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

[freeski]

Answering my own question, the answer is: no. Rudy was only charged with murder and sexual assault, as is apparent from the Micheli report.

I read recently that it was Romanelli who said that Meredith had the rent money ready. That girl has a lot to answer for:
- glass on the clothes. Not what the crime scene photos show.
- Meredith never locked her door. Amanda's response probably lost in translation.
- Rent money stolen. Seems this was never the case.
- She went back in and took her computer.
- She disturbed the crime scene in her own bedroom.

But then she had her promising law degree to think about. So I guess her legal antennae were very sensitive to convince her to keep as much distance as possible between her and Amanda. It's not unlikely that her legal contacts alerted her to what the police might be thinking in those first few days. Perugia leaks like a sieve.

And what kind of legal friend was she who didn't insist that Amanda get a lawyer? She must have seen what was happening.

The classic about Filomena is in Micheli where he says it can't have been Filomena who went back to rearrange the crime scene in Meredith's room because she was staying with her boyfriend. I mean, duh. Ironically, she's the one who we know actually did go back and disturb part of the crime scene.

I wonder where she is now and how she feel about it all? Probably doesn't give a toss I suppose.

 

[Grinder]

A 'system' which generates such lies (one of many) consists of people, commonly known as 'liars'. Why would law enforcers be lying to the press about the case? Why are they talking to the press at all? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the case was to be tried before a non-sequestered Perugia jury and the further fact that these people like winning their cases and the further further fact that the jury will not be able to separate the evidence they hear in court from the background noise in the press?

Ah yes, the bleach receipts. That went with the middle of the might laundromat sighting, being surprised by the police while holding the clean-up mop and bucket, the running washing machine, etc.

Not being an Italian speaker I'm not sure what the Italian papers were saying and if the British tabs were just lifting the stories from them. Now that I know that the "trainee" journalist "found" 3 or 4 of the "key" witnesses I wonder how much activist journalism is common in Italy.

Over time I've become more a believer in incompetents rather than active framing. Perhaps a ILE member would tell another of a rumor and they would tell their wife and the wife had a friend whose husband worked at a paper and the story was born.

It wasn't just what the jury heard and read outside the court from these sources but what made in into Massei's courtroom. Mignini actually read part of the British tab story on the party Amanda hosted in Seattle that turned into a mini riot into the court records in front of the jury.

 

[christianahannah]

I read recently that it was Romanelli who said that Meredith had the rent money ready. That girl has a lot to answer for:
- glass on the clothes. Not what the crime scene photos show.
- Meredith never locked her door. Amanda's response probably lost in translation.
- Rent money stolen. Seems this was never the case.
- She went back in and took her computer.
- She disturbed the crime scene in her own bedroom.

But then she had her promising law degree to think about. So I guess her legal antennae were very sensitive to convince her to keep as much distance as possible between her and Amanda. It's not unlikely that her legal contacts alerted her to what the police might be thinking in those first few days. Perugia leaks like a sieve.

And what kind of legal friend was she who didn't insist that Amanda get a lawyer? She must have seen what was happening.

The classic about Filomena is in Micheli where he says it can't have been Filomena who went back to rearrange the crime scene in Meredith's room because she was staying with her boyfriend. I mean, duh. Ironically, she's the one who we know actually did go back and disturb part of the crime scene.

I wonder where she is now and how she feel about it all? Probably doesn't give a toss I suppose.

Amanda's testimony gives some vague details concerning Meredith's rent money. It was part of a discussion that the four girls were having.

Ghirga: Did you also talk about the rent at that time, on October 30? About payment?

AK: I think Meredith offered to pay right away, but they said no no, wait till the actual pay date arrives and give us the money then.

Amanda also testified to how she, and probably Meredith, handled the rent monies:

Ghirga: You had a room near Meredith. Who else lived there? How did you organize the living together, the paying of the rent, the cleaning, the relations between you?

AK: So, we were four girls in the apartment, I and Meredith on one corridor with our bathroom, and Filomena and Laura on the other side of the living room. Together, to pay the rent, for example, we would give our money -- for example, I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar.

I am not certain of the details of Filomena's testimony concerning Meredith's rent money but think it is probably along the same line as Amanda's.

