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

[smkovalinksy]

Komponisto posted new part of the translation
http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/conclusion/

Enthralling read, beautiful thinking!

Atta boy and high five to the team of translators and to the judges who wrote it

Agreed. This passage is particularly striking, from the concluding remarks:

In the end, the first-level Corte di Assise, in order to reconstruct the case presented to it, concluded that it could coordinate factual elements (held to be certain in themselves, but whose meaning was not entirely unambiguous) into a unified picture [quadro] in which each one of the elements could be given [conseguire] a definitive explanation, and all of them, collectively, an unambiguous meaning, giving rise to proof of guilt.

Now, however, the “bricks” of this edifice [costruzione] have themselves collapsed; that is, this is not a question merely of a differing arrangement [una diversa ricollocazione] of these bricks, so as not to permit the realization of the planned architectural project, but rather of a lack of material necessary for the construction [in the first place]. And the collapse of the material elements of the prosecution case [il progetto accusatorio] obviously does not permit us to arrive at a verdict [pronuncia] of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[smkovalinksy]

This passage, too, from the Conclusion translated so aptly, will surely resonate with the high court:

But the only circumstantial evidence which remains solid (consummation of the crime of calumny but without the alleged aggravating circumstance, not-totally-proven veracity of alibi, dubious reliability of witness Quintavalle) does not, even taken together, allow us to arrive at the conclusion that the culpability of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the crime of murder (and of the other crimes instrumental thereto) has been proven in any way. The collapse in its substance of the circumstantial evidence on which the Corte di Assise of first level based its own decision exempts us from having to propose an alternative hypothesis.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/conclusion/

 

[Grinder]

smkovalinksy,

Mr. Marriott gave explicit instructions that every other post had to have at least one atta boy or high five; you'd best pick up the pace.

I notice that Rudy claiming to defend himself with a chair against a knife wielding attacker in the cottage is an echo of Tramontano's description of Rudy's alleged burglary of his flat, when Rudy (allegedly) kept Tramontano at bay with a chair and jackknife before making his getaway with money and credit cards. One wonders whether there was ever any record of the thief trying to use those cards? A case of Rudy drawing on past experience?

This quote is very strange/interesting. Is the poster saying that Rudy did attempt to burglar Tramontano and used the chair technique then so he made it up after the murder? But he also implies that maybe the burglar wasn't Rudy.

Once again, the PGP would rather believe a heroin taking and dealing bum than a guy that was robbed. If I'm not mistaken Tramontano came forward on his own, yet he is not believed as much as the "trainee witnesses" that came forward only after a year and perhaps being paid for their stories.

 

[smkovalinksy]

smkovalinksy,

Mr. Marriott gave explicit instructions that every other post had to have at least one atta boy or high five; you'd best pick up the pace.



This quote is very strange/interesting. Is the poster saying that Rudy did attempt to burglar Tramontano and used the chair technique then so he made it up after the murder? But he also implies that maybe the burglar wasn't Rudy.

Once again, the PGP would rather believe a heroin taking and dealing bum than a guy that was robbed. If I'm not mistaken Tramontano came forward on his own, yet he is not believed as much as the "trainee witnesses" that came forward only after a year and perhaps being paid for their stories.

Ah, in that case, I must get with the program! Atta boy, what you point out is apt.

- Tramontano did come forward on his own, and to me, the story is just more bolstering of the fact that Guede was a petty career criminal. These things can escalate if one adds a surprise walk -in of a tenant during burglary, and drugs and sexualized ego issues thrown into the mix.

I do not blame Hellmann for "otherizing" Guede, as PMF has termed it. His own history speaks loudly. Knox and Sollecito - no matter the attempts made by PGs to paint them with the same brush as Guede - have no such corresponding history. This is not racism; it is fact. Hellmann is correct in what he asserts.

 

[smkovalinksy]

smkovalinksy,

Mr. Marriott gave explicit instructions that every other post had to have at least one atta boy or high five; you'd best pick up the pace.



This quote is very strange/interesting. Is the poster saying that Rudy did attempt to burglar Tramontano and used the chair technique then so he made it up after the murder? But he also implies that maybe the burglar wasn't Rudy.

Once again, the PGP would rather believe a heroin taking and dealing bum than a guy that was robbed. If I'm not mistaken Tramontano came forward on his own, yet he is not believed as much as the "trainee witnesses" that came forward only after a year and perhaps being paid for their stories.

Yes, but if it was not Rudy - and I think it was indeed him - how can they say he was "drawing on past experience"?

 

[smkovalinksy]

And Bravo/atta boy to the wonderful translator Komponisto of the Hellmann/Zenetti Report!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol application

Re the highlighted part: I think it's unlikely that even the Keystone Cops in this case literally poured Luminol solution onto the floor. But I do, however, think it's highly possible that they sprayed so much Luminol onto certain areas that they effectively ended up creating pools of the solution. Of course, the proper procedure is to apply a light mist of Luminol to the area being tested, in order to preserve the shape and integrity of any evidence to be exposed.

