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

Status
Not open for further replies.
With Rudy Guede, the murderer of Meredith Kercher, set to be let out on day release this year, it seems that the neverendum on Knox's and Sollecito's wrongful conviction will simply go on and on.

Trial By Osmosis: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the Nightmare of Italian Justice
by Andrew Gumbel

See: http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/trial-osmosis-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-nightmare-italian-justice

When the pair was first arrested, more than six years ago, they were left to rot in jail and for months — in Sollecito’s case in solitary confinement — before charges were brought. They didn’t qualify for bail because bail does not exist in Italy. The prosecution regularly leaked information to the media but did not formally share its investigative findings with the defendants or their lawyers until the summer of 2008, by which time the public was broadly convinced they were no ordinary college students, but rather, depraved sex addicts who had forced the victim, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher, into a satanic orgy before brutally stabbing her to death.
Click to expand...

The case went to trial with the prosecution refusing, despite repeated requests, to hand over the raw data on which it based its forensic analysis. The data was crucial because the prosecution claimed it had found traces of Kercher’s DNA on the tip of a kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon (Knox’s DNA was on the handle), and traces of Sollecito’s DNA on a torn bra strap recovered from the crime scene. Neither claim would survive independent scrutiny.

That scrutiny, though, did not come until after Knox and Sollecito had already been convicted. The first trial judge, Giancarlo Massei, decided he didn’t need to ask the prosecution to hand over its full data, as would be a matter of course under US rules of evidence. He figured he could sort out the competing DNA claims without it.
Click to expand...

The answer to that question has to do with the Italian legal establishment’s attitude to the very idea of reasonable doubt. In short, they don’t like it, don’t trust it and, despite the explicit introduction of a “reasonable doubt” standard in a legal reform introduced in 2006, don’t generally base the way they prosecute cases on it. Giuliano Mignini, the first public prosecutor in the Meredith Kercher case, sounded almost alarmed by the concept when he made his closing statement in the first trial:

Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other.

Tellingly, Mignini did not direct the court to look at the evidence per se, but to look at the logic of his reconstruction of the murder. And the high court endorsed his view when it sent the case back to trial last March.
Click to expand...

I know understand the reasoning behind a lot of Machiavelli's postings. It seems that in Italy one does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...

.... one only has to assert a scenario, often even against the evidence, and satisfy the courts that one's reasonings are "logical", not necessarily based on evidence.

It's why Machiavelli openly admits when claiming that Knox traded sex for drugs, that he's not really saying that this is "factual", only that it is "logical to consider".
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-

Not only that, but I read somewhere that more than half the dust you clean up in your house is dried, dead skin which I'm sure has some DNA in it,
Click to expand...

You really need to read my entire post....:D

acbytesla said:
It is said, although I don't know if it is true that the majority of dust is actually exfoliated skin cells.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
You have expanded on this more than I. The $10 per month fee, when aggregated with thousands of other students and travelers, should provide a steady retainer to one or several law firms in each country.

I travelled as a college kid to Europe in the "old days" (1970) before credit cards existed - at least they didn't exist for students at that time. I carried American Express travelers checks and went to the AmEx office in Paris to pick up mail from home. Now we have credit cards and email and cell phones.

Credit card companies are always looking for a new marketing benefit to offer to college students because landing a new college student customer has a high lifetime value, as people tend to stay with a credit card for years and years. A credit card company should roll this out and charge a modest monthly fee for the emergency legal coverage plan. Buy your international plane tickets with this card and your first month's fee of $10 is waived.

If a credit card company rolls out such an emergency legal plan and needs a product spokesman, I nominate Raffaele and Amanda.
Click to expand...

How does this all work in the event that the police decide not to let you have a lawyer?
 
acbytesla said:
I always crack up. Actually I get a little angry about the comments that DNA doesn't just fly around. My thought is the hell it doesn't!!!

Every spring my cars gets covered with pollen dust. That is biological material people!! I'm not sure that pollen carries plant DNA, but I would imagine that it does. And this DNA that you can see!!!.

I think the amount of DNA that Stefanoni SAYS she found on the knife blade was around 50 Picograms. That is 50 Trillionths of a gram. You would need a Scanning Electron Microscope to see it!

The air carries condensed water molecules through the air and the wind carries sand and pollen. It is said, although I don't know if it is true that the majority of dust is actually exfoliated skin cells. Ever see what the inside of your ducts look like after a few years? Or the top of your refrigerator after a few months. Ever have to clean your Venetian blinds?

So in fact, anything that small, that light can easily travel through the air on a light breeze.
Click to expand...

I remember in the 1970's or 1980's there was a problem with "spy dust" that the KGB was experimenting with to track some American diplomats in Moscow. The KGB spread an invisible powder on the steering wheels of cars owned by certain US Embassy officers in Moscow. It could be detected by UV or similar light. The purpose for the KGB was to identify who the US diplomat came in contact with. The problem was that the dust got spread everywhere - through the embassy, on American kids' schoolbooks, baby shoes, etc. When the US Embassy figured out what the KGB was experimenting with and that the invisible substance might be a health hazard, US Embassy wives started freaking out and demanding that their husbands curtail their Moscow assignments and transfer back to Washington.
 
There's a YouTube video making the rounds of a fellow, being a talking =-head, posing with all the books at his side.

He makes the argument for "Amanda's guilt".

