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

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov View Post
Nonsense – I could claim to be surprised at you halides1 but TBH I’m not.
Stiffer sentencing would not require a rewrite – its at the courts discretion, within limits of course.

Of course it would. Otherwise sentencing would be grossly capricious. While there is such a thing as case law where judges write interpretations of laws that are not clear which becomes the law of the land. Sentencing guidelines should be written by the legislature or parliament.

The part of my post you snipped deals with this

Nonsense – I could claim to be surprised at you halides1 but TBH I’m not.
Stiffer sentencing would not require a rewrite – its at the courts discretion, within limits of course.

As is common knowledge to anyone following this case and has been posted numerous times [& possibly directly to you] a range of sentences are possible.
RG for example got life at his first trial – reduced to 30 yrs due to fast track IIRC.

So straight away within the confines of this case we have life, 30 and 24.

Now reappraised [for the 27th time] of this information I ask again ……

Are you in favour of stiffer sentences for crimes of this nature (rape/murder)
Or is it a case of besonderhandlung for the ‘black boy’.

Take your time - I won’t hold my breath.

You snipped a large portion of my post – can I take it a new campaign will not be launched.

If this is your best shot at running interference for halides1 it would be better perhaps to take CW’s advice.
Unless you are suggesting that halides1 wants the death penalty for rape/murder in Italy.

Well we’ll never know as he refuses to answer the Q. All we can say is he wants to rewrite the Italian penal code (something to do with RG)

snip

My problem is that I don't suffer fools very well. And this is the worst kind of foolishness, morons with authority. So while I know I will read it in total, I also know that it will make me angry.

You should make exceptions occasionally - I do

 

[acbytesla]

Your first guess is correct: see this link, this link, and the links provided within. Your second guess is not correct: the EDFs often do shed more light (EDFs of the negative controls are important as well), but I am not willing to put a number on it yet. I have asked many DNA experts about EDFs and there is uniformity of opinion on their review being an integral portion of case review as a whole.
EDT
I once likened the process of converting an EDF into a egram to doing a Fourier transform of a free induction decay to a frequency spectrum in nuclear magnetic spectroscopy. The data are easier to interpret in the latter form, but certain processing parameters have been irrevocably applied.

Thanks for clearing that up.. When you put it that way it is much more simple...ROFL. I bet that gets them rolling in the aisles.

The choice of those parameters should be in the hands of the experts doing the review, not the prosecution's experts.

I understand Chris...not that any laymen reading your post will.

 

[acbytesla]

The part of my post you snipped deals with this

If this is your best shot at running interference for halides1 it would be better perhaps to take CW’s advice.
Unless you are suggesting that halides1 wants the death penalty for rape/murder in Italy.

Well we’ll never know as he refuses to answer the Q. All we can say is he wants to rewrite the Italian penal code (something to do with RG)

Frankly, I'm not running interference for halides1. He's smart enough to handle just about anyone. I do think you misinterpreted Halides remark however. From my perspective, it seems as if he was just musing that 16 years is too short of sentence for the rape and murder of a young woman. I agree with Halides that giving Rudy a sentence of 16 years and asking a sentence for Amanda and Raffaele of 30 and 29 years respectively is wrong.

Not that justice isn't administered in an similar unfair way in the US with the use of plea bargaining.

You should make exceptions occasionally - I do

I do and I will. But that won't keep me from getting angry at their moronic foolishness.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you think that most courts wouldn't take police work at face value? Silly.



Bill can you imagine defense lawyers requesting independent review of every issue in a trial?

In Italy Mach has made it quite clear, Galati too, that the court must make the decision on their own and may not let an independent expert make the decision. Massei listened to both sides' multiple experts and decided he had heard enough. I think he made the wrong choice. I think he had enough from the defense experts to discount the two crucial pieces of DNA evidence. Don't you?

