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

[Ampulla of Vater]

But "judgeing" means something else.
And there may be a very different concept of justice beyond.
The job of panel of judges is not to answer a question about the guilt of the defendant put by the prosecution. Judges in Italy do not issue a verdict, but a sentence. And what we call "sentence" is not the decision about guilt or innocence or and the issue of penalty, this is something that we call purview (dispositivo); what we consider as "the sentence" is the report, the motivations report itself. That is actually what in the Italian system legally equates to the "verdict". It is not a decision on a question about charges, it is a decision about facts, and about law; the decision about charges is only a consequence of that.

The panel of judges also works "allo stato degli atti" - that is "on papers". They incorporate in their decision a big load of material which is not from the trial discussion. The judges read the case file previously to that, they already have seen a large amount of evidence (for example all photos including the pink bathroom photo) basically they have already seen all the stuff like pictures or reports that newspapers may publish.
Yes it could happen in some cases that the press puts in the open some really meaningful information that could influence opinions about the trial which the judges didn't see, but it's extremely rare, and didn't happen in this case.

In the Italian trial, the defendant is also granted very wide rights to offer his own "prejudicial" evidence to the judges, he can make declarations whenever he wants without being questioned about them, he can question witnesses, he can refuse single questions or thread of questions about any topic, he can lie.

The concept of justice may also be different from jury sistem in that there is no concept of "jury of peers". The judges are seen as superior in rank, not as peers of the defentant, and they are investigators; they are expected to perform a kind of sohisticated job, they don't expect to be explained or shown "simple" or "safe" evidence or to be shown "smoking guns".
What matters in fact is the reasoning of the professional judges; the set of lay members is only a counter-check to the professionals' work.

Interesting. So this is why every aspect of a trial is not necessarily introduced in the courtroom and also why with this appeals trial not everything is being revisited.

Can they form a different opinion or conclusion on a part of the evidence within the case file, even if it is not brought up in the courtroom?

I also think this means each trial consists of all the previous evidence, records and testimony. The case file follows through to each court - is this correct?

 

[Diocletus]

The particular item, being a bra clasp, has special value as a sensational piece of evidence when the incriminating shoe / shoe print match was about to be revealed as bogus. Stefanoni could have wiped any item with Raffaelle's DNA - a sock, for example - but that bra clasp has special intimate meaning that makes it sensational physical evidence. Furthermore, going to Perugia and collecting the clasp on camera let's her grandstand on camera as she picks up THE key item to nail the murderer. Doing it in person enables her to demonstrate to herself and her patrons in Perugia - Mignini and Napoleoni's team - that Stefanoni is one of them, with them, important, and a hero.

I think don't think Stefanoni would have done it. I think that Napoleoni and her cops are likely perps here, for two main reasons:

1. I think they had access to the wire taps and knew that the shoes were no good (incidentally, the shoes tested negative for DNA on November 13, so the print analysis was the nail on the coffin) and

2. The cops had exclusive "custody" of the cottage, and could have entered any time they wanted (as they did November 6-7).

Question is, where would they have gotten Sollecito's dna to plant? Something they took out of jail, maybe?

I also wonder whether that clasp ever left the premises prior to December.

 

[Diocletus]

But "judgeing" means something else.
And there may be a very different concept of justice beyond.
The job of panel of judges is not to answer a question about the guilt of the defendant put by the prosecution. Judges in Italy do not issue a verdict, but a sentence. And what we call "sentence" is not the decision about guilt or innocence or and the issue of penalty, this is something that we call purview (dispositivo); what we consider as "the sentence" is the report, the motivations report itself. That is actually what in the Italian system legally equates to the "verdict". It is not a decision on a question about charges, it is a decision about facts, and about law; the decision about charges is only a consequence of that.

The panel of judges also works "allo stato degli atti" - that is "on papers". They incorporate in their decision a big load of material which is not from the trial discussion. The judges read the case file previously to that, they already have seen a large amount of evidence (for example all photos including the pink bathroom photo) basically they have already seen all the stuff like pictures or reports that newspapers may publish.
Yes it could happen in some cases that the press puts in the open some really meaningful information that could influence opinions about the trial which the judges didn't see, but it's extremely rare, and didn't happen in this case.

