Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[smkovalinksy]

530.1 does not imply "proof of innocence without doubt". Instead, it implies that there was no evidence pointing to guilt. That's very different. Any case where there was an acquittal because of "proof of innocence without doubt" should never have got to trial in the first place. And very few innocent defendants can ever prove their innocence. But of course that's not the point: defendants are not required to prove their innocence (but of course it's an instant game-winner to them if they can do so!). Rather, the court has to find guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason, in order to convict. If such a burden of proof cannot be met, the the defendant has to be acquitted and presumed innocent.

On a related issue, I wonder just what Maresca's motivation is at this point. He must surely realise that he is facing an ethical dilemma regarding his fee: given that the civil judgement against Knox/Sollecito has been thrown out, he has no way of claiming his (presumably massive) fees other than demanding it from the Kerchers themselves. Even he can probably understand how uneasily this would sit with his stated "crusade" on behalf of the Kerchers: yep, go ahead and wipe them out financially! Nice work! I therefore can't help thinking that Maresca is a somewhat desperate man at this stage, and is rolling the dice on the chances of a successful prosecution Supreme Court appeal. As far as I can tell, his only hope of getting paid without attracting huge public opprobrium is if the case gets sent back to the appeal court, if Knox/Sollecito are subsequently convicted, and if the civil judgement is re-awarded. But that's not going to happen, and I suspect Maresca knows it. Oh dear.

Yes, I had wondered what was driving Maresca as well, and always did believe during the appeals process that he was deceiving the Kerchers about the evidence, for monetary gain, which speaks for itself.

 

[Grinder]

The bathmat print would have needed to match only 1 in a 1,000 to be definitive in matching a person to it, maybe even a higher number.

It has always been a false dichotomy to say it must be Rudy's or Raffaele's. If Raffaele could have been in the murder room and left no evidence then so could someone else that accompanied Rudy that night.

Draca wrote:

The problem for the prosecution now is how do they possibly hope to prove the print belongs to Raffaele Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt? There clearly is reasonable doubt. The jury did not find the print to belong to RS. Was the jury unreasonable? How is there any further hope for the prosecution to reverse that?

For the print to be used to ID someone it would have to be a higher standard than reasonable doubt - really beyond a shadow of a doubt because that kind of evidence is so powerful. Fingerprints generally require at least 10 points of perfect match and no points that don't match. DNA is presented as 1 in millions.

Prints either match or they don't, no kindas.

 

[daydreamer]

I've enjoyed watching the phony footprint analysis on PMF. The confirmation bias is so obvious it's downright silly. It's the obvious work of amateurs who are clearly out of their depth and have no idea what they're doing. No one on earth is taking these cruddy looking doodle pictures seriously. It's become one big joke and is convincing no one. Good for a laugh though.

For me, the bathmat footprint thing never meant much for the following reasons:

1) The bathmat is an irregular surface. The reference prints are made by placing a piece of paper on a solid flat surface, then applying a homogeneous layer of ink on the bottom of the foot, then carefully applying a downward force on the paper with the inked foot. I would venture to say that if you place the same paper on the bathmat first then stepped on it; you would get an entirely different print.
2) The bathmat is made of absorbent material. If a wet foot stepped on it, the moisture would be wicked away, therefore distorting the print making it difficult to make accurate measurements.
3) For the reference prints, the ink is more paste-like and uniformly applied to insure no smudging occurs. The bloody foot was most likely non-uniformly covered with a water-blood mixture that was non-uniform. A print from a foot in this condition would contain distortions and artificial features.
4) Lastly, the reference prints were made by a static downward force. I assume that the bathmat print was made by more of a walking motion which would smudge the front portion of the print as the weigh is shifted from the heel to the ball of the foot. Again if you made a print using the same reference process, except you used a walking motion, there would be significant differences in the resulting print.

I think it would be interesting to have 5 individuals, who have not seen the reference prints, create a drawing from the bathmat photos, complete with measurements. Then, compare the 5 drawings. I would be willing to bet you would get 5 significantly different renditions. And if that is not “reasonable doubt”, I don’t know what is.

I think the best you can do is state that it is a bloody footprint probably made by the killer. Trying to assign it to any one individual is just plain folly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Probably I am looking at different pictures than you.

Can you post the ones you are looking at? I think each of us is allowed our opinions, but neither of us are allowed to select which facts are germane.

This is not aimed at you, but i remember way back-when, when someone posted something somewhere about "the video of Knox attacking Kercher." I thought, "the video!?!?!" Yes, the one presented at trial.

