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

[Dan O.]

-


-

Although I sympathize with what you're saying, the problem isn't that it's an echo chamber, but rather that there's no good guilt echo (evidence) coming in to really reverse the innocence echo (evidence) chamber that's in full swing here.

A timeline is as good a place as any to start putting out that reverse echo that will stop this innocence echo chamber from being as much in control of this thread as it obviously is now,

d

-

I have to disagree with your echo chamber analogy. Here it's the strength of the evidence that counts and not the volume of the chant reverberating off the empty walls.

 

[Grinder]

They told her she no longer had an alibi, that was the threat. Why didn't she cry out that's not true why did R say that it's not true .Any innocent percent would have just repeated that . Instead she confusedly remembers meeting this bad man and bringing him home in a short time. Really? Believe what you will.Her statements fit with evidence she was there. Believe the footprints were turnip juice coming out of the bedroom , I'm getting back to the Olympics and the Canadian women's great game!

You know we have been discussing some new information about phone use and and other activities but it seems you and other PGP need to revert to behavior, debunked evidence or innuendo.

The footprints don't MATCH either Raf or Amanda. The substance that made them was not determined to be blood. The pattern of the prints doesn't fit with the crime as there are missing prints and no clean up. It would be welcome if you would provide the reference prints of all the women that lived in the cottage for the last year or two as I believe the substance was a very dilute blood from some earlier time, hence the luminol 'positive' and the TMB 'negative'.

Also if you believe the shoe print is hers where are the other shoe prints? Where are the shoes? What make of shoe were they?

If they told her she no longer had an alibi she would know that Raf was lying because they were together. Why would she make up a story giving him an alibi?

Btw, it has been repeated here numerous times but innocent people do confess to crimes and/or put the blame on others. 25% of the innocent projects successful reversals involve cases where a confession was key evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

To me, this is just as bad as continuously calling for a timeline, timeline, which really is no less of an opinion, in my opinion, then the opinion above.

I disagree again. A timeline is an osmosis of ones argument tying together all of the parts. It shows the possibility of a position that does not conflict with the acceptable evidence. Guilters don't have a timeline. That says a lot.

 

[Grinder]

Remember that they did collect a knife from Raffaele's place that morning. Isn't that weird? Patrick was the killer but they got a knife from Raf's place, which they also searched and took samples from for testing. That's all in Massei. I don't get it.

Good morning. A brilliant point and one that demands a full explanation. If they really recovered a knife from Raf that same morning that didn't match the knife wounds, outline or what they had claimed was used in the murder, yet took no knives from Patrick it either points to incomprehensible incompetence or some very strange approach to crime solving.

I would love to read the true crime version of the arrest of Patrick and subsequent 'search' or his places. Bill does Follain have dialogue?

 

[Diocletus]

Are the defendants and their families supposed to go bankrupt defending themselves endlessly?

Why yes. Yes they are.

Also, they are supposed to stay in jail.

And, also, the folks that hear no material witnesses and know the least about the case are supposed to make the final decision. And, if they get it wrong, then an appellate court who has heard zero witnesses will just substitute its own judgment based on the prosecutor's arguments.

 

[anglolawyer]

Good morning. A brilliant point and one that demands a full explanation. If they really recovered a knife from Raf that same morning that didn't match the knife wounds, outline or what they had claimed was used in the murder, yet took no knives from Patrick it either points to incomprehensible incompetence or some very strange approach to crime solving.

I would love to read the true crime version of the arrest of Patrick and subsequent 'search' or his places. Bill does Follain have dialogue?

Follain has this:



There is no reference to any search of his place. By contrast there is reference to a search of both Raf's and Amanda's. Straight after picking up Patrick, the killer, they go to Raf's and collect the knife. Go figure (as the yanks say).

I actually, I have gone and figured. This is my theory. The Perugia cops basically solve all their cases with confessions and admissions made by people they can put the squeeze on. Forensics are a pain in the ass and usually come up all confusing and complicated. So those aren't really the main focus and are dealt with by 'finding' stuff and 'losing' other stuff more or less as a matter of routine. They employ someone like Stefanoni in the same way that the police here employ medics of less than the highest calibre for treating those detained in the cells.

That's it.

 

[Grinder]

I know, I know, the prosecution's case has been thoroughly debunked.

On the internet.

