Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

like best friends

Just reviewing some old cached news clips and noticed this. While the Italian authorities are taking every opportunity to vilify their three suspects, the Mirror reporter talks to Meredith's boyfriend downstairs (published Nov 10, 2007):

Nice find. IIRC his testimony about Amanda's relationship with Meredith was also favorable to the defense.

 

[Grinder]

Well Anglo,

Are you playing the indisputable fact game I suggested here last year?

Well I'd like to add a few that relate to the crime and not the aftermath as so many PGP want to concentrate on.

Meredith was killed by knife attack sometime after 9pm and before midnight.

The Luminol photos show that the booties of the CSI "light up" raising the question as what substance caused that as they wouldn't have blood, horseradish, turnip juice or bleach on them.

A rock definitely broke Filomena's window.

Rudi was present when Meredith was bleeding.

Meredith's phone was used to make calls around 10 pm to 10:15 pm that were not normal calls. The last call used an unusual tower if made from the cottage.

The computer hard-drives were all damaged by the PLE in trying to get data from them. (That is aftermath but explains why some records of use may not be find-able.)

Meredith had the equivalent of one drink in her system when murdered.

No chyme was found in her duodenum and the last meal she ate began between 5:30 and 6:30. Her friends insisted she didn't drink anything with alcohol at that last party.

No DNA of Amanda was found in Meredith's room.

There was a text from Amanda to PL saying in Italian see you later.

 

[Antony]

If you look up "procrastination" in a legal dictionary it will reffer you to the Italian legal process.

I take that to mean that the Italian justice system never releases anything a day earlier than they have to.

Any predictions about what the motivations report might contain?

 

[Dan O.]

Seeing as I predicted that the ISC would put final closure on the insanity of this trial by upholding the acquittals, I don't think I an qualified to make such a prediction.

You'll be able to get an indication of the issues they cover through Google translate as soon as the document is released (unless they really botch the PDF rendering). Minor issues though such as gender or whether a statement is stated as a negative tends to get lost in the translation so you have to be careful.

 

[Grinder]

We can all agree that the bathmat footprint was not matched to anyone.

We can all agree that the only finger/palm prints found in blood were of Rudi.

We can all agree that Stefanoni kept testing the "DNA" on the knife blade after getting a "too low" reading more than once.

We can all agree that Massei refused to appoint independent experts to review the DNA even though other judges had appointed independent experts for TOD analysis.

 

[GWCarver]

I take that to mean that the Italian justice system never releases anything a day earlier than they have to.

Any predictions about what the motivations report might contain?

I think Machiavelli said it could/would have something to do with the Guede trial motivation that concluded Amanda Knox must have let Guede into the house, and some other nonsense. That doesn't make any sense to most of us because she wasn't on trial.

But, the biggest problem is when you read these motivations, the judges are free to pull things out of thin air by describing events as, "possible, indeed probable." So, they can do whatever they want to do, and that makes it hard for anyone to predict their reasoning behind the reversal.

 

[Grinder]

I think Machiavelli said it could/would have something to do with the Guede trial motivation that concluded Amanda Knox must have let Guede into the house, and some other nonsense. That doesn't make any sense to most of us because she wasn't on trial.

But, the biggest problem is when you read these motivations, the judges are free to pull things out of thin air by describing events as, "possible, indeed probable." So, they can do whatever they want to do, and that makes it hard for anyone to predict their reasoning behind the reversal.

I think the possible/probable criticism is misguided. In order to write a narrative covering the crime it is impossible in most cases to know exactly what happened even if the conviction was beyond a reasonable doubt. Here we are not required to put together a narrative of the whole crime. While the motivations provide an interesting read, they must be given latitude in knowing precisely what happened.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think Machiavelli said it could/would have something to do with the Guede trial motivation that concluded Amanda Knox must have let Guede into the house, and some other nonsense. That doesn't make any sense to most of us because she wasn't on trial.

But, the biggest problem is when you read these motivations, the judges are free to pull things out of thin air by describing events as, "possible, indeed probable." So, they can do whatever they want to do, and that makes it hard for anyone to predict their reasoning behind the reversal.

I do not believe it will directly make any comment regarding Guede trial.

The legal criticism of Hellmann’s motivation will be devastating and this will send clear signals to whoever is the presiding judge(s) of the next appeal trial on how it should be managed in accordance with court procedure and adherence to Italian criminal codes.

