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

[katy_did]

I was thinking about it too. If the knife test comes back with a "no DNA of Meredith", what will happen next?

Rhea at IIP reminded people how Hellmann rejected almost all of defense's requests at the start of the first appeal, this is the only thing that keeps me hopeful after today.

True about Hellmann. Plus, whether the Florence court intended to convict or acquit, they really had to order tests on the knife and to re-hear Aviello either way, since the SC said those things should've been done. They could hardly acquit again without testing the knife, or the SC would just send the case straight back for the same reason.

Interesting article at Umbria 24 which has a few more details. It says that everyone knows Aviello won't add anything to the trial but that the court seems intent on doing things properly, so that its decision isn't invalidated later on. It also asks the same question about what the consequences will be of the new tests, pointing out that no one really knows what a positive or negative result will mean - if the test is positive for Meredith's DNA, it could still be contamination, but would it be enough to convict? What if it isn't her DNA?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"'We need a key step forward on the DNA evidence... We want the truth,' Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga told the retrial's presiding judge Alessandro Nencini." link

I am not sure whether he is talking about the same thing as Ms. Bongiorno, or not. She asked for expert testimony on selective DNA removal is possible.

 

[acbytesla]

So you want us to believe you and ignore Scientific American which is a well respected magazine not known for sensationalism or for lying in their articles...meanwhile you are known for arguing for illogical nonsense...I'm going with SA.

Geez, I thought Scientific American was kind of a cross between The National Enquirer and Ripley's Believe it or Not. That's the rag that went on and on about the new carbon nanotube processor, and a high efficiency photovoltaic cell. I personally thought the articles about the human genome project was downright scandalous.

So, I can see why Machiavelli doesn't trust SA. After all, it's a well known fact that it is only interested in headlines.

 

[Welshman]

On TJMK they are always banging on about how pro defendant the Italian Justice System is. Can someon explain to me why defense requests are turned down in a system which is supposed to be pro defendant?

 

[snook1]

katy did
True about Hellmann. Plus, whether the Florence court intended to convict or acquit, they really had to order tests on the knife and to re-hear Aviello either way, since the SC said those things should've been done. They could hardly acquit again without testing the knife, or the SC would just send the case straight back for the same reason.

Interesting article at Umbria 24 which has a few more details. It says that everyone knows Aviello won't add anything to the trial but that the court seems intent on doing things properly, so that its decision isn't invalidated later on. It also asks the same question about what the consequences will be of the new tests, pointing out that no one really knows what a positive or negative result will mean - if the test is positive for Meredith's DNA, it could still be contamination, but would it be enough to convict? What if it isn't her DNA?

If it isn't Meredith's DNA, then it's case closed in favour of Amanda and Raffaele in my opinion. If the DNA is Meredith's and there is lots of it (impossible unless they tampered with the knife), then it's game over for AK and RS. If it's Meredith's DNA and it's the same ammount as it was on the blade, then I think it will make things look alot worse but there still will be some hope.

As to Aviello, I'm afraid he will say that Sollecito's tried to bribe him, he can really mess it up.

And the fingernails photo thing is very interesting.

 

[Grinder]

Interesting article at Umbria 24 which has a few more details. It says that everyone knows Aviello won't add anything to the trial but that the court seems intent on doing things properly, so that its decision isn't invalidated later on. It also asks the same question about what the consequences will be of the new tests, pointing out that no one really knows what a positive or negative result will mean - if the test is positive for Meredith's DNA, it could still be contamination, but would it be enough to convict? What if it isn't her DNA?

If it isn't her DNA without an expert review, that does raise some questions.

Obviously they don't NEED much of anything to convict.

 

[Grinder]

On TJMK they are always banging on about how pro defendant the Italian Justice System is. Can someon explain to me why defense requests are turned down in a system which is supposed to be pro defendant?

No, no, no. It isn't pro defendant, it is pro defense attorneys. One big case can last a lifetime. Where's Anglo when I'm attacking lawyers.

They also believe jails there are so cushy, it's good to be incarcerated.

 

[katy_did]

If it isn't Meredith's DNA, then it's case closed in favour of Amanda and Raffaele in my opinion. If the DNA is Meredith's and there is lots of it (impossible unless they tampered with the knife), then it's game over for AK and RS. If it's Meredith's DNA and it's the same ammount as it was on the blade, then I think it will make things look alot worse but there still will be some hope.