And regarding the strange sensitivity of the Luminol photos produced in this case, I strongly suspect that the exposures on these photos was pushed - either deliberately or through incompetence - and had the effect of maximising artifacts and the tiniest of reactions. We already know that the "official" exposure settings for many of the photos was 2-3 times higher than the recommended exposures, and there also may have been digital balance/contrast alteration applied (just like, for example, it's possible to do with photos of the walls of the cottage at nighttime )

LondonJohn,

It may be that little pools or puddles of solution were created just as you suggested. That is what this photograph looks like, but the resolution is not as great as I would wish.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just pondering....

So TJMK sees a parallel between the Lawrence case and the Kercher case:

UK High Court Convicts Two After 18 Years When Defense DNA Contamination Claims Lose Traction

Gary Dobson and David Norris have been found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence in 1993 by a jury at the Old Bailey.

There are some parallels between this case and the Meredith Kercher case: the police were accused of making a catalogue of errors and the defence lawyers claim forensic evidence was contaminated.

Gary Dobson was acquitted of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in 1996. However, the Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal.[. . .]

[from the Telegraph]

. . . A further criticism could be laid at the door of the scientists who failed to discover the blood spot in the 1990s. But experts pointed out that even if it had been discovered then, it would have been useless as DNA testing had not yet developed enough to be able to clarify that such a small stain was blood belonging to Stephen Lawrence.

The tiny stain found on Dobson’s jacket is believed, by forensic experts, to be the smallest piece of forensic evidence upon which a trial has ever been mounted.

The Italian Supreme Court should order another appeal trial on the grounds that the court consultants Vecchiotti and Conti failed to carry out a newly available test on the knife. That was despite the fact they were specifically instructed in their initial instructions to do so.

Also that Judge Hellman late in the appeal arbitrarily denied the prosecution request for precisely that test of the DNA without any good reason.

The prosecution grounds for their appeal to the Italian Supreme Court due this month are expected to repeat this request and we can see no grounds that could allow the Supreme Court to deny it. There are a number of laboratories that have the technology to carry out a test on the remaining DNA on the knife.

The requested test on the knife should go ahead.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Anyone care to venture a guess at how the Court of Cassation will likely respond to such a request for testing? And if things stand as we think and believe they do, would it not merely serve to finalize the acquittals?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So TJMK sees a parallel between the Lawrence case and the Kercher case:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Anyone care to venture a guess at how the Court of Cassation will likely respond to such a request for testing? And if things stand as we think and believe they do, would it not merely serve to finalize the acquittals?

I think it is funny that the group that fought against additional testing during the first trial is now shouting that additional testing is needed.

 

[Kaosium]

So TJMK sees a parallel between the Lawrence case and the Kercher case:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Anyone care to venture a guess at how the Court of Cassation will likely respond to such a request for testing? And if things stand as we think and believe they do, would it not merely serve to finalize the acquittals?

That always struck me as merely a bluff. What could they possibly 'test?' There was no biological material found, as per what Comodi 'expected.' Well, they found the starch, that was unexpected. Especially by myself who had bought into the 'extremely clean' or 'clean' nature of the knife, as it had been referred to as such so many times in Massei, I didn't even believe my lying eyes when shown a picture, I assumed the crud seen on it was an artifact of the photography or uploading process.

However, that starch being found precluded the possibility blood had ever been on that knife, so even if they somehow 'discovered' more of Meredith's DNA on the blade it would only beg the question of how it got there, since it didn't happen as a result of Meredith being stabbed with the knife, which didn't match the wounds anyway. It either must have legitimately gotten there through some sort of transfer, i.e. Amanda who lived with Meredith wiped it on her sleeve or something where a tiny dollop of DNA had gotten, or through more contamination--or fraud.

I'd be delighted if more independent scientists were to review the work. In fact, I think a fitting end to Novelli's disgraceful conduct regarding the case might be for someone to e-mail him saying they want his support for demanding Stefanoni's work in Massei, his testimony in court and the Conti-Vecchiotti report audited by a trio of randomly selected British forensic DNA experts.

He might just foul himself and spend the rest of the day on the bidet!

 

[anglolawyer]

So TJMK sees a parallel between the Lawrence case and the Kercher case:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Anyone care to venture a guess at how the Court of Cassation will likely respond to such a request for testing? And if things stand as we think and believe they do, would it not merely serve to finalize the acquittals?

It is not possible to re-test the knife, according to Conti-Vechiotti, only to comment on the procedures used by Stefanoni.

