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

[Grinder]

Did Hellman also decline the putative semen test? (Not going bananas, I just want to know)

I believe he did decline the request. I think he had it in mind that if the DNA on the knife held up, the verdict would remain guilty.

 

[Diocletus]

And once again the point means nothing regarding the kids' guilt or innocence.

No, but it means that Stefanoni was not thorough (shocking as that may sound). Moreover, these samples were tested in the earliest days of the case, along with the "cat's blood,", and this especially raises issues about just what Stefanoni was up to when there were no defense lawyers/consultants around to watch over her.

 

[Grinder]

I understand Grinder. But the truth is Nencini only really allowed the new evidence that the ISC demanded to be looked at. The court did and it didn't really shine any new light on the case and if anything the testimony from teh analyst from the RIS was very positive for the defense.

Don't misunderstand me Grinder, I don't know how this court case is leaning. But I really believe that no one else here knows either.

Hope to be wrong, but as explained above we have had indicators in the previous cases.
I haven't seen the RIS report in a form that makes sense to me. I wish an Italian speaker would translate the salient sections. Maybe someone that just posted - hint, hint.

 

[Strozzi]

And once again the point means nothing regarding the kids' guilt or innocence. If she were held down, it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. Now if their DNA was legitimately found under her nails I'd shift to guilt. The fact that none of DNA was found under the nails OR on her clothes makes the kids look innocent.

IIRC this is where a PGP comes along with they did it naked with gloves and a swimming cap on. Did Curatolo mention them wearing rubber gloves and swim caps?

The amount of Amanda's DNA found everywhere but Meredith's room makes me think she is a DNA shedder, if such a thing exists, and would have left an abundant amount on Meredith's clothes and skin.

I wonder what secret "evidence" the prosecution may have that makes them so convinced of guilt, but which they may deliberately be concealing?

• The missing interrogation tape recordings from the night of Nov 5/6?
• Psychological "studies" which feed the prosecution's hunches and biases?
• Test results from testing the putative seamen stain on the pillowcase?
• Interview notes with Curatolo, Nara, Quintavalle, et al, which show "confusion" that had to be "corrected"?
• Reports from Yumi?
• Wiretaps where a defendant or family member said something and which is being deliberately interpreted as guilt, but which the prosecution knows may not stand up to cross-examination?
• Notes or phone records between the prosecution and court or prison officials that need to never see the light of day?
• More Stefanoni lab results that show lab errors, contamination, or innocence?

 

[katy_did]

Hope to be wrong, but as explained above we have had indicators in the previous cases.
I haven't seen the RIS report in a form that makes sense to me. I wish an Italian speaker would translate the salient sections. Maybe someone that just posted - hint, hint.

LOL! I actually started to translate it a while ago, but wasn't sure how much interest there was, with it not being quite as explosive as the C&V report. I'll have to take another look at it, just the main parts should be doable.

(I'm jumping to the rash conclusion you meant me here obviously; if it was acby, I'll totally let him do it instead).

 

[acbytesla]

Hope to be wrong, but as explained above we have had indicators in the previous cases.
I haven't seen the RIS report in a form that makes sense to me. I wish an Italian speaker would translate the salient sections. Maybe someone that just posted - hint, hint.

I agree that we have had "indicators" in the previous case, but I'm not sure what we are seeing now are really indicators of anything. I think people are "reading" them as indicators mostly because everyone on the PIP has become paranoid due to the ISC overthrowing the case.

Hey, you may be right in reading something into all this, but most of the so called "indicators" I have read posted don't really seem that way to me but hey, what do I know? I have been wrong before.

 

[Bill Williams]

The first trial was not a total surprise as the judge wouldn't consider or reconsider requests by the defense. He also allow in prosecution evidence and witnesses that weren't credible or to a reasonable standard. He also let the calumnia/defamation trial run concurrently thereby letting in the statements. He let Mignini read the tab story about the noise ticket.

In the Hellmann trial when the independent experts were appointed things looked encouraging. When the video was shown in court and Curatolo was questioned things looked even better. The verdict was not a huge surprise.