First and foremost, he leads with "mixed blood." He misstates that the police found 5 instances of Knox's blood mixed with Meredith's in five places in the cottage, all the while correctly conceding that no forensics of Knox's was found in the murder room.

Judge Massei himself put this factoid in its place, saying that it was Knox's "Biological material" found mixed with Meredith's blood, That is a very different thing. It leads one to wonder - why is it even forensicly interesting that Knox's "biological material" is in her own home, particularly in the bathroom she shared with the murdered woman?

Further to this is the point Gumbel raises above about the Nencini trial. What did Nencini find which was new, so as to overturn the Hellmann acquitals? Did Nencini simply go back to Massei's reasoning?

How does one spell "w-r-o-n-g-f-u-l c-o-n-v-i-c-t-i-o-n"?

Rudy will soon be running the streets, a YouTube video of some nutcase is spreading lies, and Italy bases its judgements on whether a prosecutors' assertions are "logical", not if they are based on evidence.
 
acbytesla said:
The dirt, yes. The bra clasp....no that was probably carried in Stefanoni's pocket so she could plant it at the scene.
Click to expand...

While I think that is possible, even if its true, no court likes suggesting planting evidence. Far better to take the neutral road and suggest that it was accidental. Gives a chance to save a little face as well.
 
Diocletus said:
How does this all work in the event that the police decide not to let you have a lawyer?
Click to expand...

If the police decide not to let you have access to a lawyer, they (and you) already know that you have invoked all rights and have requested the lawyer and also that your embassy is notified. That puts a real burden on them when eventually you are in contact with your attorney and embassy.

You have already shown your wallet card to the police. The wallet card says "I invoke all rights due me. I request immediate access to an attorney and competent translator. I decline to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. Please notify the US embassy that you are questioning or detaining me."

In presenting such a card to the police, the tourist is at that moment aware that he is not to be questioned (and should remain silent). He knows if the police persist to question him that they are doing so in violation of his right/request, and that should make the tourist wary of what the police are doing to him.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
If the police decide not to let you have access to a lawyer, they at least already know that you have invoked all rights and have requested the lawyer and also that your embassy is notified. That puts a real burden on them when eventually you get contact with your attorney and embassy.

You have already shown your wallet card to the police. The wallet card says "I invoke all rights due me. I request immediate access to an attorney and competent translator. I decline to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. Please notify the US embassy that you are questioning or detaining me."
Click to expand...

Excellent. A good trick if you want to get beaten up as well is to ask for a piece of paper and a pencil, write down their refusal (to accord your rights) and the time and ask them to sign it. The cops hate it.
 
RoseMontague said:
Are those pictures from the cartoon video down further?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Pretty sophisticated cartoon video if they are. There is another letter from Rudy (it doesn't appear to have a date attached) and early photos.

I'm trying to locate info re: the authors of the page and its purpose (if any).
 
Diocletus said:
Never mind whether DNA flies. My first question is whether bra clasps fly. And also dirt.
Click to expand...


That one did go flying. At the point when the last stitches holding it to the band broke, one of the hooks on the clasp was already fully unbent and released from it's eye while the other was open to almost 90° and so just barely holding on. When it broke free the elastic band would snap it back and throw the clasp like a sling shot towards the floor where it became trapped under the pillow.
 
anglolawyer said:
Excellent. A good trick if you want to get beaten up as well is to ask for a piece of paper and a pencil, write down their refusal (to accord your rights) and the time and ask them to sign it. The cops hate it.
Click to expand...

It's complicated. As we have seen in the Knox interrogation, the police are only allowed to hit you twice before sending a car for the notary. But by Perugia rules, the notary is not allowed to arrive at the station until two hours after the first hit. :p
 
Science without borders

Desert Fox said:
I was arguing with a person in Germany about Raffaele's DNA on the clasp and Meredith's DNA on the knife and used this as evidence on just how easy it is for DNA contamination to occur.

Wasn't having any of it. Just told me to read the Italian Supreme Court document on the case. Now, he said "Especially these pages" and "Especially these pages." I did not read the whole thing but those he pointed to. Did not give me a good feeling of the Italian court. They he told me I had to read the whole thing. The thing is that it is written in legal language as is which makes it really had to make heads or tails out of it.
Click to expand...
Desert Fox,

I agree that the CSC wrote a report that is not...user-friendly. Luca Cheli wrote a thorough response. I responded to the Court of Supreme Cassation's untenable arguments about DNA on my blog. Pour yourself a nice beverage though, because it is a long read. A number of cases, especially in Australia, are used as illustrations. The bottom line is that the CSC has absurd ideas of DNA profiling that are bound to lead to false convictions. If you want to read a good analysis of DNA forensics, read former Australian Supreme Court Justice Frank Vincent's report on the Farah Jama case.

Right after the first verdict in 2009 a German molecular biologist wrote a newspaper article which covered a few of the problems in the case. The problems and pitfalls of DNA analysis, as well as the best solutions, are not limited to one single country.
 
Last edited:
The flight of the locus

acbytesla said:
I always crack up. Actually I get a little angry about the comments that DNA doesn't just fly around. My thought is the hell it doesn't!!!
Click to expand...
DNA does fly. Also sporadic contamination can happen, but it cannot be detected by negative controls the way that gross contamination can. These are a couple of deficiencies in the CSC's "logic," and I use that word loosely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom