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

[anglolawyer]

Aviello

Has anyone read Galati on Aviello? His bitch there seems to be that Aviello gave evidence favourable to the defence but then retracted it and gave a written statement or interview in which he seems to have made some very far out claims of Sollecito essentially confessing to everything, exh 36 indeed being the murder weapon and direct involvement in corruption on the part of Dalla Vedova and Bongiorno, but that Hellman refused to let them recall him on the ground that he had already been assessed as unreliable.

He claims:

... the declarations which I made to the Court of Assizes and earlier were completely false, or better, were all agreed

'In the Court of Appeal, on the 18th if I’m not mistaken, they were false, agreed with Sollecito’s Counsel‛ (see p24 of the acquired statement)

'Giulia Bongiorno arrives - she tells me about the money and all these things‛ (see p35, same document)

'and which I would have had also by means of Sollecito’s sister‛ (p 36)

'but I had all the guarantees because Ms Bongiorno was telling me that she was covered here in Perugia‛ (p37)

'I’m not going to confirm the declarations made to the Court of Appeal. Absolutely not, they’re declarations agreed with Counsel Dalla Vedova but even earlier with Raffaele .. the conduit for my money was Raffaele’s sister, Giulia Bongiorno, although who to send it on to I had no one‛ (see p40)

Pretty hot stuff. The interesting thing about it is that Raffaele finds no room in his book to mention this retraction. I don't say that gives him credence, the guy is obviously willing to say anything, but it's funny that it gets no mention since his original evidence does.

 

[Dan O.]

If you are looking for rust in the cottage, look under the regulator valves on the radiators.

 

[acbytesla]

What you say sounds about right to me. It is inevitable that much of the argument in a system in which the finders of fact are laypeople will revolve around questions of admissibility. I assume Italy would say the inclusion of trained judges among the fact finders diminishes this element.

Of course, not only is Galati running this bad point on luminol (and the fact he is doing so speaks volumes) but, quite apart from that, there is the small detail that the Massei court was falsely told there were no TMB tests. Don't need to be a lawyer to have a view on that.

ETA and just to follow that up, remember the extract from Hellman I quoted



What are the implications of that for the integrity of the prosecution?

One of the problems in the US system is so much is dependent on the quality of the defense and so much of that depends on the financial health of the defendant. What is admitted is a process where the defense receives all the evidence in the discovery process. If the defendant can afford it, he has a quality defense team that combs through the mountain of evidence (it might be a mole hill of actually probative evidence) and then file briefs on what evidence should be excluded and for what grounds.

The problem is that if the defendant is poor, his attorney will be court appointed and not have bandwidth or the expertise to provide an adequate defense. In trials such as this, the prosecution is far more likely to get away with what Perugia did in the first trial in submitting the Luminol evidence without mentioning the negative TMB testsl.

My point is that a competent defense in the US would object to the Luminol evidence in the first place because of the negative TMB test. Even presenting it to a jury would be extremely prejudicial and should be excluded. What right does the prosecution have to submit evidence that "suggests that somebody was tracking "blood" around the apartment when WE KNOW that this is NOT the case?

Unfortunately with an incompetent defense, it is very possible that this makes it through to the jury.

This is one of those examples in my mind that the prosecution demonstrates their corruption. The prosecution's job is to present the truth and explain how that truth proves their case. The Luminol evidence is a clear demonstration of the prosecution presenting a lie and hoping the defense doesn't catch it.

The prosecution represents "the people" and that includes the defendant. Unfortunately, prosecutors often are too motivated to win to remember this fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree with the above. Once a decision has been made to press charges (and even at that stage, decisions are often warped by the "need to win" syndrome), there is an in-built potential for the court prosecutors to want to win at almost any cost. After all, the court prosecutors are, for the most part, judged on their "success" rate - where success is directly related to the proportion of convictions to acquittals.

In the UK at least, a decision to charge should only be made if there is a decent probability of conviction (and any charging decision has to satisfy the "public interest" criterion as well). So the courtroom prosecutors already know that, in a very real sense, they have already had their cases screened in a way that defence lawyers simply don't ever have. The prosecutors are in essence being handed cases which they are almost expected to win, and as a result, prosecutors take acquittals far, far harder than defence lawyers take convictions.

Incidentally, this situation also helps to explain why the inquisitorial system is so fundamentally flawed: in the adversarial system, everyone (not least the court) at least understands that the prosecutor is fighting for conviction. In the inquisitorial system, the pretence is maintained that the state is purely trying to find "the truth": the irony is that the real truth is very different: the state has a clear motive to try to convict.