This court did not allow reasonable requests from the defense, the putative semen stain being one. I hope the pattern will be broken but it is natural to prepare for a negative outcome.

I understand Grinder. But the truth is Nencini only really allowed the new evidence that the ISC demanded to be looked at. It did and that didn't really shine any new light on the case and if anything the testimony from the analyst from the RIS was very positive for the defense.

Don't misunderstand me Grinder, I don't know how this court case is leaning. But I really believe that no one else here knows either.

The only things this court has heard in public - is Aveillo and the RIS Carinieri report. Unless most of this "trial" is happening behind the scenes (review of Massei, review of Hellmann, review of the ISC motivations) I don't see what has been accomplished. Raffaele was able to make a spontaneous declaration to the court.

Then there's been a lot of jawing, with no discernable "evidence" attached to it, unless the jawing is making reference to what the judges are seeing/reading behind the scenes. Someone in court claims again that the 112 call was made AFTER the postals arrives, something even Massei did not believe.... it's hard to know what the hell is going on!

Then again, I do not have an Italian law degree.... nor even a North American one.

So with that said, it is hard to see what this trial has accomplished. The ISC mandates a second look at the sex-gone-wrong theory, and Crini uses the pooh-in-toilet-inflames-domestic dispute theory, and then closes by saying theory does not matter.

For everyone who said that Knox insulted the court by not going, it's a good thing she did not go. There's been, what, 6 or seven sittings of actual "hearing", since Sept 30? The tabloids would have had a field day - every nuance of look from here would have been microexamined... heaven help her if she'd got a speck in her eye.... they'd accuse her of crying at the wrong times, with the photo "evidence" to back it up!

So given that I have no relevant experience, really, and have been wrong every time I've made a prediction.... I think the Nencini court will convict. Why wouldn't it? And Nencini's motivations will be a more in depth version of the ISC motivations. Because of my biases, I'm not sure what Nencini will say about motive... will he revert to Massei's, "It was Rudy's lust which was the motive to which AK and RS made a last second 'choice fore evil'."? Perhaps it will be, "there is no discernable motive....."

.... and yet the guilters will fill webpages for the next decade with all sorts of speculations as to motive; all the while saying there needn't be one....!

Will Nencini say, "This court finds multiple attackers to have happened, because that was the ruling in Rudy's trial"? What did Nencini's court receive/test to prove or disprove multiple attackers?

Unless things are happening behind the scenes (hopefully with lawyers from both sides present!), it's hard to see what this hearing has accomplished....

.... other than to give Lumumba's lawyer one more chance to call Knox, "Lucerfina"!

 

[katy_did]

I agree that we have had "indicators" in the previous case, but I'm not sure what we are seeing now are really indicators of anything. I think people are "reading" them as indicators mostly because everyone on the PIP has become paranoid due to the ISC overthrowing the case.

Hey, you may be right in reading something into all this, but most of the so called "indicators" I have read posted don't really seem that way to me but hey, what do I know? I have been wrong before.

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. I'm worried, but I think that's because I honestly don't know what's going to happen and because the verdict is close. I can understand why people prefer to think there's going to be a conviction because it means you either get to be grimly cynical about how it was all decided from the start, or you're pleasantly surprised by an acquittal. But I really don't think there's been any indication so far (Nencini yells at everyone on an equal opportunity basis so far as I can see).

 

[moodstream]

If the defense contradicts what the CSC motivations report says, would that fly in Florence? Would the CSC acknowledge their errors? It seems to me that the problems for the defense started with a motivations document that is riddled with errors and false beliefs about forensic science.

That's a good point, since utlimately it has to be signed off on. As I read it, the csc essentially demands a gulity finding. If that is going to be the case, then if a vigorous attack on the stage break and tod had been made, this court and the csc would be in the unenviable position of concluding that despite the clear and obvious evidence to the contrary, we find them guilty for the following strange and illogical reasons. At least that is something.

