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

[Machiavelli]

Except that Guede gives up the right to remain silent when he has Mignini read a letter that Guede supposedly wrote. (...)

Absolutely not. He does not waive his right to remain silent at all, no matter what letters he wrote are read in court.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is truly remarkable.

Machiavelli, in terms of logic, how does the investigation team decide where to stop when it comes to collecting and testing evidence? How is it more "feeling" and less logical to look at blood samples than to look at semen samples in a fatal sexual assault case? If there had been no blood, would it then be logical to test the stain in order to better understand what happened?

The question is, why would any forensic investigator leave any stone unturned?

As far as I know, the testing of the putative semen stain is due to the fact that, at the beginnig of the investigation, a decision on a test was delayed, because the test would have destroyed the pillowcase (and there were many shoperints on it).
The pillowcase was kept by the print-analysis department, and remained "freezed" there in that status for the purpose of print analysis.
Vinci has analysed the pillowcase stains under crimescope light together with Stefanoni; he did not require a test.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ghirga specifically tells Massei that he wants the raw data, the use he wants to make of the raw data is: reconstruct the testing processing session followed by Stefanoni. He is mostly focused on the Knife.

Many thanks for once again confirming that the raw data was specifically asked for in court in 2009 and denied by Massei.

As you indicated before, Stefanoni had a strategy based on what data to release and when to release it.

The purpose of that strategy in my opinion, was to withhold data that might make the kids look innocent and release data that could make the kids look guilty. This is unethical. Stefi is a lying cheater.

It appears to me your entire argument on the subject of the raw data boils down to the defense lawyers were not able to explain exactly how that data would be relevant to the defense experts. Of course, the lawyers are not experts themselves and if Massei denied the requests based on the fact that the defense lawyers did a poor job of explaining things, then that is just sad.

It is clear from the testimony that the experts felt they were hamstrung by lack of data, including the raw data. The fact that the court still refuses this to the defense speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Now we come to this new appeal and the court is wanting the defense to prove contamination. The defense tells the court their experts need the raw data in order to show contamination. Once again the court denies the request because the lawyer was not able to properly explain things or point out a specific testimony from an expert properly explaining why it is needed. If this is the case, as you suggest, it's doubly sad.

One day, the truth will come out. I hope the lying cheating "scientist" is exposed for the corrupt female dog she is. It is obvious to me the court is not pursuing justice. They are afraid of the truth.

 

[RoseMontague]

As far as I know, the testing of the putative semen stain is due to the fact that, at the beginnig of the investigation, a decision on a test was delayed, because the test would have destroyed the pillowcase (and there were many shoperints on it).
The pillowcase was kept by the print-analysis department, and remained "freezed" there in that status for the purpose of print analysis.
Vinci has analysed the pillowcase stains under crimescope light together with Stefanoni; he did not require a test.

How exactly does a crimescope determine DNA? How would taking a swab for DNA destroy the pillowcase? This explanation is bogus.

 

[Supernaut]

Absolutely not. He does not waive his right to remain silent at all, no matter what letters he wrote are read in court.

Do you think anyone will be stupid enough to be persuaded by this?

Guede's written statement was read out in court, in his presence, but he remained mute, so therefore technically, he didn't actually give up his "right to remain silent"?

Wow, just wow®.

 

[Supernaut]

I think what might confuse some people is Machavelli's use of "the right to remain silent".

In Western countries (of which Italy is a member only in name) it means that you are not compelled to answer questions on arrest, or to testify at your own trial.

NOTHING prevents one being subpoenaed as a witness at someone else's trial, and refusal to testify is contempt of court, carrying a jail term. FULL STOP.

Whatever is being to referred to in Guede's case as the right to remain silent bears no relationship to how its understood elsewhere.

 

[TofuFighter]

It would be an injustice. I make my mind up myself, not swayed by some courtroom full of people with their own opinions and subjective beliefs.

From the data and info Ive seen I think they're innocent.
If new evidence came out that could sway my opinion.

Im curious you claim most of Britain and Italy are for a guilty verdict , do you have any links to this info? From what I see theres not that many who consistently even follow this case.

Hi Jref
hmmm... it may be that my statement about the British and Italian wasn't accurate as representative of their whole country, but it was certainly the impression i got from reading through comments/comments ratings on news reports about the case. on BBC sites, the highest rated comments were generally those displaying suspicion of Knox, rather than punting her innocence.

You can understand, to a degree, the italians naturally wanting to defend against the accusations of incompetency in the investigations and the trial for national pride, such as it may be.
The British also have Kercher to think about. Had Kercher and Knox swapped places, I wonder how the reaction would be different in this case.