In the Italian trial, the defendant is also granted very wide rights to offer his own "prejudicial" evidence to the judges, he can make declarations whenever he wants without being questioned about them, he can question witnesses, he can refuse single questions or thread of questions about any topic, he can lie.

The concept of justice may also be different from jury sistem in that there is no concept of "jury of peers". The judges are seen as superior in rank, not as peers of the defentant, and they are investigators; they are expected to perform a kind of sohisticated job, they don't expect to be explained or shown "simple" or "safe" evidence or to be shown "smoking guns".
What matters in fact is the reasoning of the professional judges; the set of lay members is only a counter-check to the professionals' work.

Form over substance. Officiousness. Semantics.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The particular item, being a bra clasp, has special value as a sensational piece of evidence when the incriminating shoe / shoe print match was about to be revealed as bogus. Stefanoni could have wiped any item with Raffaelle's DNA - a sock, for example - but that bra clasp has special intimate meaning that makes it sensational physical evidence. Furthermore, going to Perugia and collecting the clasp on camera let's her grandstand on camera as she picks up THE key item to nail the murderer. Doing it in person enables her to demonstrate to herself and her patrons in Perugia - Mignini and Napoleoni's team - that Stefanoni is one of them, with them, important, and a hero.

She could have rubbed the sock against Meredith's panties and it would have been just as incriminating.

I'm only guessing as to what happened. I think it was probably intentional tampering, but it could have been accidental given the way the crime scene had been trashed.

Frank Sfarzo says the Scientific Police were done with their investigation and were not planning to return, but were called back to Perugia by the local authorities. He thinks the local cops made sure the next round of DNA tests would come up with something they could use. That makes sense to me.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The "knife collection" consisted of two pocket knives plus cutlery provided by the landlord. The "sadistic porn" consisted of a single comic book written for Japanese teenagers.

Let's clearify some things that you said in the last times which are incorrect.

Sollecito's collection does not consist of two pocket knifes. He had a whole collection, was very fond of knifes and was a knife carrier:

(...) Ho una collezione di coltelli a Giovinazzo ho anche delle catane, sono delle spade non affilate. E' una passione quella dei coltelli. Ho sempre portato con me un coltello nella tasca da quando avevo 13 anni.

(...) I have a collection of knives in Giovinazzo. I also have katanas, they are blunt swords. Itʹs a passion that one about knives. I have always carried a knife with me in my pocket since I was 13 years old.

The "sadistic" porn does not consist of a single comic book. It does not consist in comics actually, but in videos, as reported by the testimony of Mr. Tavernese of May 22. 2008:

“lo stesso giovane [Francesco De Robertis] che lo ha riferito, rimase turbato dall’esplicita violenza che aveva colto nel visionare questi film e possono definirsi di sesso estremo”.

"The young man [Francesco De Robertis] who told me that, he was shocked himself because of the explicit violence he perceived seeing these movies and they can be defined of extreme sex".

Tavernese reports what De Robertis explained, to be fair he described such movies as bestiality porn (this is what he said rather than "sadistic") and he was "generic" about details except for bestiality.



It is not true that the dark coloured car parked at the cottage gate belonged to a friend of those who had a broken down car. The dark coloured car, parked at the entrance of the cottage, was never identified. It certainly did not belong to any person of those known in the trial, with the sole possible exception of Kokomani, who owned a dark car, was in the area at that time, and lied. (another option is Sollecito's car)


It is not true that the fictional tale authored by Knox, which she posted on her MySpace page, is a story about a guy punching another guy in the face. It is a story focused on a charachter, the younger of two brothers, a beautiful and slightly effeminate young man who is basically a manipulative and depraved personality who dominates over the older brother - the "weak" charachter - and exploits him by manipulating his feelings; after he committed a nasty crime (he drugged and raped a girl) he manages to get away with it forcing his brother to live with him despite his moral outrage, knowing he can have the brother accept him again at his home, by taking advantage from the brother's 'weaknesses'.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting. So this is why every aspect of a trial is not necessarily introduced in the courtroom and also why with this appeals trial not everything is being revisited.

