the crime scene and they weren't there. The EXIF data had been removed from the images I looked at. The EXIF data would among other things include time stamps and the type of camera used.

Machiavelli seems sure that the images taken by the photographer misterioso (PM) would have just been lumped together with all the other crime scene information by the police.

If this is so, the photos taken by PM should be in some kind of composite case file. Do you suppose they are there and were placed there reasonably close to the time they were taken? Do you suppose that some of the photos originally published were taken by PM and some of the photos taken were by the official police photographer?

Do you suppose the defense has been provided with both the photographs taken by the official photographer and PM?

Does Machiavelli have an idea who in the police department is authorized to sell the images taken by the police department and by the PM? Has there been a public accounting of what happened to the money made from selling the photographs owned by the police department?

Machiavelli seems to think the Barcroft might have just faked their copyright claims to the photos. Has he given any thought as to how this fake copyright fooled the Italian press into not publishing the bogusly copyrighted Barcroft images? I would have thought that somebody in the Italian press might not have been fooled by the wily Brit photo publishing house that profits by claiming copyrights that are invalid.

 

[Machiavelli]

..... He also demonstrated he was 'concerned' with possible leaks and wielded authority over them, dismissing the original forensic pathologist Dr. Lalli for 'leaking' to the press, Dr. Lalli also being the man who seemed quite adamant there could only have been one attacker with the wounds and the size of the room.
...

Lalli was not adamant at all: he said he had no conclusive idea on whether it was one or more assailants. He also said he had no conclusive element to state there was a sexual violence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you think any of the pictures you have have the EXIF data left in them. I went looking around the web for the original digital pictures of the crime scene and they weren't there. The EXIF data had been removed from the images I looked at. The EXIF data would among other things include time stamps and the type of camera used.

If the pictures are published by a media agency they won’t bear any metadata.

Machiavelli seems sure that the images taken by the photographer misterioso (PM) would have just been lumped together with all the other crime scene information by the police.

I’m not sure. But in fact there is no reason to assume it was not so, since there is an identical photo in a trial file. That the file was officially included in a file or not, makes no difference anyway in my opinion.

If this is so, the photos taken by PM should be in some kind of composite case file. Do you suppose they are there and were placed there reasonably close to the time they were taken? Do you suppose that some of the photos originally published were taken by PM and some of the photos taken were by the official police photographer?

The "composite case file" you address can be simply the investigation file (or the preliminary investigation file). This is a file that may change and evolve until the closing of the investigation. A lot of material is dropped off before the file is deposited.

Do you suppose the defense has been provided with both the photographs taken by the official photographer and PM?

It’s impossible to know. But if they have the same content, they will be considered legally identical (with the sole possible copyright issue).
I don't see how the picture from the file and that from mysterious photographer can be considered different, how one can be considered more intersting, more informative, more secret or more prejudicial than the other.

Does Machiavelli have an idea who in the police department is authorized to sell the images taken by the police department and by the PM? Has there been a public accounting of what happened to the money made from selling the photographs owned by the police department?

Nobody is authorized. But internal authorization are probably not a topic of your and our concern, and not of the Procura: the only thing that may interest a Procura is criminal investigation.
On the criminal point of view, there is probably no crime for which an officer can be charged if sells the photo to a press agency. There could be only a disciplinary sanction on a professional level, but no criminal investigation. It would be a wrong behaviour by their internal rules, not a crime.

Machiavelli seems to think the Barcroft might have just faked their copyright claims to the photos. Has he given any thought as to how this fake copyright fooled the Italian press into not publishing the bogusly copyrighted Barcroft images?

I think the Italian press was just not interested in having the photos. Maybe a weekly tabloid like Oggi could have been interested.

I would have thought that somebody in the Italian press might not have been fooled by the wily Brit photo publishing house that profits by claiming copyrights that are invalid.