 

[Bill Williams]

I read recently that it was Romanelli who said that Meredith had the rent money ready. That girl has a lot to answer for:
- glass on the clothes. Not what the crime scene photos show.
- Meredith never locked her door. Amanda's response probably lost in translation.
- Rent money stolen. Seems this was never the case.
- She went back in and took her computer.
- She disturbed the crime scene in her own bedroom.

But then she had her promising law degree to think about. So I guess her legal antennae were very sensitive to convince her to keep as much distance as possible between her and Amanda. It's not unlikely that her legal contacts alerted her to what the police might be thinking in those first few days. Perugia leaks like a sieve.

And what kind of legal friend was she who didn't insist that Amanda get a lawyer? She must have seen what was happening.

The classic about Filomena is in Micheli where he says it can't have been Filomena who went back to rearrange the crime scene in Meredith's room because she was staying with her boyfriend. I mean, duh. Ironically, she's the one who we know actually did go back and disturb part of the crime scene.

I wonder where she is now and how she feel about it all? Probably doesn't give a toss I suppose.

In the early hours of the crucial 84 hours which began noon 2 Nov, there probably was nore reason to suspect Romanelli of "knowing something about which she was not letting on", than the American, Amanda Knox.

However, both were legitimate targets of police inquiry in those early hours, particularly as the only two known key holders. Hopefully the police were tracking down landloard copies of keys, as well as former occupants, but the police would have been completely incomeptent not to follow/tap phones of Romanelli and Knox in those early hours.

Yet when Romanelli lawyers up (as she should have!) the lawyer would have had apoplexy to find out that the only person to have actually disturbed the scene was his client. "Get down to the Questura and surrender the laptop BEFORE they break down whatever door you end up residing behind!"

Even as one who supports 100% Knox's innocence, and as one who, like you, suspects Romanelli's actions in those critical hours - at least Romanelli knew that it was hopeless to try to be helpful. For all we know, if the cops had tapped their phones and Romanelli had said quietly to Knox, "Look you naive American ignoramous, you'd better shut the 'f' up, stop talking even on this phone, and for God's sake STOP WRITING! and get yourself a lawyer.....", if Romanelli had been recorded saying that, then SHE'D have been drawn into this like Sollecito was. They'd be finding Meredith's and Romanelli's mixed-DNA in the very bathroom the three of them shared.

Cruelly, once noon-2 Nov hits, and it looks to be a staged break-in (which it turned out not to be) both Romanelli and Knox are now competitors, not confederates - even in innocence.

They each needed lawyers looking out for each of their individual interests.

That this did not happen for Knox is the story here.

 

[anglolawyer]

So he could still be convicted of the theft of the money and mobile phones, if by some unlikely dream, an honest prosecutor could take over the case?

Is there any prospect of the Mignini gang being discredited after the final Supreme Court rulings on Knox/Sollecito, and a new prosecutor being appointed to clear up the mass of unresolved issues? Maybe LJ could answer this one.

While he's thinking of an answer, I suggest there is a difficulty in prosecuting the theft of money from a murder victim: no loser statement. This is no problem with the phones as we know who they belonged to and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Meredith did not toss them into Lana's garden. With the money it's harder. You have to prove, again BARD, she had it and it was dishonestly taken by D. You can't just say, 'it stands to reason, dunnit?' (even though it might). She might not have had the money, or she might have spent it or lost it, or hidden it and forgotten where, or given it to Curatolo or anything really.

 

[anglolawyer]

All credit to you for being able to change your mind.


It helps if when reading about the case you can see through the background noise (yes, I know that's a weird mixed metaphor, but I hope you take the point). Almost the first 2 pieces of information that I obtained about the case (belatedly, I only started reading about it after the Massei verdict) were that AK and RS were at the scene when the crime was discovered, and that they (and Patrick Lumumba) were arrested after Amanda was subjected to an all-night interrogation session with no safeguards for her rights. After that I wouldn't take seriously anything that was described as "police sources", and despite all the chorus of "a mountain of evidence" from the guilters, I was able to tell myself "I'll believe that when I see proof of it", because it was clear that the case had every indication of a stitch-up. And of course the "mountain of evidence" turned out to have no substance whatsoever.

One of the headlines that sticks in my mind from the comment in the early days was this: "They lied and lied and lied". Of course the journos and bloggers who used that line were talking about Amanda and Raffaele, but the reality is that it the lies came from the police and prosecution.