Can they form a different opinion or conclusion on a part of the evidence within the case file, even if it is not brought up in the courtroom?

I also think this means each trial consists of all the previous evidence, records and testimony. The case file follows through to each court - is this correct?

This one is an appeal, not the trial, so this happens much more beyond what happens at the first instance trial. Here basically all the evidence is already discussed and the previous proccedings are all incorporated. The new evidence being introduced and discussed now is only few remaining details.

Yes each stage of the trial includes the evidentiary papers of the previous, it is based on the case file as it was reached by the previous step.

Normally they can't reform a completely different conclusion without discussing the evidence. Hellmann-Zanetti did that, but that was a legal monstruosity and in fact was slapped down by the Supreme Court.
They could change their ideas on some pieces of evidence without discussing them again, but even when the appeal court doesn't discuss some pieces of evidence again, still in their motivations they need to explain convincingly why the previous assessment was wrong if they want to change the interpretation.
They cannot just give their own interpretation without succesfully refuting the previous one; there is this structural logical hierarchy they need to respect, the starting assumption must always be the one found at the previous stage.
Galati accused Hallmann-Zanetti of having done a "second first instance trial" for this reason.
There are obviously some pieces of evidence, or let's say some items/topics, that cannot undergo a new assessment without a court discussion or an investigation. For example the putative semen stain on the pillowcase (in this case against Sollecito): would be impossible to say if it's evidence against Sollecito or not without testing it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Let's clearify some things that you said in the last times which are incorrect.

Sollecito's collection does not consist of two pocket knifes. He had a whole collection, was very fond of knifes and was a knife carrier:







The "sadistic" porn does not consist of a single comic book. It does not consist in comics actually, but in videos, as reported by the testimony of Mr. Tavernese of May 22. 2008:





Tavernese reports what De Robertis explained, to be fair he described such movies as bestiality porn (this is what he said than "sadistic") and he was "generic" about details except for bestiality.



It is not true that the dark coloured car parked at the cottage gate belonged to a friend of those who had a broken down car. The dark coloured car, parked at the entrance of the cottage, was never identified. It certainly did not belong to any person of those known in the trial, with the sole possible exception of Kokomani, who owned a dark car, was in the area at that time, and lied. (another option is Sollecito's car)


It is not true that the fictional tale authored by Knox, which she posted on her MySpace page, is a story about a guy punching another guy in the face. It is a story focused on a charachter, the younger of two brothers, a beautiful and slightly effeminate young man who is basically a manipulative and depraved personality who dominates over the older brother - the "weak" charachter - and exploits him by manipulating his feelings; after he committed a nasty crime (he drugged and raped a girl) he manages to get away with it forcing his brother to accept it despite his moral outrage, knowing he can have the brother accept him again at his home, by taking advantage from the brother's 'weaknesses'.

OK, he had a knife collection at home and he had a porn video at some point when he was in college, which apparently was confiscated for some reason. But police did not find much of a "knife collection" in the apartment he occupied in Perugia. Nor did they find any porn, which is why they made a big deal out of the comic book.

The car I wasn't sure about. I vaguely remember seeing some discussion of this and I thought it had been resolved, but maybe not. From what you are saying, it is another unexplained detail that doesn't fit with anything else.

The MySpace story I am sure about. It does in fact describe a guy punching his brother, although that is not its subject. There is no doubt John Follain misrepresented this in his June 15, 2008 story. Follain wrote:

In December 2006 she [i.e., Amanda] posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: "She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn't move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face."

The sentence as written by Amanda is as follows:

Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn't move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to the article he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years:

Look, you are right, I was recalling the wrong case. This guy Arapi was actualy sentenced.
However I don't believe that his protest in the UK affected any subsequenct decision: he would have been freed anyway as soon as the Italian judiciary had that evidence. The problem is he would have spent a number of weeks in jail anyway.
It's annoying, but it's not an Italian problem: it's the European current system, where we have a European mandate of arrest, free circulation but no unified judiciary and no unified judicial information system, this is potentially dangerous you may not have any information about what the courts are doing with you, nobody will tell you.