 

[Grinder]

LOL! I actually started to translate it a while ago, but wasn't sure how much interest there was, with it not being quite as explosive as the C&V report. I'll have to take another look at it, just the main parts should be doable.

(I'm jumping to the rash conclusion you meant me here obviously; if it was acby, I'll totally let him do it instead).

You did nothing rash . He's busy trying to figure out what went wrong with our tunnel boring machine, Bertha.

For me the conclusions would do. In particular what they said about the DNA on the knife that Stef found.

Someone in court claims again that the 112 call was made AFTER the postals arrives, something even Massei did not believe.... it's hard to know what the hell is going on!

Then again, I do not have an Italian law degree.... nor even a North American one.

If you had one of those degrees perhaps you have understood that Massei didn't debunk the phone call timing of the prosecution. Had he debunked that no court could possibly bring it back.

Perhaps it will be, "there is no discernable motive....."

And he will cite Grinder saying motive need not be discerned.

.... and yet the guilters will fill webpages for the next decade with all sorts of speculations as to motive; all the while saying there needn't be one....!

And will you be reading still?

 

[Kaosium]

I looked so hard for that pic but could not come up with it...that photo was the basis for my clown shoe comment though. It is probably on one of the PMF sites but I don't have the stomach for that right now...

It could be Profazio in the bunny suit but he seems so much more dark complected than the pasty Mignini. There must be video of this day somewhere...I see Stefanoni struggling with her mask ....its always something with her...We should be able to get another glimpse at the mini camera guy...Not many would have authority to carry such a non-pro instrument...Mignini and Profazio would both be at that level ...not many others I suspect. The genius from Rome I suppose...but he is thin and stupid as opposed to fat and stupid.

Who was the single hold out speaking against arrest on 2007 Nov 6 ?

Marco Chiacchiera, if Follain's account was accurate. Here's an interesting story from November 5th, 2007 I found when trying to remember how to spell his name. I think of him as 'Chia-pet.'

I wonder what happened to those fingerprints on the cellphones?

 

[LondonJohn]

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. I'm worried, but I think that's because I honestly don't know what's going to happen and because the verdict is close. I can understand why people prefer to think there's going to be a conviction because it means you either get to be grimly cynical about how it was all decided from the start, or you're pleasantly surprised by an acquittal. But I really don't think there's been any indication so far (Nencini yells at everyone on an equal opportunity basis so far as I can see).

Based purely on second-hand reports of court proceedings (most of which reports, of course, are coloured in a pro-guilt gloss), my feeling is that Sollecito's defence team did OK - I think that they could have done significantly better, but I think they covered off most of the important stuff.

With that in mind, my feeling is that the defence teams (collectively) have made a strong enough argument to lead to acquittals - if one were looking at this appeal trial on a simple, stand-alone basis. For me, the huge imponderable is the weight and influence of the SC ruling: according to jurisprudence theory, the SC overturning of the Hellmann verdicts should have no effect on the Nencini court's reasoning (in other words, it shouldn't be taken as any sort of "sign to convict"). But you never know.........

Incidentally, two things cropped up today that I also found interesting. Firstly, I think that far, far too much is being made of Sollecito's defence team defending...... Sollecito! Some (ignorant/biased) commentators seem to think that simply because his defence lawyers made several references to Sollecito alone, and ended their arguments with requests for acquittal for Sollecito alone, this somehow means that his defence has become decoupled from Knox's. That's rubbish. Sollecito is their client - not Knox. It's not their job to request acquittals for Knox. Furthermore, they all (especially Bongiorno) know very well that the prosecution/Massei dynamic of the crime implies a "both or nothing" deal regarding Knox and Sollecito. And with that in mind, they know that an acquittal for Sollecito almost certainly also means an acquittal for Knox.