As to Aviello, I'm afraid he will say that Sollecito's tried to bribe him, he can really mess it up.

And the fingernails photo thing is very interesting.

Meh, Aviello's a joke. I really, highly doubt Bongiorno tried to bribe him with money for a sex change; for one thing, if she was intending to bribe anyone I'm sure she could've found someone more credible! The fact that Peter Quennell and some other PGP take Aviello seriously says rather a lot about either their extreme confirmation bias or their total lack of common sense, not sure which. Probably both. I think the only reason the Court would've ordered him to be re-heard is to be seen to be following the Supreme Court's instructions. That could be good or bad: bad if they're simply following the script to an inevitable conviction, good (or at least neutral) if they just want to make whatever verdict they finally come to safe from appeal to the Supreme Court.

A negative result should certainly be a point in Amanda and Raffaele's favour. I suppose the court could still say "After lengthy consideration, we've come to the conclusion there's still enough evidence to convict..." But they'd have to carefully explain why a test which the Supreme Court itself described as 'decisive' wasn't, in fact, decisive at all.

I think the fingernails thing is a bit of a red herring - seems like an odd thing to order and not that relevant really.

IMO it's a little too early to say which way the wind's blowing at this stage (there ya go HB, positivity). It's either that the court's intending to convict and is showing no subtlety about it at all, or else they're being very careful to follow the SC's instructions and to show deference to their judgment, so that there can be no scope for appeal next time. We'll see.

 

[codyjuneau]

On TJMK they are always banging on about how pro defendant the Italian Justice System is. Can someon explain to me why defense requests are turned down in a system which is supposed to be pro defendant?

.
I am undecided.

It may be that the judge and jurors are actually intelligent, and decided the Massei reasoning is ridiculous. They may have decided that only some 'real' evidence would change their mind. The judge may also realize it is not his job to solve the crime, or investigate Mignini, just determine if Raffaele and Amanda were involved. I believe the judge also reserved the right to review other items if he sees fit. Therefore he may want to determine if 'the knife' is real evidence. If not, they may come to a speedy conclusion of innocence. If it is 'real' evidence they may want to consider other things.

or

The fix could be in.

Too early to judge the judge, IMO.
.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

agreed

On TJMK they are always banging on about how pro defendant the Italian Justice System is. Can someon explain to me why defense requests are turned down in a system which is supposed to be pro defendant?

You are being way too logical.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meh, Aviello's a joke. I really, highly doubt Bongiorno tried to bribe him with money for a sex change; for one thing, if she was intending to bribe anyone I'm sure she could've found someone more credible! The fact that Peter Quennell and some other PGP take Aviello seriously says rather a lot about either their extreme confirmation bias or their total lack of common sense, not sure which. Probably both. I think the only reason the Court would've ordered him to be re-heard is to be seen to be following the Supreme Court's instructions. That could be good or bad: bad if they're simply following the script to an inevitable conviction, good (or at least neutral) if they just want to make whatever verdict they finally come to safe from appeal to the Supreme Court.

A negative result should certainly be a point in Amanda and Raffaele's favour. I suppose the court could still say "After lengthy consideration, we've come to the conclusion there's still enough evidence to convict..." But they'd have to carefully explain why a test which the Supreme Court itself described as 'decisive' wasn't, in fact, decisive at all.

I think the fingernails thing is a bit of a red herring - seems like an odd thing to order and not that relevant really.

IMO it's a little too early to say which way the wind's blowing at this stage (there ya go HB, positivity). It's either that the court's intending to convict and is showing no subtlety about it at all, or else they're being very careful to follow the SC's instructions and to show deference to their judgment, so that there can be no scope for appeal next time. We'll see.

I concur entirely. I think it's objectively impossible to draw any inferences one way or the other from today's events (or at least what is reported as today's events). I think the strong likelihood is that - as you said - the court is explicitly covering the requests handed down from the SC, but is reserving judgement on any other additional evidence/testimony.

Remember also that the C/V report is still part of the admissible evidence set, as is all the expert testimony from the Hellmann trial. In my opinion, it's still eminently possible for the defence teams to convince the court of the worthlessness of the bra clasp and knife, and also to convince the court of the abject sloppiness and malpractice that fatally compromised the crime scene and the original forensic science work.