In the vast majority of cases the police experts evidence is by and large correct. If the defense doesn't shake their opinions, then the court goes with them.

Why does it have to be every issue. Once again pages 266 to 281 in Massei's motivation makes it clear that the defence wss yelling foul with the DNA and that Massei decided to believe Stefanoni on her own say so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

exactly so

I do think you misinterpreted Halides remark however. From my perspective, it seems as if he was just musing that 16 years is too short of sentence for the rape and murder of a young woman. I agree with Halides that giving Rudy a sentence of 16 years and asking a sentence for Amanda and Raffaele of 30 and 29 years respectively is wrong.

I agree. Sixteen years is too short, both in absolute terms and in relation to the other two terms. If Rudy gets work release or additional time off for good behavior, that would only make it worse. It really is that simple.

 

[Grinder]

Why does it have to be every issue. Once again pages 266 to 281 in Massei's motivation makes it clear that the defence wss yelling foul with the DNA and that Massei decided to believe Stefanoni on her own say so.

Thanks again for the long report on Massei's decision. I will probably need to reread and the sections referred to in Massei.

The defense usually yells foul and provides experts to disagree with the prosecutions expert witnesses.

As I have already said a couple of times and validated by the exchange between CH and Tesla the system everywhere needs to have a way for independent experts to look at the evidence and analyze it without knowing the case or any details. No knowledge of what the DNA of victims or suspects looks like or size of knife etc. In this case the experts would have decided on their own as to whether there were bruise marks from the knife or not. If they determined that there was a hilt bruise then it couldn't have come from this knife.

The TOD forensic evidence would be another item to be independently analyzed. If people here are correct then the TOD would have to be before 10:15 because the tow truck and broken down car pretty much eliminate anything until after 11:15.

I don't think that every piece of evidence that the defense wants another bite at the apple should be allowed but some, yes.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. Sixteen years is too short, both in absolute terms and in relation to the other two terms. If Rudy gets work release or additional time off for good behavior, that would only make it worse. It really is that simple.

I know it is Chris...but in reality it is never that simple. It seems as if every judicial system will reduce the severity of a sentence for efficiency. The message is clear. We don't care if you are innocent or guilty. But if you fight, we will make you spend even more time in jail. A horrible conundrum for someone who is innocent.

I have a problem Chris with Draconian sentencing guidelines. Especially when they are for non-violent offenses. However, obviously this isn't the case in in this matter.
Almost everywhere there is a degree of randomness to sentencing I would not be surprised at all that there are more people in the US than you might imagine who were convicted of killing someone and received less even much than 16 years.

The more high profile the case, the likelihood is the tougher the sentences.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think there may be a cultural divide here. In common law systems there is generally a duty of confrontation: you have to put your case to opposing witnesses in all matters of material difference. That would entail putting some kind of case to Amanda e.g. that she spent the evening in the Piazza before going on to commit murder, questions about the murder, the clean up etc I surmise that no such duty exists in Italy. One disadvantage of the Italian system, apart from the obvious one of depriving the witness of an opportunity to rebut allegations, is that it allows the prosecutor the freedom not to formulate a crime theory based on the evidence and put it to the accused. That freedom was used here to compile and present the cartoon as part of Mignini's reconstruction of the crime.

I can't think of any advantages.

There might be a legal divide (legal culture divide). The principle of confrontation is certainly valid as for witnesses. But a suspect testifying about himself is not a witness. A basic hinge in Roman law is the suspect's right to lie, or to avoid and skip questions. Here it is quite obvious - as for me or for the Italian legal system - that the testimony of Knox was done within all full princile of confrontation and completeness. And that no prosecutor would have asked Knox if she committed the murder, if in the previous questions she said she was not at the cottage. Such question could not take place also procedurally, because violates the principle of non repetition: you can't put the same question twice, nor put a question which implies the previous question.