If the independent report isn’t directly ruled as inadmissible by the Supreme Court motivations for breaches of court procedure and or their criminal codes then I would imagine the prosecution opening salvo will be to get the independent report thrown out, whilst arguing the Guede 1st, 2nd and Supreme Court motivations should be entered into evidence.

Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.

 

[RoseMontague]

I do not believe it will directly make any comment regarding Guede trial.

The legal criticism of Hellmann’s motivation will be devastating and this will send clear signals to whoever is the presiding judge(s) of the next appeal trial on how it should be managed in accordance with court procedure and adherence to Italian criminal codes.

If the independent report isn’t directly ruled as inadmissible by the Supreme Court motivations for breaches of court procedure and or their criminal codes then I would imagine the prosecution opening salvo will be to get the independent report thrown out, whilst arguing the Guede 1st, 2nd and Supreme Court motivations should be entered into evidence.

Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.

Ye olde Let's Pretend ploy. LOL. Cat's out of the bag regardless.

 

[Dan O.]

What ColsdonUK is saying is that Itally has thrown out the pretense that anybody has the right to a fair trial where they are allowed to defend themselves. I personally think ColsdonUK is full of crap about this but I leave open the possibility that he is stating the truth about the Italian system of justice. We will soon see.

 

[Grinder]

I do not believe it will directly make any comment regarding Guede trial.

The legal criticism of Hellmann’s motivation will be devastating and this will send clear signals to whoever is the presiding judge(s) of the next appeal trial on how it should be managed in accordance with court procedure and adherence to Italian criminal codes.

If the independent report isn’t directly ruled as inadmissible by the Supreme Court motivations for breaches of court procedure and or their criminal codes then I would imagine the prosecution opening salvo will be to get the independent report thrown out, whilst arguing the Guede 1st, 2nd and Supreme Court motivations should be entered into evidence.

Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.

It will be interesting if the Supreme Court ruled that no additional expert opinion is allowed in the second instance trial. Although I've not agreed with extradition issues that others have put forward, I would think that a US court hearing the extradition case would be nonplussed by such a ruling.

Even if the new trial officially completely wipes out the Hellmann motivations it will not wipe out the reality of the C&V report for everyone else.

The SC motivations should only deal with procedure so I'm not at all clear what their writings would add to the second instance starting point.

Their motivations will be interesting and may impact how the US ultimately deals with the case if in fact the Italians ever finish with this case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I do not believe it will directly make any comment regarding Guede trial.

The legal criticism of Hellmann’s motivation will be devastating and this will send clear signals to whoever is the presiding judge(s) of the next appeal trial on how it should be managed in accordance with court procedure and adherence to Italian criminal codes.

If the independent report isn’t directly ruled as inadmissible by the Supreme Court motivations for breaches of court procedure and or their criminal codes then I would imagine the prosecution opening salvo will be to get the independent report thrown out, whilst arguing the Guede 1st, 2nd and Supreme Court motivations should be entered into evidence.

Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.

You went full PGP. You never go full PGP.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

serious

Ye olde Let's Pretend ploy. LOL. Cat's out of the bag regardless.

Maybe it is possible to throw out the Conti-Vecchiotti report on legal grounds, but the conclusions can't be swept under the rug. If the Supreme Court somehow argues that the verdict in the present case must somehow be made consonant with the verdict in Guede's case, it will have some serious explaining to do.

 

[GWCarver]

I think the possible/probable criticism is misguided. In order to write a narrative covering the crime it is impossible in most cases to know exactly what happened even if the conviction was beyond a reasonable doubt. Here we are not required to put together a narrative of the whole crime. While the motivations provide an interesting read, they must be given latitude in knowing precisely what happened.

"Possible" and "probable" are two entirely different things. I think it is fair to say if one asserts something is "probable" it will/can be accompanied by facts that support the claim. Generally, most of us would say just about anything is possible, so saying something is "possible" is essentially meaningless. To me, that means implying something is probable because it is possible is just nonsense, and that is why no one here would ever use that particular phrase to make any kind of point. OK, maybe Machiavelli, because he seems to be associated with the Italian judiciary and might embrace the associated vernacular, but I don't recall any specific instance.

I understand your point about it being impossible in most cases to know exactly what happened, so the question would be why do they routinely create documents that are impossible to complete without making things up as they go along? One thing for certain is it sure comes in handy when the court is railroading innocent defendants, or even guilty ones for which evidence is found lacking. Just present molehills in court, then make mountains out of them in the motivation, where the possible becomes the probable.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You went full PGP. You never go full PGP.