And this is an example of the "experts" they rely on:

"Ron Hendry is a retired Forensic Engineer (aka Accident Reconstructionist) with 28 years of experience at evaluating and reconstructing serious to fatal incidents based on the physical evidence. Mr. Hendry is a degreed Mechanical Engineer who held a Professional Engineering License during his consulting career. His body of work was primarily with regard civil litigation matters. However, his work has required him to interact extensively with police and review their reports, interview witnesses, review autopsy reports, and review statements and depositions of witnesses and experts. Ron has extensive experience in evaluating incidents from scene photos and witness testimony in cases where the physical evidence was no longer around. In several instances, Ron has evaluated injuries of those involved to ascertain how they occurred."

LOL.

I truly don't understand the need of PGP to mock, photoshop and vilify people that believe in innocence or less than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

His credentials seem appropriate for accident reconstruction. Could you provide the evaluation from the prosecution and the credentials of the people that produced it? The only PG work of this nature I've seen are done by someone called Kermit.

PIP said the window could easily be accessed. I wasn't sure and I was proven wrong by the Ch. 5 recreation. I believe it was the PG expert Kermit that showed it would take a Spiderman.

Do you admit that the climb to the window was not nearly as difficult as the PGP had maintained for 5 years?

ETA - Did you accept the CV of the Ch. 5 glass expert?

 

[anglolawyer]

Incidentally, that account of the arrest suggests it was unlawful. You are supposed to tell people why they are being arrested, even in Italian law. You may, for all I know, have to caution them too, but I am pretty sure they are entitled to brief particulars of the allegation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree with your opinion.

<snip - see below>

You can focus on any time slot of the programme and state a conclusion is pro innocence or pro guilt, overall for me I believe this programme was impartial.

I am content for anyone to click on the link and listen, it is not necessary for me to tell people what their conclusions should be they can make up their own minds.

Ehhh....... what??

This is nonsense, I'm afraid.

The programme follows an entirely standard practice: it examines the case from all angles, then draws some summary conclusions in an editorial style (are you familiar with the concept of editorial (or op/ed) journalism?).

The overall conclusion of the programme, as articulated by its presenter, is this: having examined the case from all angles, the judgement is that it's certain that the case against Knox and Sollecito was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure that you've listened to this programme with a proper, critical approach. Of course there was a part of the programme - the first part in this case - where the "case for the prosecution" was put (for want of a better term). Then, in another part, the "case for the defence" was put. And then the journalist, acting if you like as a quasi-judge, came to the overall conclusions having weighed all the opinions for-and-against. That's how it works.

As for the "I'm content for anyone to....." paragraph of your post, can I take that to mean that you hold an interest in what "people" think about this case? If so, why is it important to you what "people" think about this case? Do you, for example, harbour a hope that "people" will think in a certain way about it?

One can take all kinds of inferences from the presenters comments and the programmes content, for example there was criticism of the BBC 3 TV programme for not asking or involving Raffaele, Amanda and or the counsel, yet in the BBC 4 radio programme Amanda’s lawyer didn’t want to speak on or off the record.

This paragraph is entirely irrelevant to the nature and structure of the radio broadcast itself. Instead, you're talking here about what people might or might not infer about the programme judging by who chose to appear in it (or who was chosen). The fact is that the Radio 4 programme did have an editorial slant. Its slant, which was made explicitly and unequivocally clear at the end of the programme, was that a careful assessment of all positions led to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito should not have been found guilty.

You may disagree with that conclusion. That is your right and your prerogative. But you may not disagree with the fact that this was the programme's conclusion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The early part of the programme leaves some misimpressions with respect to the window. Sgt. Pasquali's demonstration of how the rock was thrown remains definitive IMO. However, Peter Gill's comments are very helpful. Here are a few recent papers on which he is a coauthor:

Database extraction strategies for low-template evidence.
Bleka O, Dørum G, Haned H, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.11.006. Epub 2013 Dec 11.
PMID: 24528591 [PubMed - in process]

Exact computation of the distribution of likelihood ratios with forensic applications.
Dørum G, Bleka O, Gill P, Haned H, Snipen L, Sæbø S, Egeland T.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.11.008. Epub 2013 Dec 9.
PMID: 24528587 [PubMed - in process]

