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

[smkovalinksy]

@ anglolawyer:
Here is an old websleuth's post where someone was telling me it was an apple, and I was quoting Frank Sfarzo about the mushroom.

Below, someone quotes Massei:

Originally Posted by wasnt_me
This is not true, SMK.

It was a piece of apple from her dessert with her friends earlier. her friends said they did NOT have anything with mushrooms in it. And if it so happened to be a mushroom, where did it come from? What evidence at the cottage showed that after she got home from dinner, she suddenly decided she just wanted to eat one mushroom? Where are the other mushrooms it came with?

I read a report that it was a piece of apple from her dessert that hadn't gone down yet, proving how closely she'd eaten to the time that she died. I also read they hadn't even preserved the piece, which is why I don't think those people can investigate properly the contents of an empty paper bag.

I'd once read that RS was attributed with chopping up the mushrooms. I guess he decided to shove just one down her throat and somehow dispose of all the other mushrooms, but leave his "supposed" footprint on a bathmat, which is just another absurd claim that the prosecution made about the print. we all know and RG knows, that was his foot on that bathmat.
OK, I really had read that it was a mushroom, and Hendry even has in his analysis that she comes home and picks a mushroom out of the fridge. (or was it an analysis I read on Perugia Shock? May have been the latter.)But okie, it maybe is not true.
Mignini said in the summary that a mushroom was found lodged in Kercher's esophagus, although a friend with whom she had dinner said the Briton didn't eat any.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-slaying_N.htm
again, Mignini on the mushroom here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-killers.html
and from Perugia Murder File:"Meredith had an undigested champignon mushroom in her esophagus"http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vie...&t=162&p=18823
and from IIP: The prosecution assumes a mushroom was eaten after she returned home. ... An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus. . .
The first autopsy showed a mushroom had been found in the student's throat. Friends of Meredith have told police that she ate a slice of pizza and a piece of cake - but no mushrooms - at 6pm while watching a video on the night she died.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1MtodXUTy
And here is Frank Sfarzo's old post from Perugia Shock:

We may imagine, for instance, that that evening Rudy went to visit the boys downstairs, uninvited, as he used to do. There was nobody there and he noticed that in the girls' apartment there was no one as well. So he returned towards the town. By the basketball court he maybe met two delinquents, those who are dangerous, those who have a knife in their jacket ready to use.
Maybe these people wanted him to return some money, and wanted them immediately. He wouldn't have them and to save himself he maybe proposed to go look in that isolated cottage, a place easy to break-in unseen, a place where he knew there was no one and certainly there had to be something of value.
In the meanwhile probably Meredith came back home.
Maybe they went to the house and Rudy buzzed, just to be sure there was no one in.
But Meredith was in (a little piece of mushroom was found in her esophagus so maybe she was in the kitchen where she had tasted something that was in the fridge). Maybe she went to the door and asked who was. Rudy made recognize himself, I'm Rudy the friend of Giacomo and Stefano, remember?
Maybe Meredith opened the door to that gentle voice and the two junkies entered together with Rudy
Last edited by SMK; 05-20-2011 at 10:40 AM.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...meredith+kercher,+apple,+mushroom#post6519948

"He (Professor Introna) recalled the reports by Dr. Lalli and the other experts stating that under macroscopic examination, the stomach contents revealed a piece of apple and floury fragments which might have been from the crumble or from the pizza. He also recalled that the emptying of the stomach under standard conditions starts around three and a half hours after the start of a meal, say between three and four hours after, and that the term "emptying" indicates the stomach emptying its contents (into the duodenum). "

(Massei, Eng trans, p132)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7253200#post7253200

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I'm not sure it ever was properly established - whether inside or outside a courtroom - that the piece of food matter in Meredith's oesophagus was apple rather than mushroom.

If it were apple, this would be mysterious in itself. The English girls testified that they prepared and ate the apple crumble around half way through the film, which would have been approximately 7.30-8.00pm. And Meredith was self-evidently not attacked before 9pm at the very earliest. There is essentially no way that a piece of apple ingested at 8pm would be in a position and condition to be regurgitated whole up into the oesophagus an hour later. Even if Meredith had grabbed a last piece of the apple crumble just before she left the girls' house for her journey home, she still had a 15-minute medium-paced walk before the earliest that she could have been attacked.