Regarding Alessi and the two others who testified that Guede told them Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved, it was a fat drunk guy who fled to England, perhaps were they testifying against Rudy (or the fat drunk guy) there might be a problem with that evidence, but they were just testifying to what Rudy said to them about Amanda and Raffaele with everyone knowing they couldn't possibly know the truth of the matter, but they can report what Rudy said and the jury/judges panel can determine for themselves if they think Alessi and the others were lying regarding what Rudy said about Amanda and Raffaele, or if Rudy was lying to them, it was never going to be used against Rudy or the fat drunk guy.

But it's hearsay, regardless how you use it.

(And by the way you cannot even establish in advance the ways in which something could be used).

 

[Diocletus]

The "sadistic" porn does not consist of a single comic book. It does not consist in comics actually, but in videos, as reported by the testimony of Mr. Tavernese of May 22. 2008:

Tavernese reports what De Robertis explained, to be fair he described such movies as bestiality porn (this is what he said rather than "sadistic") and he was "generic" about details except for bestiality.

Poor Sollecito. Of all the things to get caught with, it was porn. Didn't he know that Italians justice-types are mesmerized by porn.

Sollecito could have had a drawer full of handguns and that would have been less interesting to them than his dirty mag.

 

[Mary_H]

Form over substance. Officiousness. Semantics.

I was going to say the same thing! Only I was going to put it this way: "Blah, blah, blah."

 

[yimyammer]

Why yes, the ghettos full of Jews, the full trains running to the extermination camps, Italian soldiers goose stepping all over the world, Italy today looks much like Nazi Germany.

I wasn't talk about the jews, I was talking about the climate in which the majority abdicated control to a group of thugs which lead to a state of fear that gained so much power that it was next to impossible for anyone to stop from within.

Same climate existed in countries like Czech, Hungary, Romania, etc under the umbrella of the USSR and still exists today in N Korea.

too much of a sidebar for this thread topic, so disregard my post

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The MySpace story I am sure about. It does in fact describe a guy punching his brother, although that is not its subject. There is no doubt John Follain misrepresented this in his June 15, 2008 story. Follain wrote:

In December 2006 she [i.e., Amanda] posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: "She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn't move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face."

The sentence as written by Amanda is as follows:

Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn't move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face.

What a complete fool.

 

[Diocletus]

Look, you are right, I was recalling the wrong case. This guy Arapi was actualy sentenced.
However I don't believe that his protest in the UK affected any subsequenct decision: he would have been freed anyway as soon as the Italian judiciary had that evidence. The problem is he would have spent a number of weeks in jail anyway.
It's annoying, but it's not an Italian problem: it's the European current system, where we have a European mandate of arrest, free circulation but no unified judiciary and no unified judicial information system, this is potentially dangerous you may not have any information about what the courts are doing with you, nobody will tell you.



But it's hearsay, regardless how you use it.
.

Guede's statements to them are statements against his interest and therefore reliable. Further, these witnesses testified and were available for cross examination. Even further, there were two or three witnesses who told consistent stories, therefore self-corroborating.

Compare that to Guede, who made a self-serving accusation against the defendants, and was not cross-examined.

 

[Diocletus]

Look, you are right, I was recalling the wrong case. This guy Arapi was actualy sentenced.
However I don't believe that his protest in the UK affected any subsequenct decision: he would have been freed anyway as soon as the Italian judiciary had that evidence. The problem is he would have spent a number of weeks in jail anyway.
It's annoying, but it's not an Italian problem: it's the European current system, where we have a European mandate of arrest, free circulation but no unified judiciary and no unified judicial information system, this is potentially dangerous you may not have any information about what the courts are doing with you, nobody will tell you.



But it's hearsay, regardless how you use it.

(And by the way you cannot even establish in advance the ways in which something could be used).

Oh, so it was the availability of European arrest that caused the Italian courts to wrongfully convict this guy? They got so excited that they could arrest the guy, that they forgot to collect real evidence and have an actual trial?

 

[kwill]

Normally they can't reform a completely different conclusion without discussing the evidence. Hellmann-Zanetti did that, but that was a legal monstruosity and in fact was slapped down by the Supreme Court.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. What did H-Z reform without discussing evidence? How would anybody know if they had, since their discussions don't have to take place in public and there is no public record or discussions? Or are you saying that they failed to discuss their reasons adequately in their motivations?