Euroforgen-NoE collaborative exercise on LRmix to demonstrate standardization of the interpretation of complex DNA profiles.
Prieto L, Haned H, Mosquera A, Crespillo M, Alemañ M, Aler M, Alvarez F, Baeza-Richer C, Dominguez A, Doutremepuich C, Farfán MJ, Fenger-Grøn M, García-Ganivet JM, González-Moya E, Hombreiro L, Lareu MV, Martínez-Jarreta B, Merigioli S, Milans Del Bosch P, Morling N, Muñoz-Nieto M, Ortega-González E, Pedrosa S, Pérez R, Solís C, Yurrebaso I, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Mar;9:47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.10.011. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
PMID: 24528579 [PubMed - in process]

A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios.
Gill P, Haned H.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Feb;7(2):251-63. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.002. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
PMID: 23245914 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Exploratory data analysis for the interpretation of low template DNA mixtures.
Haned H, Slooten K, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):762-74. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.08.008. Epub 2012 Sep 13.
PMID: 22981542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods.
Gill P, Gusmão L, Haned H, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parson W, Prieto L, Prinz M, Schneider H, Schneider PM, Weir BS.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):679-88. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.06.002. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
PMID: 22864188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

High-throughput analysis using AmpFlSTR® Identifiler® with the Applied Biosystems 3500xl Genetic Analyser.
Kirkham A, Haley J, Haile Y, Grout A, Kimpton C, Al-Marzouqi A, Gill P.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Jan;7(1):92-7. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.07.003. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
PMID: 22835329 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI): Evaluation of new commercial STR multiplexes that include the European Standard Set (ESS) of markers.
Welch LA, Gill P, Phillips C, Ansell R, Morling N, Parson W, Palo JU, Bastisch I.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec;6(6):819-26. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 May 31.
PMID: 22658771 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

An evaluation of potential allelic association between the STRs vWA and D12S391: implications in criminal casework and applications to short pedigrees.
Gill P, Phillips C, McGovern C, Bright JA, Buckleton J.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Jul;6(4):477-86. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.11.001. Epub 2011 Dec 8.
PMID: 22153980 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Wow! Impressive! Do you know whether either defence teams quoted or used anything you listed in the 1st level trial or the Florence appeal?

 

[Bill Williams]

Remember that they did collect a knife from Raffaele's place that morning. Isn't that weird? Patrick was the killer but they got a knife from Raf's place, which they also searched and took samples from for testing. That's all in Massei. I don't get it.

Good morning. A brilliant point and one that demands a full explanation. If they really recovered a knife from Raf that same morning that didn't match the knife wounds, outline or what they had claimed was used in the murder, yet took no knives from Patrick it either points to incomprehensible incompetence or some very strange approach to crime solving.

I would love to read the true crime version of the arrest of Patrick and subsequent 'search' or his places. Bill does Follain have dialogue?

The thing I truly detest about anglolawyer is the way he cuts through the debunked evidence as presented by guilters, the character assassination and the ad hominem aimed at anyone who supports AK and RS and askes a question that underlies the obvious....

....and, Grinder, no fear. I'm working on my own true crime version.

It will have a detailed timeline that everyone can pull to pieces if they want. So far, all that can be done with Candace Dempsey's true crime approach is to say she's too close to Sfarzo, or that she believes Knox's lies.

Yet one thing no one has done is show where Sfarzo is wrong or why any one particular statement of Knox's is a lie. It's easier just to assert that those things are so, rather than demonstrate why those things are so.

But don't bug me... I'm working on it.

As for Follain and the knife... p. 141: Follain discussed how Napoleoni found some knives under Amanda's bed, all wrapped up and new still in their wrappers. Apparently for cooking. Napoleopni obviously (my words, not Follain's) was fooled by Amanda's cunning to use those knives and return them to their wrappers as a ruse to hide them, the evil genius that she was.)

But here's the sole description of the find of the quarter-century, the investigative coup d'état which helped the PLE declare "ccaso chiuso".

"At Raffaele's one bedroom flat, detectives noticed a strong smell of bleach when they walked in. Armando Finzi, a veteran investigator with thirty years' experience, opened a cutlery drawer in the kitchen. Only one knife attracted his attention, by the Italian firm Marietti....." and Follain reports on its large dimensions and colour.

Finzi pointed it out to Chiacchiera, "Boss, could this knife be the one we want?"

