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

[yimyammer]

It is one of the most troubling pieces along with the spot in Filomena's with both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA. I think it is possible that he touched it while it was on the drying rack or maybe when it fell off. I doubt the DNA came from being on the floor but more likely from tertiary transfer from the door knob for example when the ICSI entered the room and touched the clasp.

It could have been planted in the usual incompetent PLE fashion containing multiple profiles.

Is it possible that after Amanda showered and walked barefoot throughout the house, she could have picked up some of Meredith's blood on the soles of her feet that had beed tracked outside the room by Rudy and then after entering Filomenas room to see the broken window, etc she stepped on a piece of the minute broken glass particles which caused her blood/DNA & Meredith's to end up together in Filomenas room?

How many facts do I have incorrect in this scenario?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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?



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?

I think what he is saying is they can conclude they were made in error but they have to refute the original conclusion. They cannot just decide they were wrong conclusions without making an argument as to why they were incorrect conclusions.

 

[kwill]

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.

It's very strange to me when grown men become unhinged by porn, whether it's vanilla or kinky or whatever. Porn is a fantastically lucrative industry, even today with so much of it available for free online. This means there's an enormous market for it, and that means (mostly) men are watching it ALL the time.

All the time.

I believe that even though there are laws on the Italian books making it a criminal activity to look at porn, these laws are not enforced when the looker and the actors are over 18. What I'm saying is that this business of falling to the fainting couch in horror at the thought of ANY young man looking at ANY porn video is absurd. Raffaele is not on trial for looking at porn, and it's nobody's business if he ever did.

 

[yimyammer]

The reason why the request would be inadmissible is not because the letter is hersay. It's because 1. Guede invoked his right to silence, and 2. witnesses can be asked questions, or can release declarations in some conditions, but cannot requested to release declarations.

As for legal status, a letter is a document not hersay.
Documents can be admitted and may be read by the party who enters them, in this case it was the prosecution.



They could cross-examine the witness, but not on the topic of what he did on the night of the murder. They could question him about what he told to Alessi, why or when he did things like writing the letter, and about other topics that about which Alessi was questioned about not directly related to the Kercher murder.



Alessi, and hence Guede's letter about that as a consequence, were dragged into court by the defence not by the prosecution.
Moreover, what Guede stated in court about the night of murder, it was just a consequence of the insistent defence questions on the topic. Hadn't it been for Dalla Vedova's stupidity, Guede would not have said anything about the night of the murder.[/QUOTE]

Once again we have a triumph of form over substance. Guede can be convicted of murder, and subsequently proclaim non involvement, accuse two other people of being solely responsible for the crime of which he is convicted, and for eternity refuse to say one word about what happened, despite indisputably being there. If he was required to answer questions verbally in court, the jury would have an excellent chance of deducing the accuracy of his testimony. Elapsed time would never erase his vivid recollection of the events as he saw them.
Would you like him to answer questions in court Mach, to clarify the exact sequence?

It's really astonishing! This part of the trial is what I find most upsetting and outrageous. How he got out of there without being bludgeoned with questions by the defense infuriates me.

No way he could have withstood a competent cross, IMO

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
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?

The Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court, Riello, accused Hellmann-Zanetti of "trivializing" the evidence, because they didn't propery describe it, and they sweep a huge amount of information under the carpet.
How could they have followed the rule (respected the logical structure)? for example, reporting the evidence; like for example Amanda Knox's lies reported by Massei, or Massei's observation that a clean-up occurred because of the bloody bathmat on a clean floor, or Massei's reasoning about the luminol footprints, or their discussion about the physical evidence indicating a staged break-in.
Hellmann-Zanetti simply fails to discuss all these things which belong to the first instance decision. They should have refuted them, explaining why the first instance court erred in their reasoning, while instead they omit to mention the evidence.
The Hellmann-Zanetti court failed also to report, or give reasons about peices of evidence directly, for example they stated Curatolo suffered of a "mental deterioration" but failed to provide any element to back such assertion; they failed to report things Quintavalle actually said thus misrepresented his testimony; things like that.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.
.

That is the point though. As a juror, you are not supposed to know about the case or the defendant. You are completely naive. Then the prosecution presents it's case-in-chief, the defense presents it's case-in-chief, each side can present rebuttal witnesses to attempt to discredit the witnesses who gave testimony, and finally the jury gets to think about the whole presentation to render it's verdict. When selecting a jury, you purposely look for people who know nothing about the case so they are completely impartial.

 

[RandyN]

Well, I'm confused. The newspaper said that Mignini talked about a Satanic right. So that must be true, right? Or, at least it's admissible in court that Mignini said "Satanic rite."

That is exactly what Amanda claims in her book "Waiting To Be Heard". In fact she claims he said it in court! I believe her.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

I believe that even though there are laws on the Italian books making it a criminal activity to look at porn, these laws are not enforced when the looker and the actors are over 18. What I'm saying is that this business of falling to the fainting couch in horror at the thought of ANY young man looking at ANY porn video is absurd. Raffaele is not on trial for looking at porn, and it's nobody's business if he ever did.