Secondly, I was both amazed and blackly amused by Pacelli's rants today. Unwittingly, his clownish, intemperate and very nasty performance may actually have helped the defence teams: they are a useful reminder to the court that so much of the prosecution case is built on an implicit demonisation of Knox (and, to a lesser degree, Sollecito), rather than facts and evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. I'm worried, but I think that's because I honestly don't know what's going to happen and because the verdict is close. I can understand why people prefer to think there's going to be a conviction because it means you either get to be grimly cynical about how it was all decided from the start, or you're pleasantly surprised by an acquittal. But I really don't think there's been any indication so far (Nencini yells at everyone on an equal opportunity basis so far as I can see).

Ah we need the online betting service Anglo and I discussed. The ISC reversed the Hellmann verdict for some reason. They made odd statements in motivations about sex game and multiple attackers. They pretty obviously want the verdict changed. Nothing that the Florentine court has done seems to go against the prosecution.

Wasn't there a list of things the defense wanted and were denied?

Anyway, paranoids can have real enemies . I do agree having a guilty assumed makes it easier to take.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Based purely on second-hand reports of court proceedings (most of which reports, of course, are coloured in a pro-guilt gloss), my feeling is that Sollecito's defence team did OK - I think that they could have done significantly better, but I think they covered off most of the important stuff.

With that in mind, my feeling is that the defence teams (collectively) have made a strong enough argument to lead to acquittals - if one were looking at this appeal trial on a simple, stand-alone basis. For me, the huge imponderable is the weight and influence of the SC ruling: according to jurisprudence theory, the SC overturning of the Hellmann verdicts should have no effect on the Nencini court's reasoning (in other words, it shouldn't be taken as any sort of "sign to convict"). But you never know.........

Incidentally, two things cropped up today that I also found interesting. Firstly, I think that far, far too much is being made of Sollecito's defence team defending...... Sollecito! Some (ignorant/biased) commentators seem to think that simply because his defence lawyers made several references to Sollecito alone, and ended their arguments with requests for acquittal for Sollecito alone, this somehow means that his defence has become decoupled from Knox's. That's rubbish. Sollecito is their client - not Knox. It's not their job to request acquittals for Knox. Furthermore, they all (especially Bongiorno) know very well that the prosecution/Massei dynamic of the crime implies a "both or nothing" deal regarding Knox and Sollecito. And with that in mind, they know that an acquittal for Sollecito almost certainly also means an acquittal for Knox.

Secondly, I was both amazed and blackly amused by Pacelli's rants today. Unwittingly, his clownish, intemperate and very nasty performance may actually have helped the defence teams: they are a useful reminder to the court that so much of the prosecution case is built on an implicit demonisation of Knox (and, to a lesser degree, Sollecito), rather than facts and evidence.

Can you send me the link to where you purchased those rose-colored glasses? I need some.

I just do not understand defense tactics in Italy. They are clearly different than the U.S. tactics, which I watch as often as possible. It is my hobby.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a bit dispiriting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-have-guilty-verdicts-reinstated-9072880.html

Legal experts in Italy expressed surprise at the level of criticism the Perugia Appeals court directed at the original verdict. This seems to have been reflected by the Supreme Court’s remarks as it ordered the current retrial.

Several criminal law experts have told The Independent that they believe it is likely the original murder verdicts will be re-instated. This is at odds with defence assertions and those of some independent observers, who say prosecutors have failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the pair were involved in the killing.

Hehehe

I wonder if these experts include a Walter-Mitty-esque legal office manager from London, or a failed (and very possibly struck-off) law school graduate from California........?

And I wonder how these experts got to "tell" The Independent their views? Could it have been via aggressive, choreographed tweeting and email barracking.......?


Besides all this, this article smacks to me of nothing more than the Indie hedging its bets. It makes absolutely no sense for an major media outlet to suggest one outcome over the other at this point, so sitting on the fence is the default position. In addition, the "re-conviction" story is also potentially far more headline-grabbing, and would without a shadow of a doubt lead to far more follow-up reporting. I wouldn't therefore be at all surprised if many in the media might "prefer" there to be convictions: that way, they get plenty more mileage out of the resultant furore, the arrest warrants, the extradition battle, the continued conflict...........

 

[Grinder]

Marco Chiacchiera, if Follain's account was accurate. Here's an interesting story from November 5th, 2007 I found when trying to remember how to spell his name. I think of him as 'Chia-pet.'