Chiacchiera glanced at it and based on what he knew of the wounds on Meredith's neck, it was worth taking a closer look at - the blade seemed big and sharp enough.​

Finzi, acc. to Follain, did not specify WHY this was the one they wanted. The "smell of bleach" in Follain's account is the implication that it was for forensic puurposes, but I'll put it to you that Finzi's remark also fits a framing narrative... that knife was taken simply to scare Sollecito and was never meant to make it to trial. They were going to show Raffaele that knife after he'd been in solitary for six months....

But, unfortunately he did not budge. Unfortunately the knife turned out to be TOO big as it turned out. Despite what Crini was to say in 2014, it did not even match the bedroom sheet. True to form, instead of connecting those dots, Follain on page 141 then heads straight into the discovery of the Manga comic books, which is after all what all this was about at that time, wasn't it.. a Day of the Dead ritual....

... Follain had already made a reference to Mignini sensing this, by noticing, acc. to Follian, that in one of the books a victim was posed in exactly the same way Meredith had been "posed".

Can anyone spell "developing confirmation bias" and "investigator myopia"?

Where does all this sit as of the 2013 trial in Florence? In 2013-'14 this is now a "boys night out."

 

[LondonJohn]

I truly don't understand the need of PGP to mock, photoshop and vilify people that believe in innocence or less than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

His credentials seem appropriate for accident reconstruction. Could you provide the evaluation from the prosecution and the credentials of the people that produced it? The only PG work of this nature I've seen are done by someone called Kermit.

PIP said the window could easily be accessed. I wasn't sure and I was proven wrong by the Ch. 5 recreation. I believe it was the PG expert Kermit that showed it would take a Spiderman.

Do you admit that the climb to the window was not nearly as difficult as the PGP had maintained for 5 years?

ETA - Did you accept the CV of the Ch. 5 glass expert?

Oh I think I understand it, from a psychological point of view. I think it's born of an underlying sense of worthlessness and insecurity, of feeling that they've somehow been cheated out of their true appreciation by society. I think that they've felt bullied or dispossessed in some way in their real lives. I think that their internet personas are a counterpoint to all of that. They revel in the opportunity - often the anonymous opportunity - to exact "revenge" at arm's length by mocking, bullying and ridiculing others in an online parallel universe. I also think that many of them crave group approval and validation, and that the collective sniggering is a manifestation of this.

And yes, I think Hendry has a certain amount of experience and qualifications that mean he brings something to the table in terms of credentials. While an analysis of the crime scene is clearly not directly in his "sweet spot", the very fact that he is clearly both experienced and successful in accident reconstructions heavily implies that he has the thinking skills, analytical abilities and intellectual firepower for the task in hand.

Once more, I'm afraid, I think the defence teams failed badly in this whole area. In my opinion, they should have introduced specialised experts (with directly-applicable credentials in the field of crime scene analysis and reconstruction - perhaps someone who examines break-ins and burglaries for insurance companies) to explain to the court - the Massei court - exactly how and why the evidence is entirely consistent with Guede breaking and entering via Filomena's window. They should also (in my view) have used similar expert testimony to explain how what was found - and what was not found - within Meredith's room, the small bathroom and the hallway was entirely consistent with Guede as sole attacker.

 

[Grinder]

Wow! Impressive! Do you know whether either defence teams quoted or used anything you listed in the 1st level trial or the Florence appeal?

I didn't peruse the list but my quick scan had them all after the trial date.

 

[carlofab]

Apart from this possibly showing one of Amanda's phone acquaintances might have been a "drug dealer", as well as knowing Amanda, I can't see any relevance to any committed crime. Many here are likely to have children to whom this vague innuendo could be attached, but I realise this is a pure diversion from the murder case. Unless that number was Rudy's, zilch nada nil relevance.

Hello everyone… I’m new here, but also post as carlofab on IIP, and will introduce myself more properly when time allows. For the moment would like to merely contribute the following information to the present discussion:

According to Amanda’s memoir, she and Meredith got their drugs from Italian roommates Laura and Filomena. Before moving in, Laura told Amanda about the pot smoking and asked if she was cool with it. Neither Meredith nor Amanda had a drug connection; both chipped in to Laura and Philomena. After the murder, Laura leaned on Amanda in no uncertain terms to say not a word to police about the drugs. So, Amanda writes in the memoir, when police asked if they smoked in the house, she lied and said "no".