 

[smkovalinksy]

@Bruce Fisher, Kaosium, anglolawyer:

Thanks for the responses. Yes indeed, it does seem hypocritical to demand additional testing when in the first trial they saw no need for such. And I, too, was under the impression that C&V had claimed that re-testing of the knife was not even possible.

However, that starch being found precluded the possibility blood had ever been on that knife, so even if they somehow 'discovered' more of Meredith's DNA on the blade it would only beg the question of how it got there, since it didn't happen as a result of Meredith being stabbed with the knife, which didn't match the wounds anyway. It either must have legitimately gotten there through some sort of transfer, i.e. Amanda who lived with Meredith wiped it on her sleeve or something where a tiny dollop of DNA had gotten, or through more contamination--or fraud.

I'd be delighted if more independent scientists were to review the work. In fact, I think a fitting end to Novelli's disgraceful conduct regarding the case might be for someone to e-mail him saying they want his support for demanding Stefanoni's work in Massei, his testimony in court and the Conti-Vecchiotti report audited by a trio of randomly selected British forensic DNA experts.

He might just foul himself and spend the rest of the day on the bidet!

Yes.

 

[Grinder]

It wasn't just in the first trial but also in the appeal. They wanted no more testing at all and then threw a hissy-fit about C&V wanting to open the knife.

The Machine can see no grounds on how the Corte Suprema di Cassazione could deny this request. Well, until SA and rest of the merry band join in I'm not sure that I have confidence in his assessment. Will they also demand that the knife be opened this time?

Of course, I agree with all the excellent posters that pointed out that Stefanoni used up all of the sample she "found" in the crevice on the knife. How, pray-tell do the justice seekers expect another test to be done? Is it the case that they are saying Stefanoni was wrong that there was no more stuff to test or do they want the starch retested?

Perhaps they will now use Luminol on the knife as we all know now it is the end-all in testing for blood.

Perhaps the PG crew can work up some footprint matching for the blobs in the hallway and send it off to their inside connections and sources to be included in the appeal.

Over the years the mop mob has said they had important inside connections even that they had the Kerchers reading their sites and supporting them. If that were at all true, why are they in need of Charlie Wilkes supplying them with court information?

Doesn't Maresca have all the same access as the defense teams?

 

[MitNagel]

That always struck me as merely a bluff. What could they possibly 'test?'

By demanding extra testing they are trying to make it appear that it's a given that Meredith's DNA was in fact on the knife in the first place.

No such thing has been conceded.

 

[smkovalinksy]

As this was being cited on PMF this morning, I decided to have a look.

Simply horrid. Murphy, while admitting not being an expert on Italian justice, gives the host and audience to understand that if we would only stop listening to the PR machine, and "read the file", we would KNOW Knox is guilty, and that the Italian Supreme Court will overturn the appellate verdict.

Ugh. I wonder what her motive is? I guess to stand out and be different, and to be counted among the "outraged":

http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/search/v/46713768/boston-attorney-on-amanda-knox-conrad-murray.htm

 

[Bill Williams]

By demanding extra testing they are trying to make it appear that it's a given that Meredith's DNA was in fact on the knife in the first place.

No such thing has been conceded.

They are nothing if not consistent. Start with the assumption of it being Meredith's DNA, and when the testing shows it to be starch, then express doubts about the testing process because, afterall, it was Meredith's DNA.

Folks hanging on to the mistruth of guilt, need a refresher course in circular reasoning.

 

[smkovalinksy]

By demanding extra testing they are trying to make it appear that it's a given that Meredith's DNA was in fact on the knife in the first place.

No such thing has been conceded.

No. So what are they hoping to glean from such a test?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fecklessness from Wendy Murphy

As this was being cited on PMF this morning, I decided to have a look.

Simply horrid. Murphy, while admitting not being an expert on Italian justice, gives the host and audience to understand that if we would only stop listening to the PR machine, and "read the file", we would KNOW Knox is guilty, and that the Italian Supreme Court will overturn the appellate verdict.

Ugh. I wonder what her motive is? I guess to stand out and be different, and to be counted among the "outraged":

http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/search/v/46713768/boston-attorney-on-amanda-knox-conrad-murray.htm

smkovalinksy,

A few months ago (after one of her error-filled articles had just appeared), I sent Ms. Murphy an email offering to discuss the forensics of the case privately. My offer went unanswered. She wrote about the case in 2009 (making many factual errors), and it appears that she has not assimilated any new information, such as the Conti-Vecchiotti report) since that time.

 

[smkovalinksy]

smkovalinksy,

A few months ago (after one of her error-filled articles had just appeared), I sent Ms. Murphy an email offering to discuss the forensics of the case privately. My offer went unanswered. She wrote about the case in 2009 (making many factual errors), and it appears that she has not assimilated any new information, such as the Conti-Vecchiotti report) since that time.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Katody Matrass]

What a stupid, irresponsible and destructive person, this Murphy. Pretty much everything she said was factually wrong.