I think that the condition and position of the food matter in the oesophagus indicates quite clearly that Meredith had something small to eat very shortly before she was attacked. The food matter either never reached the cardiac opening (where the oesophagus meets the stomach), or it had only just entered the stomach and was in the very start of the fundus. And this in turn tends to suggest that this food matter was ingested once Meredith had arrived back at the cottage. It's simply not consistent with having been ingested even 15-20 minutes earlier, let alone an hour earlier.

I believe that the most likely scenario is that Meredith did indeed wander over to the refrigerator when she arrived home, and took a raw mushroom from the packet seen there in the crime scene photos (or maybe a loose slice of mushroom in that packet that was left over from a previous meal preparation). I believe that the confrontation and attack happened within minutes (or even seconds) of Meredith eating the mushroom piece.

Oh, and it seems that with regard to potential libel actions, some people are still having considerable trouble understanding the legal definition of "opinion" for the purposes of a libel defence. Here's a handy example which might help:

1. This is an opinion, which is an acceptable libel defence:
In my opinion [insert name of famous rock band here] are a semi-talented (at best) group of charlatans who have exploited style over substance in order to forge a music career.

2. This is not an opinion, and is not an acceptable libel defence:
In my opinion [insert name of lead singer of famous rock band here] is a major heroin dealer and racketeer.

Perhaps the more astute among us can see the difference. Hint: simply putting "in my opinion..." before a statement of fact does not make it an opinion in legal terms

 

[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 have now located reference to the mushroom/apple fragment in Raffaele's appeal (Amanda's was silent). It's interesting. His team wanted it to be apple but the prosecution wanted it to be mushroom (to suggest post-arrival activity and therefore a late TOD). Astonishingly, the nature of the fragment was a matter of speculation only as it had not actually been tested when Massei gave judgment (what the ****?!?!?). That the prosecution was happy to rely on it without proving properly what it was (which did not stop Massei finding it was mushroom and basing speculative reasoning on it) is as amazing as the fragment itself us important.

The thing is, it was said to be undigested. The meal finished at 7.00 p.m. Two hours before she got home. Can something remain undigested that long? Or was the forensic pathologist no better at distinguishing digested from undigested than apple from mushroom?

Anyway, while I see where Raffaele's defence was coming from, I think it's a clear pointer to an early TOD if it is mushroom.

Does anyone know whether the test requested by the defence was carried out?

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was a requirement in a legal sense. I meant, if you intend to use a piece of evidence in making your case, there best be some basis in fact to support the evidence or it will have little or no value. Evidence that, in itself can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, will likely add little, if anything, to a court's decision. So while the prosecution may wish to present the print as Raffaele's, they have in no way proven it beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, the Appeals Court summarily dismissed it.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

Thanks Grinder, very clear -- got it now (and fwiw, agree).

 

[Bill Williams]

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

But you can express an opinion about what "reliably" means. Does it beyond a reasonable doubt or does it mean on the balance of probabilities? Or somewhere in between?

 

[LondonJohn]

@ anglolawyer:
Here is an old websleuth's post where someone was telling me it was an apple, and I was quoting Frank Sfarzo about the mushroom.

Below, someone quotes Massei:

The Massei portion you have quoted:

He (Professor Introna) recalled the reports by Dr. Lalli and the other experts stating that under macroscopic examination, the stomach contents revealed a piece of apple and floury fragments which might have been from the crumble or from the pizza. He also recalled that the emptying of the stomach under standard conditions starts around three and a half hours after the start of a meal, say between three and four hours after, and that the term "emptying" indicates the stomach emptying its contents (into the duodenum).

is not relevant to a discussion of the food matter found in the oesophagus. The subject of the above quote is the stomach contents themselves - i.e. a totally different part of the digestive system. There was at least one piece of semi-digested apple in the partially-digested stomach volume of some 500ml. this is wholly consistent with Meredith having eaten the apple crumble at around 8pm and having died by 9.30pm.