They could change their ideas on some pieces of evidence without discussing them again, but even when the appeal court doesn't discuss some pieces of evidence again, still in their motivations they need to explain convincingly why the previous assessment was wrong if they want to change the interpretation.
They cannot just give their own interpretation without succesfully refuting the previous one; there is this structural logical hierarchy they need to respect, the starting assumption must always be the one found at the previous stage.
Galati accused Hallmann-Zanetti of having done a "second first instance trial" for this reason.

I'd like to understand this better. How could H-Z "respect" the starting assumptions of the previous stage when their conclusion was that (in the case of the DNA and the supposed staged break-in) those starting assumptions were made in error?

 

[RandyN]

I think don't think Stefanoni would have done it. I think that Napoleoni and her cops are likely perps here, for two main reasons:

1. I think they had access to the wire taps and knew that the shoes were no good (incidentally, the shoes tested negative for DNA on November 13, so the print analysis was the nail on the coffin) and

2. The cops had exclusive "custody" of the cottage, and could have entered any time they wanted (as they did November 6-7).

Question is, where would they have gotten Sollecito's dna to plant? Something they took out of jail, maybe?
I also wonder whether that clasp ever left the premises prior to December.

How about they went to his apartment sometime after Nov 5th and got all the RS DNA they wanted.

Not defending the cops here but what do you find in Stefanonis character that would lead you to believe she is honest in any way at all?

She is about as honest as the courts judging this ridiculous case. The whole country is nothing but a manure pile full of liars and or idiots!

So for example they have Stefanoni do the DNA and CSI work and Micheli allows a "independent" review of that. Biondo is the reviewer. Now I axe you...who is so corrupt or stupid or ignorant to do such a thing and with a straight face? Why the Italians that's who...

World don't allow your children to visit Italy. In fact everyone should stay away from this hell hole...they see corruption there as plain as the noses on their faces and then make up the the most incredibly stupid story and try to pass it off as real...look at Captain Courageous...a lying gigolo idiot...or a typical Italian resident? I'm going with fairly typical.

Where are all the Italians who think this case is a sham and who agree that the prosecutor got it completely wrong? Hello? Crickets...right! Idiots!...like I said.

 

[Strozzi]

Frank Sfarzo says the Scientific Police were done with their investigation and were not planning to return, but were called back to Perugia by the local authorities. He thinks the local cops made sure the next round of DNA tests would come up with something they could use. That makes sense to me.

I assumed that the Perugia police or prosecutor called Stefanoni back to find something. That they initiated it. The Perugia authorities would have been the ones tracking what the Sollecitos were saying, thinking, and doing. Stefanini in her lab in Rome would not be reviewing teltap transcripts and summaries.

So when Perugia authorities called her to come back and find something because the physical evidence against Sollecito is falling apart, that put Stefanoni in the crucial role of protector/ savior of Mignini's case. Not just savior of the case, but protector of the reputations of Mignini, Commodi, Napoleoni, the police chief, et al. With everything riding on her, you can bet your yacht that she was not going to take the clasp back to her lab in Rome and then call Mignini or Napoleoni and say there is nothing on the clasp.

Now if she said there is DNA from 3 males on the clasp and I am analyzing it to see who they are, or I found Officer Finzi's DNA on the clasp along with Sollecito's, or she said it is Pathologist Lalli's DNA, or if she said Prosecutor Mignini I found your DNA on the clasp - then I would say she may be honest after all. But she has not identified or even, if I remember correctly, did not voluntarily disclose that there is DNA from 3 or 4 males on the clasp. Just Sollecito's, even though DNA from other males is discernible.

By the way, what records has she released and what records has she withheld that show other males' DNA is on the clasp? I ask this because I think it would be good to document here what documents she submitted and what she withheld.

 

[RandyN]

She could have rubbed the sock against Meredith's panties and it would have been just as incriminating.

I'm only guessing as to what happened. I think it was probably intentional tampering, but it could have been accidental given the way the crime scene had been trashed.