I wonder what happened to those fingerprints on the cellphones?

One of my most linked to articles. This was one that probably got Lalli fired -

Luca Lalli, a pathologist who carried out a post-mortem examination, said Miss Kercher was killed with a penknife.
He added: "I can confirm that Miss Kercher may have been sexually active before the death, but it was definitely not a rape."

at this time in the investigation Meredith was looked at as a 'party girl'

It was the next day or so that the police said she wasn't responsible at all for what happened. Perhaps after John Kercher was able to get some official protests from the british emabassy.

They probably leaked the fingerprint info to freak the perp but there were none.

To me the penknife mention and the made a date comment are more interesting.

 

[Grinder]

Can you send me the link to where you purchased those rose-colored glasses? I need some.

I just do not understand defense tactics in Italy. They are clearly different than the U.S. tactics, which I watch as often as possible. It is my hobby.

I actually have rose colored glasses and they work, even on a golf course.

Having said that they clearly aren't as strong as LJ's so I'll buy in with you for a volume discount

 

[katy_did]

Secondly, I was both amazed and blackly amused by Pacelli's rants today. Unwittingly, his clownish, intemperate and very nasty performance may actually have helped the defence teams: they are a useful reminder to the court that so much of the prosecution case is built on an implicit demonisation of Knox (and, to a lesser degree, Sollecito), rather than facts and evidence.

Well, it appears Pacelli was interrupted at the height of his blustery evangelical powers today by Nencini bellowing. I really hope Nencini acquits because I'd like to feel quite fond of him. The only concerning thing re: Pacelli is I think he may go over the top on purpose to make Maresca sound reasonable; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's a strategy they've cooked up.

I agree with you about the unknown factor being the influence of the Supreme Court, and that as an independent trial the defence have done enough to earn an acquittal. That's what makes this verdict such a tough one to predict.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. I'm worried, but I think that's because I honestly don't know what's going to happen and because the verdict is close. I can understand why people prefer to think there's going to be a conviction because it means you either get to be grimly cynical about how it was all decided from the start, or you're pleasantly surprised by an acquittal. But I really don't think there's been any indication so far (Nencini yells at everyone on an equal opportunity basis so far as I can see).

Your insight is disturbingly accurate, to a degree, but my cynicism is not purely an act of emotional armoring. It also has a basis in observation. I think the best clue lies in how this process has been structured rather than anything Nencini has said explicitly. Look what came out today regarding the emergency call. Crini has resurrected a canard that was put to rest decisively in the 2009 trial, with no requirement to revisit the supporting evidence, which flatly contradicts his claim. What can we reasonably conclude about the intent of any court or legal system that allows such naked deceit?

 

[katy_did]

Ah we need the online betting service Anglo and I discussed. The ISC reversed the Hellmann verdict for some reason. They made odd statements in motivations about sex game and multiple attackers. They pretty obviously want the verdict changed. Nothing that the Florentine court has done seems to go against the prosecution.

Wasn't there a list of things the defense wanted and were denied?

Anyway, paranoids can have real enemies . I do agree having a guilty assumed makes it easier to take.

I don't even know what odds I'd put on a guilty/innocent verdict at this point. Probably marginally higher odds than before on a guilty verdict, but that may just be nerves...

Most of the defence requests were denied, true, but then Hellmann denied most of them too, as the PGP were so keen to point out at the time. The test on the knife was requested by Raffaele's lawyers as well as by the prosecution.

It's worth remembering that if this court were going to acquit, the last thing they'd want to do is signpost the verdict beforehand. Just today, Maresca (I think it was) was telling the judges that the people of Perugia were annoyed at the verdict because it was supposedly telegraphed from the start of the trial, and even quoted Zanetti's opening statement again about "the only certain thing..." etc (as the prosecution did in their appeal). So seeming to be favourable to the prosecution (not that I think this court has been) isn't necessarily any indication of a guilty verdict.

*re-adjusts rose-coloured glasses*