It's not unheard of for a person to eject the entire stomach contents by vomiting when experiencing the noradrenalin-fuelled "fight or flight" syndrome, as well as a bowel evacuation via the rectum. There are sound evolutionary reasons for this: closing down the digestive system means that more blood and nerve power can be devoted to the brain and the major muscle groups, which the body needs to operate at maximum power for the short period of major danger and jeopardy.

But that's clearly not what happened in this case. 500ml of chyme matter was discovered in Meredith's stomach post-mortem, and there's no indication whatsoever that she either vomited or evacuated her bowels during the attack. The small wholly-intact piece of food matter in the oesophagus is therefore an anomaly, and cannot be linked to traumatic regurgitation (if it were the product of such regurgitation, far more of the stomach contents would have been ejected - not just one small piece of food). It can only therefore be reasonably assumed to have been a piece of food consumed separate from the main meal (which comprised the 500ml of stomach contents).

 

[Grinder]

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

I just don't see how the bathmat print meets the criteria for being admissible. I know the above is for US courts but how can any system allow the prosecution to just pile on with unreliable "evidence".

"Look this fingerprint could possibly be his because the 10% that we can see is a good match to the corner of his finger, the DNA here has 3 alleles in common with him, the car's tires are a 20% match..." If prosecutors were allowed to bring in dozens of these kinda sortas it just wouldn't be justice.

What does a judge instruct a jury about evidence like the bathmat print? Does he tell them that unless they are sure the print matches they must ignore it?

In this case, if one were to believe that the print matches, it would mean that he is guilty, case closed. Certainly this piece of evidence has to meet at least the reasonable doubt standard and I still say higher, beyond a shadow.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The Massei portion you have quoted:




is not relevant to a discussion of the food matter found in the oesophagus. The subject of the above quote is the stomach contents themselves - i.e. a totally different part of the digestive system. There was at least one piece of semi-digested apple in the partially-digested stomach volume of some 500ml. this is wholly consistent with Meredith having eaten the apple crumble at around 8pm and having died by 9.30pm.

It's not unheard of for a person to eject the entire stomach contents by vomiting when experiencing the noradrenalin-fuelled "fight or flight" syndrome, as well as a bowel evacuation via the rectum. There are sound evolutionary reasons for this: closing down the digestive system means that more blood and nerve power can be devoted to the brain and the major muscle groups, which the body needs to operate at maximum power for the short period of major danger and jeopardy.

But that's clearly not what happened in this case. 500ml of chyme matter was discovered in Meredith's stomach post-mortem, and there's no indication whatsoever that she either vomited or evacuated her bowels during the attack. The small wholly-intact piece of food matter in the oesophagus is therefore an anomaly, and cannot be linked to traumatic regurgitation (if it were the product of such regurgitation, far more of the stomach contents would have been ejected - not just one small piece of food). It can only therefore be reasonably assumed to have been a piece of food consumed separate from the main meal (which comprised the 500ml of stomach contents).

Alright. This was from a discussion many months ago on another forum. Most of it was posted by someone else - I was trying to direct anglolawyer to that site by showing him the old posts. I never really saw the relevance of this particular piece of data, as stomach contents analysis pointed to a 9:30 pm TOD along with many other things.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What does a judge instruct a jury about evidence like the bathmat print? Does he tell them that unless they are sure the print matches they must ignore it?

US courts give broad instructions, telling jurors to rely on their experience and their judgment in weighing all evidence. But the public can't necessarily tell good science from bad. Advertisers are proof of that. We need legal standards to keep forensic frauds from ever reaching the witness stand.

"Pedal evidence" is one of the areas that has been shamelessly abused. Louise Robbins was an academic who discovered easy money as a consultant for prosecutors. She could tell the race, height, and gender of a suspect by examining one shoe print - and it always turned out to be the guy the prosecutors wanted to nail. She has been formally repudiated by the forensics community, which didn't stop Rinaldi, the prosecution's footprint expert in the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from using her methodology and citing it in his report.

Regarding the bathmat print in this case, Yummi/Machiavelli has boxed himself into a corner. By elaborating on the various adjustments and considerations needed to reconcile the bathmat print with Sollecito's reference print, he ends up describing the very reasons why the print is inherently unreliable as an identifying mark.