 

[LondonJohn]

Has anyone read Galati on Aviello? His bitch there seems to be that Aviello gave evidence favourable to the defence but then retracted it and gave a written statement or interview in which he seems to have made some very far out claims of Sollecito essentially confessing to everything, exh 36 indeed being the murder weapon and direct involvement in corruption on the part of Dalla Vedova and Bongiorno, but that Hellman refused to let them recall him on the ground that he had already been assessed as unreliable.

He claims:



Pretty hot stuff. The interesting thing about it is that Raffaele finds no room in his book to mention this retraction. I don't say that gives him credence, the guy is obviously willing to say anything, but it's funny that it gets no mention since his original evidence does.

As I understand it, Hellmann's court had a duty to hear Aviello and Alessi. They were both clearly making claims that were potentially highly relevant to the case. In Italy, it is the duty of the court (as opposed to the police or prosecutors) to assess any and all evidence.

As such, Hellmann's court was duty bound to invite the testimony of Aviello and Alessi. Even though it was fairly obvious that both men were crackpots who were totally unreliable, it was incumbent upon the court to make that assessment, and it could only make that assessment based on direct observation and questioning. Massei's court should have heard both men, in order to reach a proper judgement on them.

When Hellmann's court did hear Aviello and Alessi, the court was easily able to deduce that both men were totally unreliable fantasists. That was the right and proper determination. And once the court had reached that judgement, it had no reason to recall either man on account of so-called "new testimony".

Interestingly, the same situation applied to both Quintavalle and Curatolo. Hellmann's court had all the evidence from Massei's court, and was easily able to determine that Quintavalle was an unreliable evidence on objective grounds alone. On Curatolo, Hellmann clearly wanted to make his own subjective assessment of the man's credibility and reliability, and it was also painfully clear that insufficient questions had been asked of Curatolo in Massei's court. Curatolo was recalled to appear before Hellmann's court, and the rest is history.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with the above. Once a decision has been made to press charges (and even at that stage, decisions are often warped by the "need to win" syndrome), there is an in-built potential for the court prosecutors to want to win at almost any cost. After all, the court prosecutors are, for the most part, judged on their "success" rate - where success is directly related to the proportion of convictions to acquittals.

In the UK at least, a decision to charge should only be made if there is a decent probability of conviction (and any charging decision has to satisfy the "public interest" criterion as well). So the courtroom prosecutors already know that, in a very real sense, they have already had their cases screened in a way that defence lawyers simply don't ever have. The prosecutors are in essence being handed cases which they are almost expected to win, and as a result, prosecutors take acquittals far, far harder than defence lawyers take convictions.

Incidentally, this situation also helps to explain why the inquisitorial system is so fundamentally flawed: in the adversarial system, everyone (not least the court) at least understands that the prosecutor is fighting for conviction. In the inquisitorial system, the pretence is maintained that the state is purely trying to find "the truth": the irony is that the real truth is very different: the state has a clear motive to try to convict.

In practice I agree with you 100%. However, I'm going to quibble with you just a little bit about the details.

Yes, the adversarial system is in reality a bit more honest in practice.
That said, (at least in the US) prosecutors have the most amount of discretion of anyone in the system. The police, may present the prosecution with "evidence" of a crime, but the prosecutors have the discretion to decide the charges as well as not to charge. They also have the discretion to "drop or settle" all the way to the moment before the jury announces its verdict. (this is probably a bit of an exaggeration, because I'm sure the judge could deny a settlement or the dropping of charges).

In practice, prosecutors are fighting to win their case, but ethically they have a responsibility to present the truth. It is also against the law for a lawyer to 'knowingly lie" during the trial. And in essence, that is exactly what the prosecution does when it presents evidence it knows is misleading against the defendant. "Does anyone believe that Stefanoni didn't remember that she performed the TMB tests and the results were negative? Do we believe the prosecutors were unaware as well?

Ethically speaking, the prosecutor should not have presented the Luminol evidence.

 

[Grinder]

The codes of the Kingdom of Sardinia in civil and penal affairs were extended to the whole of Italy when Italy was unified in the mid-19th century. The revised 1990 penal code replaced the old ‘inquisitory’ system with an accusatory system similar to that of common-law countries.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer
Undoubtedly blood from the victim walked around the apartment by Amanda in her bare feet - or possibly something else. What do you think the negative TMB tests suggest it was?
Bleach, or a cleaner containing it.



I've read it could be hundreds of substances. Any guess is as good as the next one. The negative TMB tests confirm that it is NOT Blood, but of course I've read PGP posts that TMB isn't that reliable and that it couldn't be bleach as bleach would have dissipated by the time the luminol was applied and there were no products that contained bleach in the household.

But, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet. But hey, that's just me.

Sorry to pick up so late on this issue,but I wanted to add something to the discussion:

The first point is that there is a mixture of unidentifiable blobs and defined footprints. This will become important in a moment.

