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

[Mary_H]

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.

THANK you, Supernaut.

 

[Grinder]

Did the ISC make it clear that evidence, reports and testimony from the Hellmann court would be used in this appeal?

Will this court watch the Curatolo testimony including heroin consumption? Or will the court accept Hellmann's opinion on him?

This paragraph would indicate that the C&V report will not factor in or at least not if the new DNA tests positive.

But now, the Italian Supreme Court thinks trace 36-I should be front and center in the new trial that started today. And that could make things very interesting. Italian writer Luca Cheli made an important point about trace number 36-I in Wrongful Conviction News in August. Cheli reminded his readers that the Supreme Court's decision in March declared that the result of any new test on 36-I would not only be significant, it would be "decisive". The be all and end all so to speak. Game, set, match.

So, following the path of the Supreme Court's "decisive" dictate, if trace 36-I contains Meredith Kercher's DNA, the new trial is all but over, the two defendants are once again found guilty. But conversely, if trace 36-I has no Meredith Kercher DNA, Knox and Sollecito have, what should be a hands-down argument courtesy of the Italian Supreme Court, "if 36-I doesn't fit, you must acquit"
ETA - does anybody know the precise difference between the Carabinieri labs and the State Police labs - is one the equivalent of the FBI and the other ????. I would guess that they would both be in Rome. Strange they would have two central labs but then, it is Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete Dup

 

[yimyammer]

There's not a great to spin this. It's bad news for them.

they're screwed, I guess all of us that thick they're innocent are nuts

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

They are doing exactly what the ISC told them to. You will not see the relative positions of the three or their roles in the murder until the Motivation is written.

I am convinced the fix is in. I don't agree with LJ or katy on this one. I think the strategy of Amanda's team will now be almost all PR and political pressure. Raffaele is in a tough spot and at this point it really doesn't matter what his team does or says.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic science abused

They are doing exactly what the ISC told them to. You will not see the relative positions of the three or their roles in the murder until the Motivation is written.

I am convinced the fix is in. I don't agree with LJ or katy on this one. I think the strategy of Amanda's team will now be almost all PR and political pressure. Raffaele is in a tough spot and at this point it really doesn't matter what his team does or says.

I basically agree, and the only thing I would add at this point is this: Even if I were 100% of the pair's guilt, I would be hopping mad over the CSC's motivations report for many reasons. Perhaps chief among them is that they have made a intractable mess of forensic science in their country, at least if every case is now decided by the same screwball principles as this one.

 

[Machiavelli]

A kangeroo court and unashamedly so,there was two witnesses who were in jail,one was a man who had kidnapped a child and murdered him,the other was a mafia member who claimed his brother had murdered Meredith,which one is Aviello,both of these things were requested by the prosecution and granted,all of the defence requests were rejected,I do not wish to be negative but this court is setting out its stall and is only interested in the prosecution case

No. They were defence witnesses. You forgot that?
They were called by the defence, and it was Hellmann who accepted them as worth hearing, the judge that you like.

 

[billyryan]

No. They were defence witnesses. You forgot that?
They were called by the defence, and it was Hellmann who accepted them as worth hearing, the judge that you like.

What makes you think that I do not know they were originally defence witnesses,The point I am making is that to recall Aviello and one particular test on the knife were prosecution requests,all the requests made by the defence teams were denied with the eception of looking at photo's of Raffaele hands

 

[katy_did]

What makes you think that I do not know they were originally defence witnesses,The point I am making is that to recall Aviello and one particular test on the knife were prosecution requests,all the requests made by the defence teams were denied with the eception of looking at photo's of Raffaele hands

I think Raffaele's lawyers also asked for the same test on the knife as the prosecution (quite a clever strategic move, that). It's certainly a test which is likely to favour the defence more than the prosecution.

 

[Grinder]

I think Raffaele's lawyers also asked for the same test on the knife as the prosecution (quite a clever strategic move, that). It's certainly a test which is likely to favour the defence more than the prosecution.

As noted up-thread the test was ordered by the ISC. Odered!

 

[Machiavelli]

What makes you think that I do not know they were originally defence witnesses,

This phrase made me think so:

both of these things were requested by the prosecution and granted

These things were requested by the defence. Aviello was summoned by the defence. He wouldn't have ever entered the trial unless the defence and Hellmann had not drawn him into it.
But once he is in, he should not be thrown out arbitrarily, such as Hellmann did, without allowing him to be questioned completely: all those who want to ask any questions to the witness must be allowed to do so. The prosecution was prevented from completing their questioning in 2011 this is is why the hearing of Aviello is allowed now. There was something incomplete. This point is due procedure.
The further DNA test on the 'i' trace is the same. The knife must be tested, because the original ordnance ordered a retesting of the knife, which was not completed. (btw, the defence agrees to this).
So this is due procedure too. The completing of a previous legal procedure.

The point I am making is that to recall Aviello and one particular test on the knife were prosecution requests,all the requests made by the defence teams were denied with the eception of looking at photo's of Raffaele hands

The photos were accepted because they are just forensic photos, that is documentation from the investigation. Hence they can be allowed.
But the other requests, are not due process. The judge would need a compelling reason to re-open an evidence discussion session on a topic. The defence could not offer any legitimate or compelling reason.

 

[Grinder]

These things were requested by the defence. Aviello was summoned by the defence. He wouldn't have ever entered the trial unless the defence and Hellmann had not drawn him into it.
But once he is in, he should be thrown out arbitrarily: all those who want to put question to him must be allowed to do so. The prosecution was prevented from completing their questioning in 2011 this is is why he is allowed now. This point is due procedure.