Frankly, nobody outside the judges' own heads is going to have any concrete idea of which way this trial is going until somewhere near its conclusion. And if that's the case, then I think that constant speculation on the outcome is of very little real value.

 

[acbytesla]

You are being way too logical.

You do have a point there Chris. Logic and Italian Justice do seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

[acbytesla]

I concur entirely. I think it's objectively impossible to draw any inferences one way or the other from today's events (or at least what is reported as today's events). I think the strong likelihood is that - as you said - the court is explicitly covering the requests handed down from the SC, but is reserving judgement on any other additional evidence/testimony.

Remember also that the C/V report is still part of the admissible evidence set, as is all the expert testimony from the Hellmann trial. In my opinion, it's still eminently possible for the defence teams to convince the court of the worthlessness of the bra clasp and knife, and also to convince the court of the abject sloppiness and malpractice that fatally compromised the crime scene and the original forensic science work.

Frankly, nobody outside the judges' own heads is going to have any concrete idea of which way this trial is going until somewhere near its conclusion. And if that's the case, then I think that constant speculation on the outcome is of very little real value.

There you go again LJ. Making sense in the middle of a Lewis Carroll book. You know where that can get you, don't you? Never, ever, ever. follow a Mad Hatter down a rabbit hole.

 

[Supernaut]

Here we go again, sigh.

(I mean ANOTHER trial begins.)

The Guardian just posted an article entitled "Meredith Kercher family asks Amanda Knox to stay away from grave." I gotta say: I think it's creepy of Knox to keep harping on her desire to visit Meredith's grave. She'd be far better off talking about how much liked Meredith and/or pleasant times they had together.

I know talk of the grave is just more of Knox's theatrical style and inability to understand how certain kinds of remarks are received. I still wish someone would tell her to knock it off.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool PIP and I find such talk -- out of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about -- disturbing. I'm sure the Kerchers are horrified by it.

Actually, as far as I'm aware she's expressed this twice, i.e. in two interviews. S

She isn't "harping on about it", rather, the sources from which people like you "inform" yourself are quoting it, ad nauseam, hence it's all over the media.

because that's what most so-called reporters/journalists seem to think reporting/journalism consists of - quoting each other.

 

[Welshman]

Since the SC decision the Italian Justice System has been heavily criticised. Do you feel it is fair to say Italy has a corrupt, backward and dysfunctional justice system because of what has happened in the case of Amanda and Raffaele? If Amanda and Raffaele's supporters say the Italian justice is corrupt, the PGP can argue that Amanda and Raffaele's supporters only regard the system as corrupt when Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and supporters did not say the system was corrupt and backward when Hellman found Amand and Raffaele not guilty. In addition, would Amanda and Raffaele's supporters regard the system as corrupt if the SC had confirmed the Hellman verdict.

 

[katy_did]

If it isn't her DNA without an expert review, that does raise some questions.

Obviously they don't NEED much of anything to convict.

Agreed, they don't. Still, it will be very interesting if the Carabinieri - the Postal Police's big brothers, don't forget, who even Mignini thinks are more competent than they are - find nothing on the knife. Will the prosecution still be whining about corruption then? Wonder if the Perugia cops will send a bunch of heavies up to Rome to harass them? I'm thinking probably not (they look a bit tougher than Carla Vecchiotti).

Maybe Nencini is just being very clever here. Or maybe he's just intent on a conviction. Too early to say.

 

[LondonJohn]

Agreed, they don't. Still, it will be very interesting if the Carabinieri - the Postal Police's big brothers, don't forget, who even Mignini thinks are more competent than they are - find nothing on the knife. Will the prosecution still be whining about corruption then? Wonder if the Perugia cops will send a bunch of heavies up to Rome to harass them? I'm thinking probably not (they look a bit tougher than Carla Vecchiotti).

Maybe Nencini is just being very clever here. Or maybe he's just intent on a conviction. Too early to say.

This crossed my mind too (with the caveat of not drawing inferences....).

I suspect that the Carabinieri's forensic labs are significantly more competent and certified than their State Police counterparts. I further suspect that there might be little love lost between the two units, and that the Carabinieri might well regard the State Police labs as second-rate.

I therefore think it's not unreasonable to suppose that the Carabinieri's report might be highly critical of Stefanoni's "crack" work in this case, from the shockingly-inept crime scene collection process right the way through to the testing and interpretation of samples.

 

[katy_did]

This crossed my mind too (with the caveat of not drawing inferences....).

I suspect that the Carabinieri's forensic labs are significantly more competent and certified than their State Police counterparts. I further suspect that there might be little love lost between the two units, and that the Carabinieri might well regard the State Police labs as second-rate.

I therefore think it's not unreasonable to suppose that the Carabinieri's report might be highly critical of Stefanoni's "crack" work in this case, from the shockingly-inept crime scene collection process right the way through to the testing and interpretation of samples.

I'm glad you're of a similar opinion LJ (sometimes I worry I'm just an incurable optimist. But then I think positive and convince myself I'm not. ).

It's funny to see the PGP running around convinced a conviction is a virtual certainty right now; none of them have yet considered that maybe the court ordered the new tests because they actually want to see what the results might be - rather than just considering them a formality on the way to another conviction - and the implications if they go the defence's way.

Also worth noting that, despite the different atmosphere surrounding the trial, the Florence court has closely followed the pattern set by Hellmann so far: reject most of the defence requests, but order new forensic tests and hear a new (but not credible) witness; reserve the right to decide on other defence requests (like the computer expert review) later on.

 

[Bill Williams]

This crossed my mind too (with the caveat of not drawing inferences....).

I suspect that the Carabinieri's forensic labs are significantly more competent and certified than their State Police counterparts. I further suspect that there might be little love lost between the two units, and that the Carabinieri might well regard the State Police labs as second-rate.

I therefore think it's not unreasonable to suppose that the Carabinieri's report might be highly critical of Stefanoni's "crack" work in this case, from the shockingly-inept crime scene collection process right the way through to the testing and interpretation of samples.

I'm glad you're of a similar opinion LJ (sometimes I worry I'm just an incurable optimist. But then I think positive and convince myself I'm not. ).

It's funny to see the PGP running around convinced a conviction is a virtual certainty right now; none of them have yet considered that maybe the court ordered the new tests because they actually want to see what the results might be - rather than just considering them a formality on the way to another conviction - and the implications if they go the defence's way.

Also worth noting that, despite the different atmosphere surrounding the trial, the Florence court has closely followed the pattern set by Hellmann so far: reject most of the defence requests, but order new forensic tests and hear a new (but not credible) witness; reserve the right to decide on other defence requests (like the computer expert review) later on.

I am indisposed right now.... but wasn't the Florence court supposed to follow what the ISC set out for them? Where's all that?

 

[acbytesla]

Since the SC decision the Italian Justice System has been heavily criticised. Do you feel it is fair to say Italy has a corrupt, backward and dysfunctional justice system because of what has happened in the case of Amanda and Raffaele? If Amanda and Raffaele's supporters say the Italian justice is corrupt, the PGP can argue that Amanda and Raffaele's supporters only regard the system as corrupt when Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and supporters did not say the system was corrupt and backward when Hellman found Amand and Raffaele not guilty. In addition, would Amanda and Raffaele's supporters regard the system as corrupt if the SC had confirmed the Hellman verdict.

I do believe the Italian Justice System is corrupt, backward and dysfunctional. I've been of this opinion long before the Knox trial. And btw, most Europeans and even Italians have been of this opinion for quite a while. Regardless of what happens in this trial, I'll be of that opinion. Remember Meredith Kercher was murdered 6 years ago. Even if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted again, it will undoubtedly be appealed again and the SC won't rule on that for another year at least and even then the case may not be settled. So were are talking about 8 years of proceedings that may go on even longer than that. This is a damn water torture for Amanda, Raffaele and their families. The first trial itself took almost an entire year. And the trial proceedings only took place TWO DAYS A WEEK!! This has pretty much bankrupted two families and god only knows how much this cost the Italian taxpayers. I'm sure the 200 thousand dollars for the silly cartoon is just the tip of the iceberg.

No system in the world is perfect. I think the system in the US is flawed as well. More so in certain jurisdictions than others. But this example of justice in Italy is a joke.