Not sure how my opinion is controversial given the Supreme Court’s ruling in March. The prosecutions appeal was successful and of course they will argue to exclude the independent report if its inclusion breached court procedure and or criminal codes, it’s not about the reports content or conclusion, it is whether Hellmann erred on legal process.

Here’s a question is it possible for the next trial to follow the correct court procedure and adhere to their criminal codes and arrive at the same verdict as the nulled Hellmann court?

 

[Grinder]

"Possible" and "probable" are two entirely different things. I think it is fair to say if one asserts something is "probable" it will/can be accompanied by facts that support the claim. Generally, most of us would say just about anything is possible, so saying something is "possible" is essentially meaningless. To me, that means implying something is probable because it is possible is just nonsense, and that is why no one here would ever use that particular phrase to make any kind of point. OK, maybe Machiavelli, because he seems to be associated with the Italian judiciary and might embrace the associated vernacular, but I don't recall any specific instance.

I understand your point about it being impossible in most cases to know exactly what happened, so the question would be why do they routinely create documents that are impossible to complete without making things up as they go along? One thing for certain is it sure comes in handy when the court is railroading innocent defendants, or even guilty ones for which evidence is found lacking. Just present molehills in court, then make mountains out of them in the motivation, where the possible becomes the probable.

I appreciate your measured response.

I don't read Italian so I don't know if the possible therefore probable phrasing is exactly what we English speakers think it is. No matter, if all our cases had to be motivated, I'm pretty sure that most all that go trial would have motivations that could easily be questioned.

If the judges left out the possibles and only said probable, would that make it better?

I think they make their guilty or not guilty decision and then based on that produce the motivations. If guilty, then it probably happened this way or that way. Let's say the footprints were blood positive, the bathmat print matched Raf and the lamp had one of the kid's prints in blood on it we know they were guilty but many of the probables would remain.

 

[Grinder]

Here’s a question is it possible for the next trial to follow the correct court procedure and adhere to their criminal codes and arrive at the same verdict as the nulled Hellmann court?

Of course, it's possible. The court could review all the arguments about the knife, watch the collection video and note the recalcitrance of Stefanoni. They could conclude that the knife DNA was not to be considered and the same with the bra clasp. They could easily say there is no evidence that the break-in was staged and note that it is hugely coincidental that the lawyers' office was broken into with the same MO as Filomena's and not accept Massei's lame idea that it wasn't the same because Rudi knew the cottage's residents.

The question before them isn't whether the kids can prove their innocence. The question is whether the state proved they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will be interesting to see whether the Florentine prosecutors will be able to use any of Hellmann's work or look at any new evidence. If not, I would predict that the US could rule that in effect the Italians are committing double jeopardy.

 

[Kaosium]

If the independent report isn’t directly ruled as inadmissible by the Supreme Court motivations for breaches of court procedure and or their criminal codes then I would imagine the prosecution opening salvo will be to get the independent report thrown out, whilst arguing the Guede 1st, 2nd and Supreme Court motivations should be entered into evidence.

Just curious, on what do you base this prediction? If it is possible to admit the motivations of a trial in which it was in the best interest of both parties to blame Amanda and Raffaele for as much as they could without any possible defense on their part, what does that say about the Italian justice system?

Would you actually be comfortable with that?

Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.

That may well be, but what do you think those indications will be?

 

[JREF2010]

Quote:
Effectively the legal context of the next trial will be that the Hellmann trial never existed and the starting point will be the end of the 1st level trial plus the clear indications of the Supreme Court motivations.


So what will the Florence court do? I would assume the same as Hellman did, you would review the most damning evidence again, the knife and the bra clasp.
Then you would need independents to realize the results again, while accepting the fact Stefonani left the bra clasp to rot and mold, and the raw data and settings of the tool still unknown.

But I highly doubt they will ignore C&V work, that would be as closed minded and twisted....and Florence doesnt have to bow down to the inbred Perugian pack.

 

[JREF2010]

What ColsdonUK is saying is that Itally has thrown out the pretense that anybody has the right to a fair trial where they are allowed to defend themselves. I personally think ColsdonUK is full of crap about this but I leave open the possibility that he is stating the truth about the Italian system of justice. We will soon see.

we'll soon see...and we already know the outcome will be appealed. so another year? or two?