I think the key word of interest to the case is "violent".
Not porn, but violent porn.

Tavernese said that De Robertis was shocked by violence he saw in some of Sollecito's porn movies. He reports that in the plural, "movies" (not just one).

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court, Riello, accused Hellmann-Zanetti of "trivializing" the evidence, because they didn't propery describe it, and they sweep a huge amount of information under the carpet.
How could they have followed the rule (respected the logical structure)? for example, reporting the evidence; like for example Amanda Knox's lies reported by Massei, or Massei's observation that a clean-up occurred because of the bloody bathmat on a clean floor, or Massei's reasoning about the luminol footprints, or their discussion about the physical evidence indicating a staged break-in.
Hellmann-Zanetti simply fails to discuss all these things which belong to the first instance decision. They should have refuted them, explaining why the first instance court erred in their reasoning, while instead they omit to mention the evidence.
The Hellmann-Zanetti court failed also to report, or give reasons about peices of evidence directly, for example they stated Curatolo suffered of a "mental deterioration" but failed to provide any element to back such assertion; they failed to report things Quintavalle actually said thus misrepresented his testimony; things like that.

Why do you think they didn't do this? They are judges, right? They know what is expected of them so why did they leave out refutation of those elements?

Sorry for so many questions. Law is very interesting to me and you are explaining Italian law stuff and I am very curious and interested.

 

[kwill]

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.

In our system the jury knows only what the lawyers present in a strictly controlled courtroom. The job of the judge is to make sure they follow the rules of evidence. Everyone who testifies does so under oath and can be prosecuted for perjury if it's later shown that they were lying to the court.

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.

Close to 4 million people live in the Seattle metropolitan area; how would it be possible to know them all? Not every crime is in the papers, and we don't have local tabloids to sensationalize the ones that are.

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.

I see the appeal of that argument . . . but having been on a jury and kept from knowing details that weren't relevant to the case we were trying, the practice of trying to keep jurors focused on what the evidence says (as opposed to what the tabloids say or what the defendant might have done at some other time) makes sense. We were quite capable of coming to a decision.

And of course I'm convinced that the trusted professionals in the Knox case got it spectacularly wrong . . . at least in the first instance. Is it really true that half the trials in Italy are overturned on first appeal?

 

[RandyN]

Technically, it's not a witness on the stand in a courtroom who verbally accuses the defendant of the crime: it's the molecules in the air that are conveying the sound pressure waves which "accuse" the defendant. You cannot cross-examine molecules of air.

LJ you are making perfect Italian argument. Perhaps you have gone too deep?

I vote this post best and funniest and most Yummi like.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think the key word of interest to the case is "violent".
Not porn, but violent porn.

Tavernese said that De Robertis was shocked by violence he saw in some of Sollecito's porn movies. He reports that in the plural, "movies" (not just one).

Last post for now, I promise. THIS^^^^ is hearsay. Someone told someone... Unless Tavernese saw it himself or unless a defendant told Tavernese out of the defendant's own mouth, it is hearsay through and through (at least in the U.S.)

 

[Machiavelli]

That is the point though. As a juror, you are not supposed to know about the case or the defendant. You are completely naive. Then the prosecution presents it's case-in-chief, the defense presents it's case-in-chief, each side can present rebuttal witnesses to attempt to discredit the witnesses who gave testimony, and finally the jury gets to think about the whole presentation to render it's verdict. When selecting a jury, you purposely look for people who know nothing about the case so they are completely impartial.

Yes but, I am afraid this is almost at the polar opposite of what the Italian system intends for "justice". All this is not compatible with an inquisitory system that would investigate and produce a "sentence". You can't select jurors based on their ignorance or detachement about social realities, since that would be a partial rather than an impartial selection. You would compose a jury of rednecks, which would mean people unable to investigate or conduct a trial in the best scenarion, but would mean a jury of mafiosi in the most likely scenario.
It's also quite unrealistic that the jury doesn't know or doesn't have a potential interest about the defendants. This might happen only with poor, drop-outs sons of b., but won't occur with defendants who are part of powerful alleigiances. And also, how could people be unaware about a high profile case which occurred anywhere? With TV and the internet and tablets? Is that realistic?
And how can you sequestrate a panel for months?

The only realistic solution is a body of magistrates.

 

[moije2]

It's very strange to me when grown men become unhinged by porn, whether it's vanilla or kinky or whatever. Porn is a fantastically lucrative industry, even today with so much of it available for free online. This means there's an enormous market for it, and that means (mostly) men are watching it ALL the time.

All the time.

I believe that even though there are laws on the Italian books making it a criminal activity to look at porn, these laws are not enforced when the looker and the actors are over 18. What I'm saying is that this business of falling to the fainting couch in horror at the thought of ANY young man looking at ANY porn video is absurd. Raffaele is not on trial for looking at porn, and it's nobody's business if he ever did.