I think you assume that the photo would have been interesting, because you think that maybe a subtitle like “bathroom soaked with blood” was attached to the photo. But if you don’t have a subtitle, an explanation (allegedly false) for the meaning of the photo, and if you don’t have a context of gore photos to publish together with it, the photo is just meaningless. This kind of photo is not really acceptable for the policy of most Italian newspapers: this is a murder scene, it is not news of important events like the killing of Gheddafi or terrorist attacks. Unless they have a precise story about it, a precise information given by the source, a respectable press source won’t publish it. They won’t publish any of the 100+ alleged police photos from the crime scene, unless there is a specific reason to show something. If there was any photo available which had an actual prejudicial meaning, which means if any photo could convey information on a suspect or “show” the suspects are guilty, this would build a true story to be sold, interesting enough for using the photo. The lack of publication mainly demonstrates the lack of reason, the lack of meaning for a story. This demonstrates the lack of prejudicial information in the picture.

 

[Mary_H]

Absolutely not. Again, in all this the person who takes the photo has no role in the play.<snip>

The question about who took it has no relevance: the only question that might have an interest is who gave it to British journalists, and why, exactly for what purpose. For what use.<snip>

Why does this reasoning not apply to Amanda's diary?

And let's throw this comment of yours in for good measure:

The photos were taken for sure by police photographers. But this does not make the photographer become the source of information. The pictures in fact may have been included and deposited in a preliminary investigation file or in a preliminary hearing file, and may be accessed by a large number of people.

 

[Matthew Best]

Frankly, I feel this verdict is "dirty". ... May be instead only a wrong conclusion, like the Stasi first instance verdict; but more likely I feel it was like the above mentioned, I am more inclinded to think this, like the ones listed above, was not a mistake.

Finally, you said something I can agree with!

 

[LashL]

On the criminal point of view, there is probably no crime for which an officer can be charged if sells the photo to a press agency. There could be only a disciplinary sanction on a professional level, but no criminal investigation. It would be a wrong behaviour by their internal rules, not a crime.

While I patiently await your response to my post 13,640 (no rush, take your time), this bit from your post above drew my attention.

You seem to be saying that it's not a criminal offence for a police officer (and/or a public magistrate such as Mignini) to sell crime scene photographs to be disseminated in the media. And yet, aren't various members of the Sollecito family charged with criminal offences for allegedly making crime scene video available to be disseminated in the media?

 

[davefoc]

Absolutely not. Again, in all this the person who takes the photo has no role in the play. I don't know who took the photos, and you don't know neither. But it is obvious that the photo was taken by someone who was allowed by the police or was working with the police. This is something to be given as obvious.

I am not a crime scene investigator but I know that chain of custody is a big deal with regard to the collection of evidence. A person walking around a crime scene clicking pictures with their personal camera is a big deal.

Was the time and date stamp in the camera checked? Was the person taking the pictures aware of the police procedures regarding the transfer of pictures into the official file? Was the camera checked to ensure that not only the pictures in the removable media were downloaded but the pictures in the non-removable media of the camera? Was the person officially registered in the crime scene documentation as a collector of evidence? Were procedures followed to ensure that the of pictures downloaded from the camera were in numerical order to insure that no pictures had been deleted, etc.?

I have no Idea if Mignini was there taking photos since I didn't see that scene of the video.

Do you have any thoughts about who might have been authorized to bring their personal camera into the crime scene and take pictures? Do you suppose that technicians can bring their private cameras to the crime scene and take pictures or do you suppose that the person using what was probably his personal camera to snap pictures didn't need authorization because he was the ranking authority at the crime scene?

So let's see there was a person at the crime scene with a build and face that strongly resembles Mignini that seems to have been authorized to use his private camera to take pictures of the crime scene. And you have no idea who it might have been. OK.

But I repeat: whoever took the photos, it was among the police. These photos are all potentially documents that belong to the investigation. There is no private taking private photos here.

So you're sure the photos taken by the mystery photographer were turned in and not used as the individual saw fit.

And you know this because you've looked at the crime scene photos and have found both photographs by the official photographer and the mystery photographer?