Part of the reason that i raise the point about bias, is because on the day of Knox's release, one of my american friends mailed me in celebratory fashion "we got back the girl!!!" Now she didn't have the first clue about the details of the case, and whether the evidence supported knox's realease as a good thing. It was simply a rallying slogan that they used on each other to pat themselves on the back for winning.

ps. "From the data and info Ive seen I think they're innocent." <---- this is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Supernaut]

Also, just to remind everyone, this is how Guede concluded the statement read out while he "remained silent";

...a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox..

But get this - he had been called, in effect, to defend himself against an allegation by a 'jail-house snitch', who alleged (in a written statement admitted to the court) that Guede had "confessed" that Knox and Sollecito weren't involved in the murder.

(This, basically, had been another example of the defence incompetence RandyN often refers to).

You couldn't make this stuff up, but the Italian CJS does, in fact, make it up as they go.

 

[TofuFighter]

I have a similar view of the world. As a means of dealing with the world I perceive I use a concept that I call practical certainty. The idea is to assume that the world is pretty much as it seems and decide with only that assumption whether something can be known for certain or if not what are probability of truth for a particular proposition.

When I became aware of the Kercher murder trial I assumed that the truth would be unknowable and the closest we could get to knowledge of the truth would be a probability assessment. When there are two sides with strongly held views on an issue, I don't expect that evidence is available to sort out reliably which side is right and which side is wrong.

But the innocence of Knox and Sollecito is something we can know to a probability that approaches practical certainty. This is not a reasonable doubt case where the arguments are focused on the idea that the defendants might be guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. To the degree we can know about these things it is provable that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

It is a bit hard to believe, because for it to be true we have to believe that a whacked prosecutor managed to get support from the police department and most importantly from a forensic scientist to delude a compliant court into believing his fantasy narrative. Further we need to believe that a cooperative media became part of the conspiracy to frame Knox and Sollecito. But that is exactly what I believe happened. It isn't a unique situation. Prosecutions driven by out of control prosecutors with compliant police departments and courts that cooperate either because they are duped or corrupt happen in the US and presumably they happen occasionally every place where there are prosecutors, police and courts. I doubt that it is common, even in Italy where protection of the rights of the defendants seems to be a bit of an iffy proposition.

But as unlikely as it seems that so many people could have cooperated in a conspiracy to frame Knox and Sollecito it is far more unlikely that they are guilty. I think you will believe this also when you have taken a good look at the evidence in this case.

I appreciate this response, Davefoc.

It does seem worth highlighting that a fair number of peculiar events had to occur for a court to find these two guilty if they are so overwhelmingly innocent.

If anyone feels happy to respond... among the people who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent (and i keep feeling like i should say 'innocent of physically stabbing Kercher'), is it also your general belief that they have been completely truthful?

 

[MDDVS]

I appreciate this response, Davefoc.

It does seem worth highlighting that a fair number of peculiar events had to occur for a court to find these two guilty if they are so overwhelmingly innocent.

If anyone feels happy to respond... among the people who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent (and i keep feeling like i should say 'innocent of physically stabbing Kercher'), is it also your general belief that they have been completely truthful?

Nothing peculiar had to occur, just standard procedure for a small town police in Italy. Find suspects, get confession, solve crime. Who cares if you have to twist the evidence a bit? Then the judiciary agents just cover the each other's asses.

This is no big conspiracy, and it's not even a conspiracy has you wold normally understand the term. It's the normal way to solve crimes in Italy. It's just that they got it wrong and they are under the spotlight this time.

Also, to answer your question. No, not always completely truthful. For example, Amanda lied to the police when first asked if she smoked weed. But this is completely irrelevant, they didn't lie about anything essential.

 

[NancyS]

I appreciate this response, Davefoc.

It does seem worth highlighting that a fair number of peculiar events had to occur for a court to find these two guilty if they are so overwhelmingly innocent.

If anyone feels happy to respond... among the people who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent (and i keep feeling like i should say 'innocent of physically stabbing Kercher'), is it also your general belief that they have been completely truthful?

I think they were mostly stoned space heads who couldn't give a very accurate description of what they had been doing and were easily manipulated - I wouldn't have been surprised if Raffaele was a bit stoned during his questioning, which caused him to be confused about dates.

I'd also ask you, if I say that I had dinner last night at 8pm and my husband says it was 9pm, is one of us lying?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

If anyone feels happy to respond... among the people who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent (and i keep feeling like i should say 'innocent of physically stabbing Kercher'), is it also your general belief that they have been completely truthful?