Turns out to be a CGI-computer created mock up of what the combined gang attack against Kercher could have looked like. Once I found it on Youtube I became even more convinced of a sole attacker, Guede only - then when it was pointed out to me that Knox's clothes that she wore on the night of the 1st were still on her bed after her 2 Nov morning shower - the clothes had been tested for forensic information and guess what? Nada. Nothing. Nil.

So much for the "video of Knox attacking Kercher". How much actual evidence of innocence for Knox and Sollecito does one need? I'm not talking about reasonable doubt here, a doubt not accorded to the defendents in Massei's 39 probablies? How much actual proof of innocence is enough?

I think this case has set a world's record for the sheer volume of completely fabricated evidence. By fabricated, I imagine all the internet surfers like me who stumble upon a "video of Knox attacking Kercher" and in the loneliness of their room at night sit there convinced they personally figured this case out.

And then they had the gall to criticize the Knox/Mellas clan for hiring a PR firm!

So, yes, I'd like to see the pics you are looking at, unless they've been fried like the hard-drives.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just clarifying a question re appeal

Just to clarify a question I had , which of course stint on pmf had had a field day with, claiming I was too dense to grasp the logistics.

After reading that: 1. the appeal would at most be a 1-2 day affair, argued only on the most narrow technical grounds, I expressed my disbelief that : 2. there would be a full appellate trial, encompassing all of the original Massei assertions and evidence, taking perhaps years to settle.

This, because it sounded to me as though the prosecutorial appeal would be merely perfunctory; a formality, as it were, and that they would have no real ammunition, leading me to conclude that in Rome, Hellmann's rulings would be upheld quickly.

This was why I could not understand the PG insistence that this was "far from over".

My alleged denseness notwithstanding, I wonder which is the accurate description of what the appeal will encompass, 1 or 2. To my thinking, this is a legitimate enough question.

 

[MitNagel]

No reasonable doubt criteria has to be applied on single pieces of evidence.

If I were a SC judge, I would see plenty of room to overturn this point of judgement by Hellmann's court just on sheer logical reasons, because of their utterly flawed arguments, with no need to enter the matter of measurements and attribution of the print.

But Hellmann doesn't appear to agree with you.

He seems to think that individual pieces of evidence do need to pass the reasonable doubt test.

 

[anglolawyer]

Up thread London John was discussing time of death. No one seems to mention another pointer to an early (not long after 21:00) TOD - the mushroom fragment. The victim had a piece of undigested mushroom in her oesophagus, just above the stomach. No mushroom was consumed in the meal she took with her friends. The fridge at the apartment contains a large plastic tub of mushrooms, possibly on Meredith's shelf (there is a jar of something with her name on it on that shelf right beside the mushrooms, all of which can be seen in the second crime scene video shot on 18/12/2007).

She didn't have any mushroom in her upper digestive system when she walked through the door. She did before she was killed. There is mushroom in the fridge. Ergo she ate mushroom from the fridge. The mushroom was not digested, meaning (I am so advised by a captive medical practitioner) it was consumed no more than 30 minutes before death but probably less.

It seems unlikely she hung around for a couple of hours without removing her jacket, using her phone, removing her washing from the laundry or snacking on mushroom. On the contrary, it is more natural to suppose she went straight to the fridge, grabbed a piece of mushroom and maybe went to her room, Rudy following shortly after. If she went to the fridge to get some mushroom at 11 or 11.30 it would follow either that Rudy hid for a couple of hours, or burgled the property much later than he said he did or that his presence was known to the victim and tolerated, none of which are credible.

The mushroom is another pointer to an earl TOD and also shows she was not attacked immediately upon entry as some seem to believe.

I am currently in minor disputation about this with Frank Sfarzo who is defending Nara Capazzeli's evidence of scream plus running. He wants the front door open so she can hear the scream but I think the mushroom means it was closed. I don't know whether Nara heard the victim's or someone else's scream or no scream at all but her evidence is 'scream followed by people running'. That is not possible if Rudy acted alone as he had things to do after the murder that would have taken some time. The people running, if any, must be other people not connected with the case who have never been traced and have not come forward to corroborate the scream which they must also have heard.

 

[Diocletus]

Illegal Interrogation

As to the 1:45, 5:45 and “Gift” statements, Hellmann holds that the statements are inadmissible in connection with the murder because:

1) Knox was a suspect when the statements were made (explaining that the Supreme Court has already decided that these statements are inadmissible because “given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect [indagata]”); and

2) The statements were not “spontaneous” (explaining that Knox “did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes”).