The qustion about who took it has no relevance:

Let's just for hypothetical purposes assume that it was Mignini and that the original photos released through Barcroft all turned out to be from the camera used by Mignini. Would you think that has some relevance to the issue of why the photos were released? Since you seem to be unaware of who might have authorized the release of the photos are you sure that Mignini did not sell the first series of pictures released to the public to Barcroft? If Mignini or whoever the mystery photographer was did that do you think that would be ethical? Do you think it would be legal?

the only question that might have an interest is who gave it to British journalists, and why, exactly for what purpose. For what use.
I remark that nothing about this photo or about a bathroom "soaked with blood" ever appeared in the Italian press.

...

Assuming that is true, your claim seems to be that the Italian press didn't print them because they don't print gory pictures of crime scenes. So how do you feel about the police bypassing the sensibilities of Italians and releasing the pictures to a British outfit so the pictures could be transferred back to Italy via the Internet?

 

[curi0us]

I think you assume that the photo would have been interesting, because you think that maybe a subtitle like “bathroom soaked with blood” was attached to the photo.

I acknowledge at this time it is not clear how or why exactly the photo got published but I think it was definitely interesting even without a caption. The image dovetailed perfectly with Filomena's statement about Knox showering even though there was "blood everywhere" and the police claims that they had interrupted a clean up that required a mop and two separate store runs for bleach (with receipts!).

My color acuity is not the best so maybe to others it was more obvious the "blood" was the wrong color but to me it looked like blood that had been diluted to pink by a partial clean up. With what was told to the public about the crime at the time that made perfect sense. In a few places, like the sink corner by the wall closest to the camera the chemical looks close enough to blood to me that I would consider the slightly odd color to be due my lack of experience cleaning up large amounts of blood making me not exactly sure what it should look like in such a situation.

Other places the pink color can be explained by dilution. For example in the sink basin the color clearly is too light for pure blood, but if someone had been cleaning up a very bloody scene during which the sink filled with water that mixed with blood as the sink drained it might look a lot like how the sink basin looks. A thin film of blood residue on top of the white porcelain would probably look light pink, I am just guessing of course, but I think the 99% of the population who had never heard of phenolphthalein before was thinking blood stains when they saw that photo.

There is a subtle but significant difference in hue between the two crime scene photos Dan O posted. The photo Dan says came from the case file has a pronounced magenta (candy purple?) tone that I think makes it not look like blood but the color is much closer to a diluted red (AKA pink) in the image the DailyMail used. That might just be a natural difference due to camera quality, but it highlights why a slightly off photo color might be discounted by some people. Unless someone knows about phenolphthalein they would likely blame a slightly off color on some kind of photographic artifact.

The other issue besides the color is how haphazardly and inconsistently the chemical was used making the stains look more like the results of weirdly random (psycho) criminals rather than methodical forensic investigators. There was so much chemical sprayed on the sink top towards the back that it pooled and overflowed and left red streaks down the side of the sink while other areas clearly weren't covered the same way so it looks to the casual observer like something very different then a scientific application of forensic chemicals.

The most significant detail is that though the Daily Mail started the story a bunch of other British and American news sources with greater legitimacy repeated it, not just because they blindly trusted the the Daily Mail but because more than anything else the photo looked like a partially cleaned up gruesome bloody murder scene.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi Kaosium,
Do you think any of the pictures you have have the EXIF data left in them. I went looking around the web for the original digital pictures of the crime scene and they weren't there. The EXIF data had been removed from the images I looked at. The EXIF data would among other things include time stamps and the type of camera used.

Machiavelli seems sure that the images taken by the photographer misterioso (PM) would have just been lumped together with all the other crime scene information by the police.

If this is so, the photos taken by PM should be in some kind of composite case file. Do you suppose they are there and were placed there reasonably close to the time they were taken? Do you suppose that some of the photos originally published were taken by PM and some of the photos taken were by the official police photographer?

Do you suppose the defense has been provided with both the photographs taken by the official photographer and PM?

Does Machiavelli have an idea who in the police department is authorized to sell the images taken by the police department and by the PM? Has there been a public accounting of what happened to the money made from selling the photographs owned by the police department?