 

[Machiavelli]

The electronic data files contain the information from which an egram is constructed. However, they are more versatile in the sense that one can zoom in on small peaks. They are easy to copy onto a CD ROM. Their only disadvantage is that one needs proprietary software to read them. However, the people who do this for a living have such software. There are additional pieces of information, such as dates, that are also provided. There really should be no debate whatsoever about whether or not they should be turned over to the defense during standard discovery; the only objections I have ever heard were lies. On the other hand, examination of such files turns up problematic data in a signification fraction of cases. Why we even need to have this discussion after more than five years is indicative of a problem.

There should be no discussion, in fact.
You should just abandon the topic; you should have never opened an argument about them.
They were not a defence argument, they were not requested; they are a non-issue.

As for why you think they should be 'turned over as stendard procedure', you are speaking about legal praxis, you are speaking about law. But actually, to establish guilt, you are not supposed to discuss law in a trial, you are only supposed to follow the law.
And facts.

Facts are there was no request; no submission not even to the SC. And there was no refusal by the laoratory. This is facts.

Another facts is that 'procedure' of the system is not exactly how you imagine it should be. Sorry. you might have reasons to prefer it another way. The current legislators might have had their reasons for why they prefer something different. You might open a discussion on this legislation topic. Which is a different, independent topic.

I also maintain that all objections I pointed out - like the fact that files were just not requested, that the laboratory never denied access to a file - they are absolutely true facts.

 

[Bill Williams]

I also maintain that all objections I pointed out - like the fact that files were just not requested, that the laboratory never denied access to a file - they are absolutely true facts.

You can "maintain" this all you wish. It has been demonstrated otherwise.

 

[anglolawyer]

There might be a legal divide (legal culture divide). The principle of confrontation is certainly valid as for witnesses. But a suspect testifying about himself is not a witness. A basic hinge in Roman law is the suspect's right to lie, or to avoid and skip questions. Here it is quite obvious - as for me or for the Italian legal system - that the testimony of Knox was done within all full princile of confrontation and completeness. And that no prosecutor would have asked Knox if she committed the murder, if in the previous questions she said she was not at the cottage. Such question could not take place also procedurally, because violates the principle of non repetition: you can't put the same question twice, nor put a question which implies the previous question.

What about asking her about being in the Piazza for 2+ hours? Actually, I don't recall any questions eliciting that she was with Raffaele at his place all night. Roman law and the common law divide on this right to lie and skip questions.

It's not a big deal. The proceedings have been much more unfair in other respects than this one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just substitute Rudy for Luciano.

No, Rudy was complete.
Rudy was not a witness as for the topic of the Kercher muder.
He was only a witness on the topic of his prison letters and his prison contacts with Alessi. And he was complete about these topics.

Moreover, when Rudy Guede answered about the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, he did so only because the Sollecito/Knox defence - disobeying the judge's order - they insisting in putting a question directly on the topic of the murder. He might be consdered an incomplete witness limited to this topic; but the SC in fact said that, while he might be unreliable, his testimony on this point is admissible. Because it was the defence who insisted in putting direct questions, while they knew he was using his right to refuse to answer - so they knew in advence that he won't be available for cross questioning, this was established before, this means his declarations are not procedurally incomplete.

 

[Machiavelli]

You can "maintain" this all you wish. It has been demonstrated otherwise.

Of course. In your brain. Where Massei also demonstrated that Knox and Sollecito are psychopatologically normal.

 

[Machiavelli]

What about asking her about being in the Piazza for 2+ hours? Actually, I don't recall any questions eliciting that she was with Raffaele at his place all night. Roman law and the common law divide on this right to lie and skip questions.

It's not a big deal. The proceedings have been much more unfair in other respects than this one.

She answered this. But she had already answered questions about her alibi. She said where she was at the various times in the evening. The prosecution is not supposed to ask "where were you?" twice.

 

[Machiavelli]

This double-talk and denial of fact is wearisome.