It's my fairly emphatic belief that they've been "completely truthful" about everything I should care about, and that any falsehoods were said with the objective of getting themselves out of a diabolical situation they were placed in by the stupidity and incompetence of their persecutors. There's a pernicious tendency for many who look on this fiasco to conclude that the truth must lie in the middle somewhere - that while Knox might not have done the deed, she is nonetheless "hiding something". Such people think they're being rational, but they're not - or at least, their rationality is based on an inadequate grasp of the facts (which I can understand - there's no particular reason most people should care about all this). The conclusion Occam's razor points to is that Knox and Sollecito spent that evening doing exactly what they said they were doing.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

You are correct though to say that what I believe to be the true story involves "a fair number of peculiar events". However, those events are immeasurably less peculiar than those the pro-guilt lobby would have me believe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it doesn't wash

How exactly does a crimescope determine DNA? How would taking a swab for DNA destroy the pillowcase? This explanation is bogus.

Exactly. If you want to individualize that stain, you need to perform DNA profiling. Here we have according to the CSC a sex game gone wrong involving multiple attackers, and somehow the nature and identity of a putative semen stain is unworthy of being studied.

 

[christianahannah]

Also, just to remind everyone, this is how Guede concluded the statement read out while he "remained silent";

...a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox..

But get this - he had been called, in effect, to defend himself against an allegation by a 'jail-house snitch', who alleged (in a written statement admitted to the court) that Guede had "confessed" that Knox and Sollecito weren't involved in the murder.

(This, basically, had been another example of the defence incompetence RandyN often refers to).

You couldn't make this stuff up, but the Italian CJS does, in fact, make it up as they go.

Rudy was not silent during this time in court. He answered questions by the defense and did answer questions somewhat concerning the last sentence of the letter (obviously not to the satisfaction of many).

Rudy's attorney argued in court to not admit the letter (or maybe it was to not have it read in court - possibly because of the last sentence) and to narrow the questioning to the allegations by Aviello (who appeared in court to testify to Rudy's conversations). Hellmann ruled to have the letter read and the questions kept to Aviello's testimony. From Rudy's testimony transcript (and video of his court appearance) the defense were able to get some questions answered by him which were other than answering Aviello's testimony.

 

[christianahannah]

Exactly. If you want to individualize that stain, you need to perform DNA profiling. Here we have according to the CSC a sex game gone wrong involving multiple attackers, and somehow the nature and identity of a putative semen stain is unworthy of being studied.

In order to perform DNA testing on the two stains wouldn't you have to cut both areas in order to test?

Do you know if the defense put forth a request to have the stains tested in May 2009 (when Vinci first did the crimescope images of the pillowcase)?

As far as preservation and testing of crime scene evidence there is legal protocol as to what can be done, can't be done, and how it should be done applying to both sides of a case. It could be that one side or the other didn't make a valid legal argument to have something tested or made no legal argument at all. This is in general and may or may not apply to this case.

 

[Supernaut]

Rudy was not silent during this time in court. He answered questions by the defense and did answer questions somewhat concerning the last sentence of the letter (obviously not to the satisfaction of many).

Rudy's attorney argued in court to not admit the letter (or maybe it was to not have it read in court - possibly because of the last sentence) and to narrow the questioning to the allegations by Aviello (who appeared in court to testify to Rudy's conversations). Hellmann ruled to have the letter read and the questions kept to Aviello's testimony. From Rudy's testimony transcript (and video of his court appearance) the defense were able to get some questions answered by him which were other than answering Aviello's testimony.

I'm aware of all this.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/statements-of-rudy-guede-2/

He was not questioned about the murder, during which he was present, and this in a court trying two other people alleged to have commited the crime.

He was asked only to "clarify" what he meant in his statement by “a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox”, which he didn't.

it's insane.

 

[JREF2010]

How exactly does a crimescope determine DNA? How would taking a swab for DNA destroy the pillowcase? This explanation is bogus.

I would think both sides would want this tested, the Guilters hope its Raffaele, the Innocenti's hoping its Rudy or his accomplice.

If its Giacomo Silenzi, then ok...this stone is turned over, removed forever as the Kerchers want, answered once and for all.

Now we return to the Retarded Room...

The more the prosecution pushes the sex-orgy scenario the more insane it is no one tests the stain. Its not this trial, its all the trials, all the Judges, and the Forensic team and Migninni and his underlings refusal of a semen stain.