The second point is that almost without exception, the "crack" Perugia forensics team's luminol analysis was improperly conducted. There are two important facets: 1) the luminol was vastly over-applied, and 2) the exposure time on the photographs was much too long.

Both of the above mistakes mean that the luminescence shown on the photos was of a misleadingly bright nature. It's only necessary to look at the thousands of "light dot" artifacts on the photos to know that the results were - in effect - artificially over-brightened.

Now back to the shape of the prints. Here's the important part: where there were recognisable footprints, this is 100% indicative that these prints were never "cleaned up" in any way (any cleaning of this hard tiled floor would have destroyed the recognisable outline of the foot, without question). And given this fact, if the prints had indeed been made in blood (whether traces of neat blood or dilute blood), they would have lit up far more dramatically under proper Luminol testing. Likewise, the blobs are far more likely to never have been the result of any "clean-up" (which almost always results in either large dilute patches or long smears when a hard surface is concerned), and are subject to the same reasoning as for the recognisable footprints.

So even if we had no TMB evidence to work with, it would already be very unlikely that these prints and "slodges" were made in blood from the murder scene. Instead, it was always highly likely that these prints and "splodges" were a) old, and b) from substances other than blood - substances which would have produced far weaker Luminol results.

The negative TMB tests therefore only add to - and confirm - the opinion that these were not the bloody imprints of feet. There's plenty of other evidence to support and bolster the TMB evidence (or lack of evidence).

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry to pick up so late on this issue,but I wanted to add something to the discussion:

The first point is that there is a mixture of unidentifiable blobs and defined footprints. This will become important in a moment.

The second point is that almost without exception, the "crack" Perugia forensics team's luminol analysis was improperly conducted. There are two important facets: 1) the luminol was vastly over-applied, and 2) the exposure time on the photographs was much too long.

Both of the above mistakes mean that the luminescence shown on the photos was of a misleadingly bright nature. It's only necessary to look at the thousands of "light dot" artifacts on the photos to know that the results were - in effect - artificially over-brightened.

Now back to the shape of the prints. Here's the important part: where there were recognisable footprints, this is 100% indicative that these prints were never "cleaned up" in any way (any cleaning of this hard tiled floor would have destroyed the recognisable outline of the foot, without question). And given this fact, if the prints had indeed been made in blood (whether traces of neat blood or dilute blood), they would have lit up far more dramatically under proper Luminol testing. Likewise, the blobs are far more likely to never have been the result of any "clean-up" (which almost always results in either large dilute patches or long smears when a hard surface is concerned), and are subject to the same reasoning as for the recognisable footprints.

So even if we had no TMB evidence to work with, it would already be very unlikely that these prints and "slodges" were made in blood from the murder scene. Instead, it was always highly likely that these prints and "splodges" were a) old, and b) from substances other than blood - substances which would have produced far weaker Luminol results.

The negative TMB tests therefore only add to - and confirm - the opinion that these were not the bloody imprints of feet. There's plenty of other evidence to support and bolster the TMB evidence (or lack of evidence).

So the overwhelming question is why is the prosecution attempting to mislead the jury?

Grinder has argued that the Defense should have offered an alternate substance (other than blood) that could have caused the Luminol to glow under UV. (no offense Grinder) I believe that the defense absolutely should not do that. I think it is a mistake to argue what it is, because that can be attacked.

Once the defense proves it is NOT blood, it doesn't matter if it is fruit juice, bleach, shampoo, rust, or whatever.

 

[anglolawyer]

So the overwhelming question is why is the prosecution attempting to mislead the jury?

Grinder has argued that the Defense should have offered an alternate substance (other than blood) that could have caused the Luminol to glow under UV. (no offense Grinder) I believe that the defense absolutely should not do that. I think it is a mistake to argue what it is, because that can be attacked.

Once the defense proves it is NOT blood, it doesn't matter if it is fruit juice, bleach, shampoo, rust, or whatever.

The prosecution proved it wasn't blood.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fruit juice; Illinois versus Lovejoy

I think that Comodi was very clever with her arguments and made the jury think it must be blood or fruit juice. It is possible that the defense could have done a better job of explaining to the jury that the burden falls to the prosecution to show that it is blood, and that it failed to do so in two respects. Moreover, the prosecution does not appear to have paid a price in credibility with the jury for withholding the TMB results.

The Illinois supeme court (Lovejoy's murder trial) believed that withholding a negative TMB result was sufficient grounds for granting Lovejoy a new trial. IMO the forensic police in any country are prone to explaining away results that don't square with the defendant's being guilty with theories that don't always stand up to scrutiny.

 

[acbytesla]

The prosecution proved it wasn't blood.