I find this very interesting in light of discussions that we have had on this subject previously. It was strenuously argued, by someone who claimed to have knowledge of Italian law, that Knox’s right to counsel was not violated because she had not been formally declared a “suspect” at that time the statements were made. According to this poster, only a de jure suspect and not a de facto suspect can have a right to counsel under Italian law. It turns out that this is wrong according to the Supreme Court and Hellmann, who, it appears, have both said that Knox was a suspect entitled to counsel prior to the time that Mignini decided to formally declare her as such.

In fact, Hellmann is explaining that the Supreme Court held that each of the 1:45, 5:45 and Gift statements are inadmissible to show murder because Knox was an “indagata” who was denied counsel. In addition, Hellmann himself rejects the prosecution’s argument that the statements should nevertheless be admitted as “spontaneous” statements, and to support this conclusion, holds that Knox was deprived of counsel in violation of her rights.
Based on this, we can clearly say that the police and Mignini violated Knox’s right to counsel. This is a violation of Italian domestic law and European human rights law. The interrogation was illegal and the statements are the fruit of this illegal interrogation.

This opens up a very nice discussion on the issues of entrapment and the exclusionary rule . . .

 

[smkovalinksy]

Addendum to my question:What I meant to ask, in case I did not word it clearly enough, is : Was that report about "only on very narrow technical grounds" accurate regarding the appeal, or does the prosecution in actuality have much more leeway than this, allowing them to launch an appeal which would be far more comprehensive and all-encompassing?

 

[TruthCalls]

No reasonable doubt criteria has to be applied on single pieces of evidence.
If I were a SC judge, I would see plenty of room to overturn this point of judgement by Hellmann's court just on sheer logical reasons, because of their utterly flawed arguments, with no need to enter the matter of measurements and attribution of the print.

Huh? Of course a single piece of evidence has to get beyond reasonable doubt or it won't be considered relevant evidence. If the prosecution can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the print is Raffaele's, then the print is useless (to the prosecution, that is). Hellmann takes it a step further by indicating the Appeals Court believes the print to be Rudy's, but that wasn't required.

I thought Grinder's original question/comment, regarding the 'depth' of the blood/water was confusing. Your response was even more so. Could you be more clear in your explanation of why you think the Appeal Court's logic on this matter was so utterly flawed? Thanks..

 

[anglolawyer]

Huh? Of course a single piece of evidence has to get beyond reasonable doubt or it won't be considered relevant evidence. If the prosecution can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the print is Raffaele's, then the print is useless (to the prosecution, that is). Hellmann takes it a step further by indicating the Appeals Court believes the print to be Rudy's, but that wasn't required.

I thought Grinder's original question/comment, regarding the 'depth' of the blood/water was confusing. Your response was even more so. Could you be more clear in your explanation of why you think the Appeal Court's logic on this matter was so utterly flawed? Thanks..

With respect, the only thing which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is responsibility for the crime alleged. There is no separate burden of proof for individual elements of the prosecution case. The totality of its case must convince the jury so that it can be sure of guilt. In theory, there might be such an extraordinary and improbable number of circumstances, none of which can individually be proved beyond a reasonable doubt individually, which cumulatively point conclusively to guilt.

It would be a gross and unfair handicap to the prosecution if each element of its case had to be either proved to this standard or abandoned entirely.

I am not expressing any opinion about whether the bathmat print can be reliably attributed to any individual.

 

[Grinder]

Huh? Of course a single piece of evidence has to get beyond reasonable doubt or it won't be considered relevant evidence. If the prosecution can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the print is Raffaele's, then the print is useless (to the prosecution, that is). Hellmann takes it a step further by indicating the Appeals Court believes the print to be Rudy's, but that wasn't required.

I thought Grinder's original question/comment, regarding the 'depth' of the blood/water was confusing. Your response was even more so. Could you be more clear in your explanation of why you think the Appeal Court's logic on this matter was so utterly flawed? Thanks..

I'll probably make it more confusing but I'll try to make it clear.

In order for Raffaele's foot to leave the area between his big toe and foot on the mat there would need to be bloody water on it. That area of his foot does not print on the reference paper because it is arched. Between the triangle of the big toe and the foot Raf's doesn't touch the ground. On the bathmat the foot is connected to the big toe with no gaps just like Rudy's reference print.

In order for Raf's foot to leave a solid print between the foot and the toe he would needed to have "inked" that part of his foot which would require that the bloody water would need to be deep enough to reach that arched area. If the bloody water was deep enough to do that the entire foot should be "inked" and then the entire foot should show up on the mat but it doesn't; ergo it's Rudy's.

It really doesn't matter because the mat print can't be matched to Raffaele, it only can be said to be compatible and that's not nearly enough to be considered evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

No reasonable doubt criteria has to be applied on single pieces of evidence.