 

[anglolawyer]

Will someone be kind enough to instruct me by PM how to select and quote from others' posts? Ideally in words of one syllable. Pending that, on burden of proof, it is, as I said, the crime which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If you hang your case on one thing only (an improbability but never mind that) you may need proof to a high degree of certainty, let alone probability, whereas a more rounded case may include elements which are merely persuasive so long as cumulatively they remove all reasonable doubt. There is often a high measure of doubt about ID evidence, so much so that it is often necessary to corroborate it. The whole concept of corroboration concerns buttressing one piece of evidence with another. The burden of proof applies to the crime and the only question for the jury is whether they are sure of guilt.

Thanks very much for the posts on the mushroom. I am glad to see I am not alone on it. The put down post Smokalinsky quotes reveals ignorance in large degree, as the writer does not know there is not just mushroom in the fridge but it is there in quantity and very likely on Meredith's shelf (once more, there is a jar with her name on it right next to the mushroom and thus us a shared, student apartment). He also seems not to know about the human digestive system (neither do I) so it is interesting to read the post above on the improbability of a morsel of apple remaining undigested in the stomach for a couple of hours.

If it is what Dr Lalli said (and btw. there are several references to the mushroom, not just the one quoted in a post above) various quite important things may follow:

1 Meredith was not attacked on arrival
2 the apartment front door was probably locked (and thus had to be unlocked after the attack)
3 Meredith ate some mushroom shortly before being murdered
4 together with other signs, it is probable she ate the mushroom shortly after arriving home

All of which points to an early TOD and no confrontation in the kitchen. It's interesting that the prosecution, the court at first instance and, on appeal, Raffaele's team all thought it pointed to a late TOD. I think they were all wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

US courts give broad instructions, telling jurors to rely on their experience and their judgment in weighing all evidence. But the public can't necessarily tell good science from bad. Advertisers are proof of that. We need legal standards to keep forensic frauds from ever reaching the witness stand.

"Pedal evidence" is one of the areas that has been shamelessly abused. Louise Robbins was an academic who discovered easy money as a consultant for prosecutors. She could tell the race, height, and gender of a suspect by examining one shoe print - and it always turned out to be the guy the prosecutors wanted to nail. She has been formally repudiated by the forensics community, which didn't stop Rinaldi, the prosecution's footprint expert in the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from using her methodology and citing it in his report.

Regarding the bathmat print in this case, Yummi/Machiavelli has boxed himself into a corner. By elaborating on the various adjustments and considerations needed to reconcile the bathmat print with Sollecito's reference print, he ends up describing the very reasons why the print is inherently unreliable as an identifying mark.

Yes, forensic foot shape analysis has long been exposed as pseudoscientific nonsense so far as making positive identifications is involved. It's true to say that if a suspect has a particularly unusual foot shape, a foot shape print might be of some probative value for identification purposes. But if the foot is of "normal" size and shape, then it's simply impossible to narrow down the list of possible owners of that print sufficiently for it to be of any real value.

Imagine, for example, if a prosecutor presented a crime scene DNA sample to a court and triumphantly saying something like: "This sample could only have been deposited by one in ten of the population! It clearly therefore belongs to the defendant!" Somewhat different to a DNA sample that matches only one in 20 million of the population, I think you'd agree. And that's why blood typing (i.e. A, O, B, etc) was never used in court as a positive identification tool (possibly unless the group was B- or AB-, which are each only shared by around 1-2% of the population).

Therefore, all one can say about the partial print on the bathmat is that it was deposited by an adult male with slightly above-average foot size. Additionally, the print has quite clearly been distorted and made irregular by the texture and height profile of the bathmat on which it was made. And in this particular investigation, the situation is even more clear-cut, since there is another adult male with the appropriate foot size who has admitted to cleaning himself in the bathroom after the murder: Rudy Guede. The print almost certainly belongs to him (although of course it's not necessary to prove that fact when assessing the guilt of Sollecito). Caso chiuso.


* as opposed to true footprint analysis where the loops, whorls and creases of the toes and sole are latently imprinted onto a smooth surface, and can be analysed in a similar way to fingerprints.

 

[anglolawyer]

But you can express an opinion about what "reliably" means. Does it beyond a reasonable doubt or does it mean on the balance of probabilities? Or somewhere in between?

I think it depends on what you are relying on it for. To prove murder, it means (in our context) 'with a high degree of certainty' but to prove something more anodyne it might mean much less.

I am not a trial lawyer (i.e. a barrister - for the most part - in our jurisdiction) just an experienced solicitor, but I have never heard legal submissions about whether this or that fact is proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'on a balance of probabilities' or some such. Nor am I aware of any law requiring such proof. The classic direction to the jury is that they should only convict if, having regard to all the evidence, they are sure of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Individual bits of the case are matters for debate: as to relative weight, relevance, reliability etc. etc. It is the case as a whole which determines the outcome.

 

[Paninaro]

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.

It´s obvious that as the judge is not obliged to state the difference, there is no difference, even if you wish to believe so. The verdict doesn't tell us of any difference, and the most simple explanation for this is that Hellmann and his court doesn't recognize this difference. Italy is moving away from this medevial thinking. If you are found not guilty, you are to be viewed as innocent.

Welcome in to the modern world of justice, Machiavelli.

 

[Machiavelli]

US courts give broad instructions, telling jurors to rely on their experience and their judgment in weighing all evidence. But the public can't necessarily tell good science from bad. Advertisers are proof of that. We need legal standards to keep forensic frauds from ever reaching the witness stand.

"Pedal evidence" is one of the areas that has been shamelessly abused. Louise Robbins was an academic who discovered easy money as a consultant for prosecutors. She could tell the race, height, and gender of a suspect by examining one shoe print - and it always turned out to be the guy the prosecutors wanted to nail. She has been formally repudiated by the forensics community, which didn't stop Rinaldi, the prosecution's footprint expert in the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from using her methodology and citing it in his report.

Regarding the bathmat print in this case, Yummi/Machiavelli has boxed himself into a corner. By elaborating on the various adjustments and considerations needed to reconcile the bathmat print with Sollecito's reference print, he ends up describing the very reasons why the print is inherently unreliable as an identifying mark.

The print doesn't need to be an identifying mark, in order to be a piece of evidence.
Its inherent information, by which it can be shown compatible with Sollecito and not with Guede, makes the evidence.

You should be aware of - and remind it - that Francesco Vinci has also called his measurement grid "the L. M. Robbins grid".
I suppose that the simple bringing in the name "Robbins" merely indicates an instrument, and does not imply that the expert employs Robbins' methodology. So please, if you recall the name Robbins, than associate it also with Vinci and not just with Rinaldi.

 

[Diocletus]

Entrapment and its Consequences

Duress and entrapment are two similar defenses to a criminal charge. Duress applies to excuse a crime when a third person has used the threat of death or serious harm to cause the perpetrator to commit the crime. In the case of entrapment, it is the government that has caused the perpetrator to commit the crime, and, because we hold the government to a high standard of behavior, a mere showing that the government motivated the crime is enough to establish the defense and thus excuse the crime. Entrapment does not negate the intent to commit a crime, but rather, it excuses the crime on public policy grounds because the intent to commit the crime originated with the government.

In the United States, entrapment is a defense, which once raised, usually must be rebutted by the government by proof sufficient to carry the government’s burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of the defense are simple: the defendant need only show that there was (i) government inducement (i.e., conduct that would persuade a reasonable person to commit the crime), and (ii) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant (i.e., the defendant would not have otherwise committed the crime).

Given the findings that Hellmann has made, Amanda Knox would almost certainly have a valid entrapment defense in the United States. First, it is clear that after “obsessive” interrogation the Perugian authorities induced Knox to accuse Lumumba, both by “insist[ing] on an explanation of the message she sent to [Lumumba],” and by engaging in extreme and unlawful conduct that placed Knox in a “psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden.” Given these findings, it is difficult to see how the government could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Entrapment is widely recognized as a mitigating factor in criminal matters, but other jurisdictions apply different remedies for situations of entrapment. In Britain and Canada, for example, entrapment is not a substantive defense, but if entrapment is shown, the courts may exercise a kind of equitable discretion to refuse to proceed with the charges. Alternatively, the evidence adduced through the entrapment may be excluded.

Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has held that entrapment of suspects, and the use of evidence obtained by entrapment, may deprive a defendant of the right to a fair trial embodied in article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention. See Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal.

The status of entrapment law in Italy is not clear to me and I would like more information about it. But certainly, Teixeira’s prohibition against the use of evidence obtained by entrapment would be applicable. Other resources suggest that Italy actually goes further than this, and imposes accomplice liability on police officers who induce a crime through entrapment.

Hellmann has made findings to fact that while conducting a custodial interrogation of a suspect, the Perugian police both initiated the accusation of Lumumba and pressured Knox to make the accusation. In other words, the police entrapped Knox to commit the calunnia. Under European Human rights law, the evidence derived from the entrapment, i.e., the accusation, should not have been used to prosecute Knox. Further, if the sources are accurate concerning the status of entrapment law in Italy, then the Perugian authorities should actually be charged and tried for the crime of aiding and abetting the callunia.

I think that the above issue might be a reason why we might NOT see an appeal by the prosecution in this matter--it would be very embarrassing for the Perugian authorities to be found to have violated Knox's rights, lose the callunia conviction, and possibly be subject to criminal liability themselves. On the other hand, if there is an appeal, then Hellmann has handed a very hot potato to the Supreme Court and it will be interesting to see what is done given the fact that Hellmann has established that an entrapment occurred. Ultimately, the Supreme Court might have to set some standards for police behavior in Italy, just like Conti and Vecchiotti had to set some standards for police forensics work.

 

[Bill Williams]

The print doesn't need to be an identifying mark, in order to be a piece of evidence.
Its inherent information, by which it can be shown compatible with Sollecito and not with Guede, makes the evidence.

The only people in the universe who are saying this, are PGP who will claim Amanda Knox is guilty "just because". The fact of the matter is that the bathmat footprint is inconclusive as evidence anyways.

But the reason why PGP cling to this is that this is the very last bit of evidence they can claim that even hints that Sollecito might have been there that night. It is Custer's Last Stand, and I fully expect PGP to argue this with their last breath.

PGP pretty much have to, because if this goes, then PGP pretty much have to admit that the only reason they think Amanda Knox is guilty is because they hate her so much. No other reason. They hate her because she swiveled her hips and said "Hoopla". Also that she did gymnastics in a police station.

Fact is, the bathmat footprint is completely forensically inconclusive. The overwhelming evidence is that Guede did this thing and did it alone. To say that the bathmat footprint rules out Guede is silly - and I am still waiting for the photo you say rules him out. I guess not producing the photo will not stop you from claiming these obvious non-sequitors.

 

[JREF2010]

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.

This is how I always imagined it too.
Its likely his sock was still on, if his intention was only rinsing off his pant leg.
The half print might be due to a clean towel laying on the floor at the time too. Its possible, is all I'm saying.

 

[Dan O.]

You should be aware of - and remind it - that Francesco Vinci has also called his measurement grid "the L. M. Robbins grid".
I suppose that the simple bringing in the name "Robbins" merely indicates an instrument, and does not imply that the expert employs Robbins' methodology.

Can you describe what makes this grid so special that it needs a new name as opposed to say a Cartesian Grid?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The print doesn't need to be an identifying mark, in order to be a piece of evidence.
Its inherent information, by which it can be shown compatible with Sollecito and not with Guede, makes the evidence.

You should be aware of - and remind it - that Francesco Vinci has also called his measurement grid "the L. M. Robbins grid".
I suppose that the simple bringing in the name "Robbins" merely indicates an instrument, and does not imply that the expert employs Robbins' methodology. So please, if you recall the name Robbins, than associate it also with Vinci and not just with Rinaldi.

Let's be clear: Rinaldi introduced the Robbins grid. Vinci responded with a counter-argument. The fact that Rinaldi so much as mentioned the name "Robbins" in his report suggests he has no clue what has been going on in his supposed field of expertise for the past two decades. In the annals of forensic science, Louise Robbins holds a position roughly comparable to that of Wilhelm Reich in psychiatry. If a scientific fraud submits research done with an orgone box, a real scientist might use an orgone box to test the findings... but that doesn't mean the real scientist is endorsing the concept of an orgone box.