No, Stefanoni admitted that the TMB proves that it was not blood, not the prosecution. Stefanoni is NOT part of the prosecution team. In fact, none of the police are part of that team. In fact the prosecution attempted to deceive the jury by presenting the evidence as if it was blood.

This of course doesn't mean that the police aren't allies with the prosecution.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, Stefanoni admitted that the TMB proves that it was not blood, not the prosecution. Stefanoni is NOT part of the prosecution team. In fact, none of the police are part of that team. In fact the prosecution attempted to deceive the jury by presenting the evidence as if it was blood.

This of course doesn't mean that the police aren't allies with the prosecution.

Yes, I was being ironic. My understanding is that Stefanoni denied that any TMB tests had been carried out but that it emerged not only that this was not true but that the tests were negative. If true, why is she not in jail? Was it just another 'understandable lapse of memory'?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I was being ironic. My understanding is that Stefanoni denied that any TMB tests had been carried out but that it emerged not only that this was not true but that the tests were negative. If true, why is she not in jail? Was it just another 'understandable lapse of memory'?

Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at. (guess the movie)

Well that is my point. I'm convinced that Stefanoni and the prosecution deliberately mislead the jury. But of course she can argue that she just mis-remembered.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

An alternative view of Mignini and Raffaele, an article from TJMK, Nothing like a bit of balance.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/an_overview_from_italy_2_on_current_perceptions_in_italy_and_big_probl/

 

[Grinder]

I think the Luminol prints did come from Amanda's foot and were made in blood. I think she picked up the blood from the mat when she stepped on with wet feet. I think that when she shuffled her right foot came off the mat and made the prints or maybe she gave up on the mat and walked around a bit.

I think the PLE over-applied the Luminol and the bright glow seen by the technicians and photographed was a result of that over-application. Luminol applied correctly is known to interfere with subsequent testing and when over-applied certainly makes it worse.

It is also very possible that the same crack team of technicians didn't do the TMB test correctly either.

The idea that someone slipped their right foot under a radiator or stepped on a roast beef sandwich with horseradish on it seems less likely.

I would expect there to be far more prints found if there was some common substance around the house that would produce the prints.

It is precisely the role of defense to give as likely or more likely causes for "evidence" than what the prosecution is positing.

I don't recall the prosecution saying so, but it could be argued that the source of the substance leaving the prints came from clean-up material used in the shower that night.

Stefanoni certainly was a part of the prosecution. The police and prosecution work hand in glove in Italy even more so than here.

I think that Stefanoni wasn't competent in this case and certainly had great difficulty remembering what and how tests were done.

 

[anglolawyer]

An alternative view of Mignini and Raffaele, an article from TJMK, Nothing like a bit of balance.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/an_overview_from_italy_2_on_current_perceptions_in_italy_and_big_probl/

Not the first place I normally go for 'balance' but as I cannot access that site and it is sort of customary around here anyway, why not quote any relevant extracts from this article that you think provide balance to whatever it is you think needs it?

 

[anglolawyer]

I think the Luminol prints did come from Amanda's foot and were made in blood.

snip

It is also very possible that the same crack team of technicians didn't do the TMB test correctly either.

Wow. Sounds like Massei.

 

[Grinder]

Wow. Sounds like Massei.

It is true. 98% of the lawyers give the other 2% a bad name. Wow

I guess you missed the part about the ILE being less than competent. Could you give me a quote where Massei makes such a comment?

 

[Grinder]

An alternative view of Mignini and Raffaele, an article from TJMK, Nothing like a bit of balance.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/an_overview_from_italy_2_on_current_perceptions_in_italy_and_big_probl/

This part?
So it was that the Public Minister Giuliano Mignini became a target. He’s a Perugian whom the Perugians know as the dominus of the other judicial case – this also is, yes, entirely local – about which everybody talks and knows, but always in a low voice: the death of doctor Francesco Narducci, the one suspected of having ties to the crimes of the Monster of Florence. From the judicial point of view that was - by half – just another hole-in-the-water [a failure] for which some critics have hastily put the blame on some alleged lunacy of the public minister.

But… however… meanwhile, this [Naducci] corpse-swap was indeed found to have been for sure, a kind of unique case in the criminal history of the country. And, for what concerns the recent acquittals of those characters involved in this death, well, after almost a year and a half we are still waiting for the verdict motivations. All of the suspects were esteemed high-class professionals. That’s a perfect mix of strange deaths, sex, lead-astray investigations, and Masonry; this is in the city with the highest number of Masonic lodges in Italy.

Vaime sighs: “Masonry is something alien from me, but I have many friends who are in it. In Perugia it works as a compensation chamber for various powers, but also as an effort for the surge of the spirit to many decent people. Masters, masons and “33”, but all of them decent Perugians”. Masonry is considered a local specialty, just like the bruschetta or the Etruscan arch.