If I were a SC judge, I would see plenty of room to overturn this point of judgement by Hellmann's court just on sheer logical reasons, because of their utterly flawed arguments, with no need to enter the matter of measurements and attribution of the print.

While true in some cases and with some kinds of evidence, I'm afraid you've just sunk your argument with this one post. If this is what you truly believe, then you are very welceom to go on believing it.

Right now, as the evidence stands the bathmat is the only remaining hint that Raffaele was anywhere near the cottage on that tragic night. If Sollecito had a Guede-like DNA forensic profile splattered all over the place, then maybe, just maybe you'd be correct about the burden of proof on the bathmat. But in that hypothetical case, the bathmat issue would be completely secondary.

But this is the ONLY remaining hint that Raffaele is anywhere near the cottage or anyone remotely interesting in this case. If it does not pass the beyond reasonable doubt test, then how does one establish anything about Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think at this point the PGP bring up "all the other stuff pointing to guilt", without actually saying what "all that other stuff" is. There is no other stuff.

It is the bathmat or nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. The score is 40-love for it being Guede's.

You mentioned you have seen pictures that I have not seen. I'd like a look at them. But the PGP simply cannot make things up.

PGP simply cannot make things up on the fly like, "beyond a reasonable doubt does not belong to individual pieces of evidence." And then further retreat to "well, even if the bathmat print isn't Sollecito's, there's still all the other stuff pointing to him." You just can't print random words into a text editor and expect it to prove things.

That is what it amounts to it seems.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because he doesn't need to: just as I had originally thought, and contrary to the impression Machiavelli had all of us under, there is no legal difference between "530.1 acquittal" and "530.2 acquittal". In current Italian law, there is only conviction or acquittal, just like in the American system (and not like e.g. the Scottish system).

Section 530.1 says "the judge shall pronounce a verdict of acquittal", and section 530.2 also says "the judge shall pronounce a verdict of acquittal". In either case, the ruling being pronounced is the same.

There used to be a Scottish-style two-tiered system in Italian law, but it was abolished. This is why people refer to "la vecchia insufficienza di prove" ("the old [acquittal for] lack of evidence"). Note that word, vecchia, "old", i.e. former, anterior, of-the-past. There is no longer any such thing.

The Cassazione has confirmed as much: in a ruling of July 8, 2002, they held that a defendant acquitted "under 530.2" has no cause to appeal the verdict -- in direct contrast to the situation before, under the old code. Under the current one, not guilty is not guilty, and that's all there is to it.

Anyone who makes a fuss about an alleged distinction between "full formula" and "dubitative formula" acquittals is operating under an outdated jurisprudence.

Absolutely not. The "vecchia insufficienza di prove" was a formula existing in the procedure code prior to 1988.
The 530.2 paragraph has been created when the formula was abolished.
The 530.2 is not supposed to be the same thing of the old formula. It is a condition thought to replace it, but should be more favourable than the old third option acquittal. But still, it is not as favourable as the 530.1.
It is not the same of 530.1. The 530.1 is a formula that in fact "protects" the defendant from possible further civil consequences, investigations and lawsuits. So it protecs also from further trials and is usable in other trial.
If there is no 530.1, there is no actual shield against civil claims and the defendant misses a tool to defend his/her reputation. If the defendant is entitled to a 530.1 acquittal and the judge does not issue it formaly, the omission would be an unjust damage for the defendant.
Thus, people are mistaken if they assume a verdict is a 530.1 kind acquittal when this paragraph is not mentioned: in fact, if there is no first paragraph mentioned, the "word" saying there is no evidence is missing.
Under the moral point of view, thre is quite a difference betwee, 530.1 and 530.2. Because the pronouncement of 530.2 sounds still like a stigma, this judge decided to not mention it. But this does not belong formally to jurisprudence, it is an arbitrary "adversarial" ideological drift: the lack of a declaration 530.1 stands out to me as obviously implying that there can't be a 530.1 here.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Up thread London John was discussing time of death. No one seems to mention another pointer to an early (not long after 21:00) TOD - the mushroom fragment. The victim had a piece of undigested mushroom in her oesophagus, just above the stomach. No mushroom was consumed in the meal she took with her friends. The fridge at the apartment contains a large plastic tub of mushrooms, possibly on Meredith's shelf (there is a jar of something with her name on it on that shelf right beside the mushrooms, all of which can be seen in the second crime scene video shot on 18/12/2007).

She didn't have any mushroom in her upper digestive system when she walked through the door. She did before she was killed. There is mushroom in the fridge. Ergo she ate mushroom from the fridge. The mushroom was not digested, meaning (I am so advised by a captive medical practitioner) it was consumed no more than 30 minutes before death but probably less.