Does this also apply to a much more important witness that the prosecution brought to the trial?

Could you provide the transcript of all the questions the defense was allowed to ask Rduy Guede?

 

[Grinder]

We have talked a lot in our family in order to come to make the difficult decision not to come to Italy for the beginning of the trial. My mother is in dialysis three times a week and this has an enormous impact on her health. My father has had two strokes in the past. This period is particularly stressful for us all and we desperately want to discover the truth and find justice for Meredith, who was taken away from us so brutally and unnecessarily. We have thus decided to support each other in the family here in the UK and to follow the trial from here, keeping close contact with lawyer Francesco Maresca and his colleagues.

We are confident that the evidence will be re-examined and that all the other requests for tests will be allowed, so that all the unanswered questions may be clarified and that the Court may decide on the next actions in this tragic case. These have been the six most difficult years of our lives and we want to be able to find a conclusion and remember Meredith as the really marvellous girl who she was, rather than remembering the horror associated with her.

It is a continuous battle every single day, struggling with our emotions, happy memories and desperately sad ones, and the only way in which our pain and suffering can at least begin to to be alleviated is to come to a clearer understanding of the tragic events of November 1st, 2007. Nothing can bring back our beautiful Meredith, and we keep her in our hearts always and in our memory, but we need to know what happened and she deserves at least the dignity of the truth.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely,


Stephanie Kercher and Family."

It would appear that the Kerchers are taking a position to test more rather than less. There are even PGP that are questioning why certain things aren't being looked into.

The defense needs to let everyone know that the court is limiting the search for truth.

 

[Machiavelli]

For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does this also apply to a much more important witness that the prosecution brought to the trial?

Could you provide the transcript of all the questions the defense was allowed to ask Rduy Guede?

Yes, now the transcript is actually public on the wiki page, I think.

However bear in mind that Rudy Guede is a former co-defendant of Knox and Sollecito and so he can refuse to answer. He decided to remain silent about the crime so there are no questions the defence could put him on the topic.

 

[Grinder]

For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explain that the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

What would be useful for proving contamination? Perhaps a picture of someone dabbing the knife with a Q-Tip?

You must prove contamination. You may not have the test results you believe could help. There will be no soup for you! Next!

 

[Grinder]

Yes, now the transcript is actually public on the wiki page, I think.

However bear in mind that Rudy Guede is a former co-defendant of Knox and Sollecito and so he can refuse to answer. He decided to remain silent about the crime so there are no questions the defence could put him on the topic.

he produced a letter to be read into the record. I guess non-silence must be declared just like being a suspect.

So the transcript is available but it has no questions for the witness. Mignini read the letter for him, right?

 

[katy_did]

These things were requested by the defence. Aviello was summoned by the defence. He wouldn't have ever entered the trial unless the defence and Hellmann had not drawn him into it.
But once he is in, he should not be thrown out arbitrarily, such as Hellmann did, without allowing him to be questioned completely: all those who want to ask any questions to the witness must be allowed to do so. The prosecution was prevented from completing their questioning in 2011 this is is why the hearing of Aviello is allowed now. There was something incomplete. This point is due procedure.
The further DNA test on the 'i' trace is the same. The knife must be tested, because the original ordnance ordered a retesting of the knife, which was not completed. (btw, the defence agrees to this).
So this is due procedure too. The completing of a previous legal procedure.

The photos were accepted because they are just forensic photos, that is documentation from the investigation. Hence they can be allowed.
But the other requests, are not due process. The judge would need a compelling reason to re-open an evidence discussion session on a topic. The defence could not offer any legitimate or compelling reason.

I think you're right about Aviello being simply procedural - the Court stated that specifically - but the test on the 'i' trace is different: it's being done for the purposes of acquiring evidence, not simply as unfinished business left over from the previous appeal. The Supreme Court themselves, after all, described this test as "not just significant, but decisive". Aviello won't affect anything (unless by some miracle he comes up with a plausible story, which let's face it, isn't going to happen) but the testing on the knife potentially could.

I agree on the photos, I think they were just accepted into the case file but are unlikely to have any major influence on the verdict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The bra clasp is contaminated. Period. Full stop.

She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

If Nencini and Crini truly believe this, they are feckless beyond measure. As I have discussed and documented many times, the EDFs of the negative controls can detect problems that no other evidence can. The EDFs of the evidence have a number of uses, not the least of which is to look for small peaks that the original analyst may have left out.

Van Oorshot and colleagues wrote, "From a theoretical perspective, any DNA deposit that is not immediately relevant to the crime being investigated can be viewed as contamination. In this light, gross or sporadic contamination may appear at any point: (1) before the crime has been committed; (2) in the interval between the crime and securing the crime scene; (3) during the investigation of the scene; and/or (4) within the laboratory." There is DNA on the clasp that is not relevant to the crime; therefore it is contaminated.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it boggles the mind

What would be useful for proving contamination? Perhaps a picture of someone dabbing the knife with a Q-Tip?

You must prove contamination. You may not have the test results you believe could help. There will be no soup for you! Next!

It is astonishingly unfair that the CSC has said in effect, "If a prosecution witness (Novelli) says that there is no contamination, then there is no contamination," without defining it or explaining how he even looked for it. If he did not use the EDFs, then he did not do it in a competent fashion. If he had the EDFs, then the defense should get them as well (they should get them anyway, but it goes double if Novelli had them). This kind of ruling should end any talk that the Italian judicial process is friendly to the defendants. What a crock.