Is this really true? If so, then maybe Raffaele is on trial, in a way, for looking at porn. Mach? Is this true? I would really be interested to know about this facet of Italian society. I never really thought about it, but in retrospect I cannot recall seeing evidence of this element of life although it must be present. I know Berlusconi found his releases, but the ordinary man (woman?)...?

 

[kwill]

I think the key word of interest to the case is "violent".
Not porn, but violent porn.

Tavernese said that De Robertis was shocked by violence he saw in some of Sollecito's porn movies. He reports that in the plural, "movies" (not just one).

Wait. Are you saying that T was allowed to testify about what DeR had told him about what DeR perceived to be violent? I thought DeR was freaked out by the extreme-ness (i.e., bestiality), not violence.

Why did DeR not testify? How is a 2nd hand report about someone else's memory relevant to anything?

Also . . . I know it's Wikipedia, but this is what it says with respect to Italian taste in porn:

Hardcore and softcore movies and magazines are available not only through sex shops, but also in normal video stores, newsstands, and even some gas stations.

Hardcore pornography was not a usual trend until 1980s.

With this atmosphere of liberty, Italian producers rushed to meet on-screen curiosities of viewers to even gain the title of presenting "bestiality" in mainstream pornographic films

I think wikipedia is at least as reliable as what one guy said about what another guy thought about what a third guy was watching a few years ago. No cigar on this one, sorry.

 

[RandyN]

I doubt very much if Stefanoni did it. She could have rigged any piece of evidence without ever leaving the lab.
But someone in Napoleoni's crew of neanderthal cops... very plausible.

Once again. What redeeming qualities do you find so admirable so as to offer Stefanoni any benefit of doubt at all? Is it her ability to go into the detention hearing and lie about the quantification of sample 36B? Or maybe her repeated withholding of the EDF'S? Or her co-conspiracy effort along with Comodi at attempting (twice) to introduce false control data sheets into the court record during the appeal trial? Or her little lapse of memory when she forgot about the TMB thingy? Shall I continue?

Look Napolini has been caught with her pants down so to speak...but so has Stefanoni. The fact that she twists and turns and passes back and forth and up and down from the floor this one tiny bra clasp meanwhile a whole bloody outer blue jacket goes without its own collection production number tells me all I need to know about this little Italian opera...It sucks!

She is lying scum who deserves no benefit of any doubt. She is someone willing to lie about scientific data when the very concept of scientific data is suppose to work against liars... (which is why she keeps files and data hidden...ding ding)

 

[Dan O.]

Is it possible that after Amanda showered and walked barefoot throughout the house, she could have picked up some of Meredith's blood on the soles of her feet that had beed tracked outside the room by Rudy and then after entering Filomenas room to see the broken window, etc she stepped on a piece of the minute broken glass particles which caused her blood/DNA & Meredith's to end up together in Filomenas room?

How many facts do I have incorrect in this scenario?

You have Amanda walking barefoot into a room with obvious broken glass.

If you need a speculation for what could have caused the luminol splotch of mixed DNA in Filomena's room, try this one:

First off, this trace is described more as a random splotch or splash without any desernable pattern. What makes such a trace? I'm going to suggest either a wadded up cloth like a towel or liquid dripping to the floor like when a wet towel is wrung out. We can take Amanda's towel from the small bath, use it to dry Rudy's pants and foot, use it to wipe down the inside of the shower, then walk out of the bath and into the original crime scene and wring out the towel. This puts all three components in place: Amanda's DNA, Meredith's DNA from her blood and water to dilute the mixture and splash it to the floor with no need for magic coincidences to put them together and no flying to leave the isolated trace.

 

[Bill Williams]

Newspaper coverage of the Capanne prison guard charged with sexual abuse.

http://www.umbria24.it/perugia-lex-guardia-carceraria-di-amanda-knox-davanti-al-giudice-per-violenza-sessuale/234308.html

 

[moije2]

[/HILITE]
That is exactly what Amanda claims in her book "Waiting To Be Heard". In fact she claims he said it in court! I believe her.

I find a quote from Carlo Pacelli (Patrick Lumumba's attorney) by Amanda:

"So who is Amanda Knox? In my opinion, within her resides a double soul - the angelic and compassionate, gentle and naive one, of Saint Maria Goretti, and the satanic, diabolic Luciferina, who was brought to engage in extreme, borderline acts and to adopt dissolute behavior. "

Page 356 of 457. Location 4474 of 5843. Kindle version of Waiting to Be Heard.

Not that Mignini might not have said it as well. Or at least adopted such comment. Anyway, there goes that "satan" thing again...

 

[Dan O.]

. . . but having been on a jury and kept from knowing details that weren't relevant to the case we were trying, the practice of trying to keep jurors focused on what the evidence says (as opposed to what the tabloids say or what the defendant might have done at some other time) makes sense.

I more recently got out of jury duty for knowing details of a case, having created a wiki and everything. So I know from the other side what you are talking about.