I have a copy of a written request for the EDFs from Vecchiotti. I sat in on a meeting between Greg Hampikian and Carlo dalla Vedova at which Greg stressed the importance of getting these files.

By saying that any informed defense consultant or DNA expert would regard this data as "irrelevant," Machiavelli simply underscores his ignorance of the subject.

Yes, and I have a copy of the hearing where Vecchiotti declared - before Hellmann - that they obtained all what they requested.
She even praised the police laboratory for their "total cooperation".
Actually, to be fair, I don't have the transcript of the hearing of that day, but I can get it; I have however all news sources on the internet who reported about it, and they are still available for all on the internet.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli, do you hold as the ISC implies that everything Rudy says is untrustworthy and must be disregarded?

If the courts believed that apriori, what was the point of bringing Rudy into Amanda and Raffaele's trial? Are trials in Italy just for show?

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course. In your brain. Where Massei also demonstrated that Knox and Sollecito are psychopatologically normal.

Machiavelli - I am almost sure now that you have never read Massei's motivations report. You certainly have not understood it. Massei's "motive" for Knox and Sollecito was not psychopathology, it was for Massei "choice" initiated by soft-core drugs, and above all chance of two otherwise normal kids. But he's not stopping there... read below this, too.

Why, then, two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests, resolved to participate in an action aimed at forcing the will of Meredith, with whom they had, especially Amanda, a relationship of regular meetings and cordiality, to the point of causing her death, falls within the continual exercise of choice among [the range of] possibilities, and this Court can only register the choice of extreme evil which was put into practice.

In his section on mitigating circumstances, Massei goes out of his way to show how normal these two students are.

Page 410:

- no criminal record.
- no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others.
- No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all.
- Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events
- (continuing page 421) The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves
- the situation was different than anything they were used to (back home)
- (they) did not have the usual points of reference (family, friends, acquaintances made through the years, one’s own country
- (Knox was) driven only (as far as the proceedings have allowed [us] to judge) by curiosity and by the desire to have several experiences, found herself living without that protection- "It should further be noted that the criminal acts were carried out on the force of purely chance contingencies"; meaning, not by the force of anything else, much less psychopathology.
- A crime that is carried out, therefore, without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime.​

Massei did NOT entertain psychopathology at all. Indeed if Mr. Mignini had come into trial with the Ritualistic Killing theory/motive, or had stayed with the "Sex Game Gone wrong theory/motive", or had even continued with the "Knox hated and was jealous of Meredith" theory, and had Massei agreed with one of them, then psychopathology could have been entertained by the court.

But, Massei found as factual otherwise, as listed above.

Have you EVER read the Massei report? Do you believe that the ISC believes in the Massei report now that it has, in essence, told the Florence court to give evidence which supports the "Sex-Game gone wrong theory", a theory even Massei rejected?

Where in the Massei report does he support psychopathology?

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli and the Italian courts are proving that lying is only lying when a defendant lies. When a lawyer lies it is just legalese. I've never seen anyone lie in the way Machiavelli keeps doing except a lawyer.

Italian justice is an oxymoron.

 

[Grinder]

There should be no discussion, in fact.
You should just abandon the topic; you should have never opened an argument about them.
They were not a defence argument, they were not requested; they are a non-issue.

As for why you think they should be 'turned over as stendard procedure', you are speaking about legal praxis, you are speaking about law. But actually, to establish guilt, you are not supposed to discuss law in a trial, you are only supposed to follow the law.
And facts.

From Massei - the repetition of the genetic investigations, or at least the revaluation of the traces with reference to Exhibits 165B and 36, the procedures/methodology of the gathering of the exhibits undertaken by the genetics expert of the Scientific Police, Dr Stefanoni, who carried out the verifications, having been questioned;

What would the above be referring to? Because Massei says they were requested.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey Machiavelli,

Q: Do you know how you can tell if an Italian lawyer is lying? There are two ways.