It seems unlikely she hung around for a couple of hours without removing her jacket, using her phone, removing her washing from the laundry or snacking on mushroom. On the contrary, it is more natural to suppose she went straight to the fridge, grabbed a piece of mushroom and maybe went to her room, Rudy following shortly after. If she went to the fridge to get some mushroom at 11 or 11.30 it would follow either that Rudy hid for a couple of hours, or burgled the property much later than he said he did or that his presence was known to the victim and tolerated, none of which are credible.

The mushroom is another pointer to an earl TOD and also shows she was not attacked immediately upon entry as some seem to believe.

I am currently in minor disputation about this with Frank Sfarzo who is defending Nara Capazzeli's evidence of scream plus running. He wants the front door open so she can hear the scream but I think the mushroom means it was closed. I don't know whether Nara heard the victim's or someone else's scream or no scream at all but her evidence is 'scream followed by people running'. That is not possible if Rudy acted alone as he had things to do after the murder that would have taken some time. The people running, if any, must be other people not connected with the case who have never been traced and have not come forward to corroborate the scream which they must also have heard.

Many months ago on websleuths forum, there was an argument about the piece of mushroom lodged in the esophagus, and it was argued that it was a piece of apple, from the desert served at MK's friends'. I wish I could recall the thread or the link, but it was said authoritatively that it was later found to be baked apple, and seemed to be accepted by all, and closed the discussion down.

I recall reading that it was quite a common occurrence to hear laughter, yells, footsteps bouncing on metal stairs in that area, and had discounted the scream. I never did think the scream came from MK, and when I used to be PG myself, thought it was more likely to be Knox, realizing what had occurred. Now, I discount the scream, as I no longer know what feasibility to give it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Folks, it really is like I said - the crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not little bits of the prosecution case. I have never heard closing submissions addressing the question whether this or that fact has been so proved. Even if all that were left against Raffaele were the bathmat print and it could be proved conclusively it was his it would still be necessary to prove the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Many months ago on websleuths forum, there was an argument about the piece of mushroom lodged in the esophagus, and it was argued that it was a piece of apple, from the desert served at MK's friends'. I wish I could recall the thread or the link, but it was said authoritatively that it was later found to be baked apple, and seemed to be accepted by all, and closed the discussion down.

I recall reading that it was quite a common occurrence to hear laughter, yells, footsteps bouncing on metal stairs in that area, and had discounted the scream. I never did think the scream came from MK, and when I used to be PG myself, thought it was more likely to be Knox, realizing what had occurred. Now, I discount the scream, as I no longer know what feasibility to give it.

Thanks. I wish I could see that discussion. Did they know there was mushroom in the fridge?

 

[Draca]

Just to clarify a question I had , which of course stint on pmf had had a field day with, claiming I was too dense to grasp the logistics.

After reading that: 1. the appeal would at most be a 1-2 day affair, argued only on the most narrow technical grounds, I expressed my disbelief that : 2. there would be a full appellate trial, encompassing all of the original Massei assertions and evidence, taking perhaps years to settle.

This, because it sounded to me as though the prosecutorial appeal would be merely perfunctory; a formality, as it were, and that they would have no real ammunition, leading me to conclude that in Rome, Hellmann's rulings would be upheld quickly.

This was why I could not understand the PG insistence that this was "far from over".

My alleged denseness notwithstanding, I wonder which is the accurate description of what the appeal will encompass, 1 or 2. To my thinking, this is a legitimate enough question.

You are correct and the guilters are wrong. It would be more accurate to say its over! or at least its almost over! Amanda and Raffaele are out of jail and are never going back.

The 3rd degree of the trial will be more like the U.S. appeals where technicalities and procedures are looked at for the most part.

 

[smkovalinksy]

You are correct and the guilters are wrong. It would be more accurate to say its over! or at least its almost over! Amanda and Raffaele are out of jail and are never going back.

The 3rd degree of the trial will be more like the U.S. appeals where technicalities and procedures are looked at for the most part.

Thanks for helping to clarify this! I had thought from my news reading that it was the case that narrow technicalities - and not the totality of the case and the first Massei rulling - would determine the outcome, but then became confused by pmf discussions. Thanks again.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Thanks. I wish I could see that discussion. Did they know there was mushroom in the fridge?

I wish I could find it. It was sometime in the summer, on the "Meredith Kercher murder" threads, and I recall being a bit annoyed, as I had believed the mushroom story, and was now shouted down by these others with the apple story. I suppose I could look for it, but there were many threads, I do not recall what month it was. But a word search on the forum might do it.