Well, I take my hat off to you. I'm now trying to think up defences for the landlubber ship's captain, having taken umbrage on his behalf at the rampant scapegoating which has been going on in the Italian media. If 'foolmewunz' wasn't already taken I would be changing my nom de plume.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hi Anglolawyer and others,
I have a coupla questions for ya'all regarding Miss Kercher's rent money.
I should know this by now but forgive me I don't and I can not recall reading this info but then again I haven't read the post trial verdict reports nor courtroom testimony...

What day and time did Miss Kercher withdraw her rent money?

Was it only the correct amount due to pay the rent or more?

Did she do so from an ATM machine or did she have to go inside a bank to do so?

How come she had her rent on her if she knew in advance that Filomena was not going to be home for her to give it to her on the 1st, a Thursday?
She seems to have been concerned about someone possibly scopin' out the place at night prior to her murder. I would think that she would not feel to safe carrying a buncha cash in her purse while walking home from Robyn's by herself and knowing that no one was gonna be home upstairs or downstairs.
So why not just leave it in the bank? And go take it out on Friday or whatever day Filomena was gonna be back?

How did Miss Kercher pay the past month, October's rent?
In person, cash also? Or in an envelope placed somewhere, where ever Filomena said to leave it?

Just wonderin'...
RW

I can answer all those questions clearly: I don't know.

 

[Matthew Best]

What is it called in Italian when charges of a crime are brought against a person and that crime cannot be proven to have taken place?

Affari come al solito?

 

[Dan O.]

Affari come al solito?

 

[Grinder]

I see that the 10,000th attempt to somehow put together a scenario that "proves" the kids did it, involves Amanda bumping into Rudy and "ordering" drugs to be delivered to the cottage. Not withstanding the fact that they tested negative for any drug consumption other than pot and that the PGP have insisted that Rudy wasn't a burglar and drug dealer, why would she use him when she had the "big time" cocaine dealer on "speed dial"?

Also, a PG poster theorized that she had actually become a dealer herself. Has that theory been dropped into the bleach receipt, running washing machine etc. bin or is it still an active theory?

I'm not sure how to ask without any violation, but a member here that also posts elsewhere at one point had extensive knowledge of how drug dealers stored their drugs and in general carried on business. It is my recollection that he said Rudy wouldn't actually have possession of drugs because that would be too dangerous as people would steal from him.

This latest theory has Amanda bumping into Rudy at 8:30-ish and ordering the drugs, which would require him to score the drugs and deliver them within just a half hour or an hour: does that make sense?

Perhaps, Stint could take this question to Stillicho if he himself isn't reading here.

Stint, thanks in advance.

 

[komponisto]

Hellmann-Zanetti translation update:

Part 11: Expert Review of Exhibits 36 and 165b. (Why the court accepts the conclusions of its independent experts — Conti and Vecchiotti — that the DNA evidence from the knife and bra clasp is unreliable.) Translated by katy_did.

Those that have been following the DNA issues in this case will be particularly interested in this section, which, in my opinion, is the core of the report -- at least from the larger point of view. While those of us here with an interest in this case may get excited about things like (non-)staged burglaries and cell phone patterns, the most important part of this case from the perspective of Italian criminal justice is surely going to be the impact it will have on standards of forensic practices by police, prosecutors, and judges, particularly with regard to the collection and evaluation of biological evidence.

Among other things, it is clearly stated that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to ensure that its results are reliable by following the proper standards. Contrary to the assertions of the prosecution side (from Giuseppe Novelli down to the guilters on PMF), it is not up to the defense to prove some kind of concrete contamination scenario. As Hellmann and Zanetti put it, "[either] the result is scientifically accurate, or it is not...a result".

---

As you may have noticed, this completes the translation! (So anyone who had been waiting to read it until it was complete can now start!)

I would like to thank my three collaborators (roteoctober, Newcomer, and katy_did) for their excellent work on this project -- it's been a pleasure working with you all -- as well as all the readers (here, at IIP, and even in some cases at PMF!) who offered encouragement and feedback. (Feel free to continue with the latter, incidentally; the editing process is never "really" finished!)