It is quite possible the “drug dealer” police say Amanda had phone contact with was Laura or Philomena; if so, it is unlikely to have been a drugs for sex arrangement.

Amanda was not well rewarded for this loyalty; after her arrest Laura and Philomena scrambled to distance themselves from her. Philomena was asked at trial if she ever smoked and meekly replied, "I have sinned once". The prosecutor gently replied, "We are all sinners".

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Ehhh....... what??

This is nonsense, I'm afraid.

The programme follows an entirely standard practice: it examines the case from all angles, then draws some summary conclusions in an editorial style (are you familiar with the concept of editorial (or op/ed) journalism?).

The overall conclusion of the programme, as articulated by its presenter, is this: having examined the case from all angles, the judgement is that it's certain that the case against Knox and Sollecito was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure that you've listened to this programme with a proper, critical approach. Of course there was a part of the programme - the first part in this case - where the "case for the prosecution" was put (for want of a better term). Then, in another part, the "case for the defence" was put. And then the journalist, acting if you like as a quasi-judge, came to the overall conclusions having weighed all the opinions for-and-against. That's how it works.

As for the "I'm content for anyone to....." paragraph of your post, can I take that to mean that you hold an interest in what "people" think about this case? If so, why is it important to you what "people" think about this case? Do you, for example, harbour a hope that "people" will think in a certain way about it?






This paragraph is entirely irrelevant to the nature and structure of the radio broadcast itself. Instead, you're talking here about what people might or might not infer about the programme judging by who chose to appear in it (or who was chosen). The fact is that the Radio 4 programme did have an editorial slant. Its slant, which was made explicitly and unequivocally clear at the end of the programme, was that a careful assessment of all positions led to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito should not have been found guilty.

You may disagree with that conclusion. That is your right and your prerogative. But you may not disagree with the fact that this was the programme's conclusion.

I listened to it twice and my opinion remains the same, it was impartial, leaving the listener to draw their own conclusions.

At this stage of the proceedings the only relevance to what people think will the American public and whether a request will create a groundswell of public opinion against Italy requesting extradition, assuming of course Italian Supreme Court confirm and any appeal to ECHR fails. What impact do believe UK public opinion would have of extradition treaties between Italy and America could the UK government get involved in some way?

Do you believe public opinion in Italy could sway proceedings either way?

 

[Bill Williams]

I listened to it twice and my opinion remains the same, it was impartial, leaving the listener to draw their own conclusions.
At this stage of the proceedings the only relevance to what people think will the American public and whether a request will create a groundswell of public opinion against Italy requesting extradition, assuming of course Italian Supreme Court confirm and any appeal to ECHR fails. What impact do believe UK public opinion would have of extradition treaties between Italy and America could the UK government get involved in some way?

Do you believe public opinion in Italy could sway proceedings either way?

Did it leave room for the widest range of choice? I mean, when it says that there was "mixed blood" in the cottage, what conclusions is the viewer expected to draw?

Andrea Vogt regards the Edward McCall wiki as authoritative, and that is an anonymous Wiki with no way of evaluating the expertise behind it. It claims to have "original transcripts", but there is no way, really of knowing if the transcript is someone telling a pack of lies or not.

I agree, though, British public opinion is low on the list of things to be interested in. Acc. to BBC4 radio the DNA evidence is bunk, that the BBC3 TV documentary relied upon.

I'm not so sure why it is something to appreciate, "it left the viewer to draw their own conclusions." Why does that make it "impartial"? Amanda at interrogation, without a lawyer and for the first hour without a translator, was told that Lumumba may have been the killer. What conclusion was she to draw?

 

[LondonJohn]

And as a coda to the point above, it's ridiculous that at least some of the courts - and plenty of pro-guilt commentators - choose to misrepresent the Guede shoeprint evidence in the hallway. It's very illuminating to see pro-guilt commentators state (incorrectly) that Guede left bloody shoeprints leading straight out of the front door. And for them then to draw the incorrect inference (from this incorrect "evidence") that this means that Guede must have left the cottage directly after the murder.

I still cannot decide whether these errors are due to ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to deceive, or a bit of both. After all, the truth is very different. Guede in fact left a very feint* trace of left shoe prints leading away from Meredith's room, down the hallway, towards the front door. They did not lead to the front door. In fact, they faded to nothing well before the front door, and in fact at the point where they totally faded out, they were clustering together implying that Guede had in fact stopped at that point.