Machiavelli seems to think the Barcroft might have just faked their copyright claims to the photos. Has he given any thought as to how this fake copyright fooled the Italian press into not publishing the bogusly copyrighted Barcroft images? I would have thought that somebody in the Italian press might not have been fooled by the wily Brit photo publishing house that profits by claiming copyrights that are invalid.

Unfortunately you are speaking a foreign language to me!

I have asked someone who might understand what things like 'EXIF' might mean to look into it. Those look like good questions, the answers to them might lead to something revealing.

 

[curi0us]

I consider the spreading of this vision of things as a direct danger to my safety in the territory I live in. I think that if another of your fellows commits a rape and murder of a girl here you will just defend him or her, and this would tend to establish that any person will be allowed to kill and walk free, if there is the same evidence against him as that against AK and RS, and this claim of a license to kill is just not remotely acceptable to me. And, that in one country there are prople who think to build a sanctuary for murderers where they “believe” other people are evil and corrupt, where idiots come here to insult officers in court, where people believe a foreigner should be considered a serial killer and a burglar without proof, this is not acceptable neither.

What are your views on Forza Nuova?

It seems like the Amanda Knox case has struck a deep chord with you and you have an audience here if you want to tell us more.

 

[Dan O.]

I have seen EXIF data from the three Nikon cameras used at the crime scene. I have not seen EXIF data from any other camera attached to crime scene photos.

Often the EXIF data is stripped from photos placed on the web but there are some notable exceptions. The Luminol photos available here still have the full EXIF metadata attached.

Dave asks if the time and date stamps were checked. Why would ILE worry about such trivial things. The time on camera that the videographer was using was off by an hour as noted in <dr stefanoni's testimony.

 

[Freddy]

On a superficial level, the difference stems directly from the Vecchiotti and Conti report. This new material allows the necessary change to the evidence set between the first and the second trial, in order to motivate a different decision by the judges.
But on a deeper level, the difference was announced even before the start of the discussion, as Zanetti declared that "the only sure thing is that Meredith was killed" and they said that "reasonable doubt does not allow to share entirely the decision of the first instance". Those announcements - retrospectively - show that an intent was already present before the beginning of the discussion; in practice the had decided before the start.
On a deeper level, the difference between the first and the second trial is in how the whole discussion on evidence has been set. This reveals that there was an intent to consider the pieces of evidence differently.

I agree with you that once the court announced its intention to disregard evidence that is not reliable or probative, the outcome was certain.

But I don't understand your objection to this. Why shouldn't a court of appeals look at the evidence from a fresh perspective, decide for itself how much weight to give to various pieces of evidence, and draw its own conclusions? In the American system appeals courts do not reweigh the evidence as long as there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to convict (acquittals by a jury are generally not reviewable due to double jeopardy). But in the Italian system the appeals court is supposed to re-examine the evidence. It is not bound by what the lower court found convincing.

I suppose you are right that the appeals court was unimpressed from the outset with the quality of the case against Knox and Sollecito. But that is not evidence of bias or corruption unless the court was unreasonable in being unimpressed by the prosecution's case. Given the number of people who have followed the case and are similarly unimpressed, I think it's a seriously uphill battle to argue the appeals verdict was objectively unreasonable. I find it wholly implausible that the court acted in bad faith in acquitting. Everyone here except you thinks the evidence points to innocence, and so do most people according to polls. I assure you that we really believe that, and that this isn't some sort of global conspiracy. Why is it difficult to believe that the appeals court genuinely believed the totality of the evidence justified an acquittal?

 

[Kaosium]

Lalli was not adamant at all: he said he had no conclusive idea on whether it was one or more assailants. He also said he had no conclusive element to state there was a sexual violence.

I'm not talking about his autopsy report or his court testimony, I'm talking about what he said that got reported as him not thinking there could be more than one attacker due mainly to the size of the room and something about how the injuries were inflicted. This is before he was dismissed from the case, and I recall thinking he was more adamant than he ought to be going off that data alone. Was this from Frank Sfarzo when he talked to him?

The official reason Mignini sacked him was talking to press (on the phone?) about the nature of the assault, probably due to things that we don't have to bring up in this discussion. However this would have been something else he said that might not have sat well with Mignini.