We didn't plan it this way, but the labor ended up being divided pretty much along "thematic" lines. To wit:

- komponisto: legal issues; circumstantial evidence (00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 16, 17, 19, 20)
- Newcomer: witness testimony (05, 06, 07, 08; 18)
- katy_did: Conti-Vecchiotti (11)
- roteoctober: other forensics (09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Of course, as the "editor-in-chief", I should be the one to take the blame for any flaws that remain in the (never-quite-)finished product.

Once again, a sincere thanks to the collaborators and readers!

 

[Paninaro]

Now that the translation is completed I have to give komponisto and all involved a big applause and simply say thank you. Well done, it's appreciated.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Fantastic work!

I'd like to express my admiration to all involved, komponisto, Newcomer, katy_did, roteoctober - you did great, can't believe how fast it went


As for the Chapter 11 - it amazes me how moving it can be to finally read such a piece of sound reasoning from a Perugian judge after all this time. Hellmann takes the prosecution head on, with clarity of logic and judgement, with fairness and simplicity of justice - it's like fresh air and clear water after all that wading through BS.


Thanks again to all of you girls and guys for the translation, you're awesome!

 

[Dougm]

Hellmann-Zanetti translation update:

Part 11: Expert Review of Exhibits 36 and 165b. (Why the court accepts the conclusions of its independent experts — Conti and Vecchiotti — that the DNA evidence from the knife and bra clasp is unreliable.) Translated by katy_did.

Those that have been following the DNA issues in this case will be particularly interested in this section, which, in my opinion, is the core of the report -- at least from the larger point of view. While those of us here with an interest in this case may get excited about things like (non-)staged burglaries and cell phone patterns, the most important part of this case from the perspective of Italian criminal justice is surely going to be the impact it will have on standards of forensic practices by police, prosecutors, and judges, particularly with regard to the collection and evaluation of biological evidence.

Among other things, it is clearly stated that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to ensure that its results are reliable by following the proper standards. Contrary to the assertions of the prosecution side (from Giuseppe Novelli down to the guilters on PMF), it is not up to the defense to prove some kind of concrete contamination scenario. As Hellmann and Zanetti put it, "[either] the result is scientifically accurate, or it is not...a result".

---

As you may have noticed, this completes the translation! (So anyone who had been waiting to read it until it was complete can now start!)

I would like to thank my three collaborators (roteoctober, Newcomer, and katy_did) for their excellent work on this project -- it's been a pleasure working with you all -- as well as all the readers (here, at IIP, and even in some cases at PMF!) who offered encouragement and feedback. (Feel free to continue with the latter, incidentally; the editing process is never "really" finished!)

We didn't plan it this way, but the labor ended up being divided pretty much along "thematic" lines. To wit:

- komponisto: legal issues; circumstantial evidence (00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 16, 17, 19, 20)
- Newcomer: witness testimony (05, 06, 07, 08; 18)
- katy_did: Conti-Vecchiotti (11)
- roteoctober: other forensics (09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Of course, as the "editor-in-chief", I should be the one to take the blame for any flaws that remain in the (never-quite-)finished product.

Once again, a sincere thanks to the collaborators and readers!

Kudos again to you and the whole translation team! As one who has chosen to wait to read it in it's entirety, from start to finish (as I did with Massei), I thank you. Now I need to start reading!!

 

[Draca]

Congratulations on the completion of the translation.

Thanks to komponisto, katy_did, Teddy & roteoctober !!!!

Very impressive achievement. I'm grateful for all of your work on this.

 

[anglolawyer]

I see that the 10,000th attempt to somehow put together a scenario that "proves" the kids did it, involves Amanda bumping into Rudy and "ordering" drugs to be delivered to the cottage. Not withstanding the fact that they tested negative for any drug consumption other than pot and that the PGP have insisted that Rudy wasn't a burglar and drug dealer, why would she use him when she had the "big time" cocaine dealer on "speed dial"?

Also, a PG poster theorized that she had actually become a dealer herself. Has that theory been dropped into the bleach receipt, running washing machine etc. bin or is it still an active theory?

I'm not sure how to ask without any violation, but a member here that also posts elsewhere at one point had extensive knowledge of how drug dealers stored their drugs and in general carried on business. It is my recollection that he said Rudy wouldn't actually have possession of drugs because that would be too dangerous as people would steal from him.

This latest theory has Amanda bumping into Rudy at 8:30-ish and ordering the drugs, which would require him to score the drugs and deliver them within just a half hour or an hour: does that make sense?

Perhaps, Stint could take this question to Stillicho if he himself isn't reading here.

Stint, thanks in advance.

I think you must be referring to Ergon's recent post at .net. I am raising some difficulties I am having in following it over there on Tuesday, which is PIP permitted posting day.

I also add to the heap of thanks to the translators for conveying Hellmann and Zanetti's beautiful reasoning to us.

 

[Grinder]

Being one that has read bits and pieces, I want to thank all of the translators for their quick and excellent efforts.

The Massei translation was quite an effort, but doesn't meet the standards of this Hellmann translation in terms of the readable English final (draft) product.

A tip of the hat to all!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hellmann-Zanetti translation update:

Part 11: Expert Review of Exhibits 36 and 165b. (Why the court accepts the conclusions of its independent experts — Conti and Vecchiotti — that the DNA evidence from the knife and bra clasp is unreliable.) Translated by katy_did.

Those that have been following the DNA issues in this case will be particularly interested in this section, which, in my opinion, is the core of the report -- at least from the larger point of view. While those of us here with an interest in this case may get excited about things like (non-)staged burglaries and cell phone patterns, the most important part of this case from the perspective of Italian criminal justice is surely going to be the impact it will have on standards of forensic practices by police, prosecutors, and judges, particularly with regard to the collection and evaluation of biological evidence.

Among other things, it is clearly stated that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to ensure that its results are reliable by following the proper standards. Contrary to the assertions of the prosecution side (from Giuseppe Novelli down to the guilters on PMF), it is not up to the defense to prove some kind of concrete contamination scenario. As Hellmann and Zanetti put it, "[either] the result is scientifically accurate, or it is not...a result".

---

As you may have noticed, this completes the translation! (So anyone who had been waiting to read it until it was complete can now start!)

I would like to thank my three collaborators (roteoctober, Newcomer, and katy_did) for their excellent work on this project -- it's been a pleasure working with you all -- as well as all the readers (here, at IIP, and even in some cases at PMF!) who offered encouragement and feedback. (Feel free to continue with the latter, incidentally; the editing process is never "really" finished!)

We didn't plan it this way, but the labor ended up being divided pretty much along "thematic" lines. To wit:

- komponisto: legal issues; circumstantial evidence (00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 16, 17, 19, 20)
- Newcomer: witness testimony (05, 06, 07, 08; 18)
- katy_did: Conti-Vecchiotti (11)
- roteoctober: other forensics (09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Of course, as the "editor-in-chief", I should be the one to take the blame for any flaws that remain in the (never-quite-)finished product.

Once again, a sincere thanks to the collaborators and readers!

Many thanks to you and your fellow translators for this invaluable project.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The CSI effect and the Farah Jama case

I have previously discussed the case of Farah Jama, a Australian wrongfully convicted on the basis of contaminated DNA evidence. This case prompted the state to ask retired SC Judge Frank Vincent to write a report. Attorney General Rob Hulls said, "Mr Jama’s case, I think, highlights the need for everyone in the criminal justice system to better understand the nature and the limitations of DNA evidence. The perceived value of DNA evidence means that extreme care must be taken at every stage of the process: from collection of DNA to the handling of DNA, the testing of the materials and indeed, the interpretation of the results, to the way in which the evidence is presented to juries in criminal trials." IMO, this is the real CSI effect.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I too am very thankful to the translators for their beautiful work - this passage sums up nicely:

EXPERT REVIEW OF EXHIBITS 36 AND 165B

[Perizia genetica sui reperti 36 e 165b, pp. 66-93; translated by katydid]

"The expert review was entrusted to a panel composed of university professors at the faculty of forensic medicine at one of the most prestigious Italian universities (La Sapienza): Prof. Vecchiotti, a specialist in forensic genetics (as is shown from the titles she possesses, the material she teaches and her experience in previous cases); and Prof. Conti, a forensic scientist and also an expert in his field, and necessary in view of the complexity of the investigation, its dimensions being forensic as well as genetic. Both deserve the full faith of the Court on a professional and human level."

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com...cision/expert-review-of-exhibits-36-and-165b/