To save a shoe print? is a common answer why they didn't test it. But that makes little sense. There were plenty of smears from feet to study, but only one semen stain, on a duvet that was lying over the poor victim, in the murder scene. And they ignore this "elephant in the room" evidence.

Once the tennis shoeprints were known to be Rudys and the Prosecution had the knife and bra clasp, there was no longer a reason not to proceed in testing the stain.

I can only wonder if the prosecution knows the results and it doesn't support their case so they keep it hidden. This is where US is probably better, as the Defense gets full opportunity to run their tests equally with the prosecution.
Italy allows both parties present, but in this case the prosecution doesn't test the item, so they also avoid the defense from getting this information.

The question for Giacmo might be, "did you ever have sex with Meredith in her room?" see how simple that would be.

Giacomo Silenzi wasn't Merediths boyfriend long, they have sex in his downstairs flat is documented. They could at least ask him if he had sex with Meredith in her bedroom. He seems ok with saying they had sex in his room, downstairs.

The ISC "no stone unturned " words seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
The Kerchers wanting all answers, seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Instead we get Aviello again, or finger nail pictures, or intricate DNA test....but not the stain.

Reading what I could find, Giacomo meets her and in a week they kiss, then after the party sex Oct 15 (after the Red Zone evening), sometime around Oct 20-22 Rudy makes his entrance into the cottage by the boys invite, Oct 25 Raffaele and Amanda , Giacomo is mentioned as ignoring her in public, Meredith talks to friends about Giacomo, no mention of a date with Rudy Guede, Giacomo sees her for the last time on the 29th and asks for watering the pot plants. Nov. 1 the crime.

Maybe they had only one encounter of sex, in his downstairs flat?

That leaves the stain as Rudy, Raffaele, or Unknown Male.

How would a common logic approach find out whose stain it is?
1) Ask Giacomo if he had sex with Meredith and it could be his?
2) Test the stain

This is bigger than testing a semen trace now, its about a systems refusal of new evidence.

I think of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...

 

[Diocletus]

I think what might confuse some people is Machavelli's use of "the right to remain silent".

In Western countries (of which Italy is a member only in name) it means that you are not compelled to answer questions on arrest, or to testify at your own trial.

NOTHING prevents one being subpoenaed as a witness at someone else's trial, and refusal to testify is contempt of court, carrying a jail term. FULL STOP.

Whatever is being to referred to in Guede's case as the right to remain silent bears no relationship to how its understood elsewhere.

Machiavelli is referring to the "right" of Guede to remain silent because it is inconvenient for the prosecution to have him say anything more than what's in his letter. It's not an actual "right" in the sense that anyone who ever went to law school, or even watched a cop show on TV, would conceive. It's just something an Italian prosecutor cooked up so that Guede could say what the prosecution wants him to say without having to actually answer any real questions.

I'm sure that Guede was rewarded for his compliance.

 

[TofuFighter]

Also, to answer your question. No, not always completely truthful. For example, Amanda lied to the police when first asked if she smoked weed. But this is completely irrelevant, they didn't lie about anything essential.

:/ i agree that untruths about innocuous matters (weed) are not relevant.

I'd also ask you, if I say that I had dinner last night at 8pm and my husband says it was 9pm, is one of us lying?

your husband was at my place last night... one of you is certainly fishy.
No, naturally i wouldn't know if either of you were lying. At least one of you would certainly be incorrect (unless you ate at different times), but there remains a possibility that one is not telling the truth.

It's my fairly emphatic belief that they've been "completely truthful" about everything I should care about, and that any falsehoods were said with the objective of getting themselves out of a diabolical situation they were placed in by the stupidity and incompetence of their persecutors. There's a pernicious tendency for many who look on this fiasco to conclude that the truth must lie in the middle somewhere - that while Knox might not have done the deed, she is nonetheless "hiding something". Such people think they're being rational, but they're not - or at least, their rationality is based on an inadequate grasp of the facts (which I can understand - there's no particular reason most people should care about all this). The conclusion Occam's razor points to is that Knox and Sollecito spent that evening doing exactly what they said they were doing.

It may be pernicious that people believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but it can't be ignored that Knox did say some things which were not true, and that were much less than irrelevant. Although there remains the question whether this was under duress (which I think Halides made a point about), it's enough for people to question the veracity of the rest of her statements. Granted, people who take this position may not have enough facts at their disposal (ie, the two may have been stoned when being questioned, or that the police may have been coercive).
While i like the notion of Occam's Razor, life just isn't that simple anymore.