Frank Sfarzo says the Scientific Police were done with their investigation and were not planning to return, but were called back to Perugia by the local authorities. He thinks the local cops made sure the next round of DNA tests would come up with something they could use. That makes sense to me.

Which is exactly why the genius defense team should have asked this one little question to Stefanoni when they had her on the stand...Why did you decide to return to the cottage on Dec 18th? And then flesh that out as she lies and twists and turns. Who ordered it? Biondo? Mignini? Napolini? Why?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The other curious thing is why it takes a whole year to try a case if the judges are going to base their decision "mostly" on the documents and files they've already read. Do the lay judges also have access to this material before the trial begins?

Because judges, prosecutors and lawyers normally do many trials at the same time.
For example Nencini discussed with the lawyers a while to decide the schedule of the next court dates. Basically all lawyers had objections, they wanted some dates and not others, the prosecutor wanted more days to prepare his arguments, the defences wanted more days to deposit new expert briefs, the prosecutor asked a week more to read them, Nencini himself had problems because he works not just on several trials but in two different courts, he also workes as a judge at the lower appeals court. And he was doing all this now, but December is a "short" month because of holidays and he had not enough freed dates left in December, so he placed the dates on Nov 25. and 26., only one in December and the following in January.

One case I was on lasted for two and a half months, including the jury deliberations -- and it was a very complex tax fraud conspiracy with nine defendants. It turned out that three of them were already in prison on different charges during that trial, but we weren't allowed to know that until after we'd given our verdicts, because it would have been prejudicial. Anyway, 10 weeks is a really long trial here.

Imagine if Berlusconi or one of his friends of a mafioso had to be judged by a jury of common people. They would hang them without even knowing what's in the case files, they wouldn't even open it, to avoid the risk of being influenced by it.
Not knowing who a defendant is. This sounds very strange to me, maybe it's the modern world, maybe it's the Italian society. How is it possible that people don't know who you are? I can't imagine that. It sounds to me so naive, so detached from the reality of network of allegiances and social relations in which I live.
The best rational solution to me is to let trusted professionals deal with it. I don't believe juries of "peers" would be fair or could ever be "screened" from prejudicial information. I think professionals who are trusted with a reputation of being impartial a priori, independently from what they know or like, are the only who can guarantee the most fair (or less unfair) outcome.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

This one is an appeal, not the trial, so this happens much more beyond what happens at the first instance trial. Here basically all the evidence is already discussed and the previous proccedings are all incorporated. The new evidence being introduced and discussed now is only few remaining details.

Yes each stage of the trial includes the evidentiary papers of the previous, it is based on the case file as it was reached by the previous step.

Normally they can't reform a completely different conclusion without discussing the evidence. Hellmann-Zanetti did that, but that was a legal monstruosity and in fact was slapped down by the Supreme Court.
They could change their ideas on some pieces of evidence without discussing them again, but even when the appeal court doesn't discuss some pieces of evidence again, still in their motivations they need to explain convincingly why the previous assessment was wrong if they want to change the interpretation.
They cannot just give their own interpretation without succesfully refuting the previous one; there is this structural logical hierarchy they need to respect, the starting assumption must always be the one found at the previous stage.
Galati accused Hallmann-Zanetti of having done a "second first instance trial" for this reason.

At a first instance trial I would assume a defendant is then presumed guilty since the judges have all read the case file and looked at all the evidence prior to the trial. At that point they have only seen all the prosecution's evidence which makes it an uphill battle (a difficult task) for any defense to overcome.

There are obviously some pieces of evidence, or let's say some items/topics, that cannot undergo a new assessment without a court discussion or an investigation. For example the putative semen stain on the pillowcase (in this case against Sollecito): would be impossible to say if it's evidence against Sollecito or not without testing it.

I would hope not, just because it could only ever be speculation without testing it.
But what you are saying, I think, is in an appeal trial, a piece of evidence can be deemed not credible and not indicative of guilt, even if the prior trial deemed it valuable and damning to the defendant, as long as the appeal judges explain their reasoning in the motivation report. And this can be done for a particular piece of evidence that was never brought up or discussed in the appeal. True?