So, in fact, the evidence actually tends to suggest that Guede walked from Meredith's room at some point, then stopped before reaching the front door. A reasonable explanation for such an action is that Guede might have realised/remembered that he couldn't open the front door without a key.

The evidence certainly doesn't show whether Guede turned round and returned to Meredith's room. But it most assuredly doesn't show that he didn't do so. In fact, when set against the other evidence, a reasonable proposition is that Guede did indeed turn round and return to Meredith's room (remember that the blood traces on his shoe had completely transferred away by this point, so he necessarily would have left no bloody shoe prints pointing back towards Meredith's room).

Lastly, of course, even IF there was a trail of Guede's bloody shoe prints leading right out of the house (and up the driveway....), that would also be no indication whatsoever that Guede only left Meredith's room once after the murder in a straight immediate escape out of the front door. Instead, it's an entirely reasonable possibility that Guede might have gone in and out of Meredith's room several times prior to this, and that might have only picked up blood on the sole of his shoe the last time he was in Meredith's room, immediately prior to his final departure from the cottage. But, as I said, all of this is moot anyhow, since the bloody shoe print evidence doesn't even show that Guede left the cottage at this time (and in fact tends to suggest that he did not do so, since the shoe prints clearly show that he stopped well before the door).


* So feint, in fact, that the "crack" forensics team led by the magnificent Ms Stefanoni entirely failed to spot them for several hours after they started at the crime scene, during which time they repeatedly walked all over them repeatedly. More outstanding world-class work there, Patrizia! Have a medal

 

[RoseMontague]

I listened to it twice and my opinion remains the same, it was impartial, leaving the listener to draw their own conclusions.

At this stage of the proceedings the only relevance to what people think will the American public and whether a request will create a groundswell of public opinion against Italy requesting extradition, assuming of course Italian Supreme Court confirm and any appeal to ECHR fails. What impact do believe UK public opinion would have of extradition treaties between Italy and America could the UK government get involved in some way?

Do you believe public opinion in Italy could sway proceedings either way?

UK public opinion. I have several friends that are part of the UK's public opinion. They believe Raffaele and Amanda are innocent. You live in the UK. What is your opinion?

UK government involved. No.

Italian public opinion. Mostly it's saving face. Politics and National pride.

 

[LondonJohn]

Follain has this:

[qimg]http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/cwismayer/ScreenShot2014-02-21at151115_zps3d240484.png[/qimg]

There is no reference to any search of his place. By contrast there is reference to a search of both Raf's and Amanda's. Straight after picking up Patrick, the killer, they go to Raf's and collect the knife. Go figure (as the yanks say).

I actually, I have gone and figured. This is my theory. The Perugia cops basically solve all their cases with confessions and admissions made by people they can put the squeeze on. Forensics are a pain in the ass and usually come up all confusing and complicated. So those aren't really the main focus and are dealt with by 'finding' stuff and 'losing' other stuff more or less as a matter of routine. They employ someone like Stefanoni in the same way that the police here employ medics of less than the highest calibre for treating those detained in the cells.

That's it.

I think you are on the right tracks with this. It's a hallmark of the inquisitorial system that most cases used to be "solved" by way of confessions and/or denunciations. And in the days before there were any proper forensic tools, this was often the only way: the only alternative was to have an utterly impotent justice system, and that was unacceptable from both a political and public-perception point of view.

The problem, of course, is that without doubt a huge proportion of convictions obtained using this method were entirely unsafe and unjust. Students of jurisprudence even centuries ago knew this to be the case (although not to the same extent as we know today). But in many people's view, that was better than the alternative - the "lesser of two evils".

But in the 21st century (and, in truth, from the end of the 19th century onwards), this has been an increasingly-grotesque way to administer justice. The problem in Italy is that it clung to the inquisitorial model for far too long - almost certainly owing to a reactionary attitude among the judiciary and legislators, and in Italy's case owing to the additional overlay of Fascism in the 1930s and 1940s (which Italy still has not properly remedied) and the pernicious influence of organised crime.

In the UK, there's a well-known ongoing murder case regarding the murder of an English (Iraqi-born) man and many of his family in France. The murder happened 18 months ago, but the French investigating police and magistrate - the French have a similar magistrate-led investigation process to Italy, with a similar hybrid-inquisitorial system - have been floundering very badly indeed in trying to identify and bring to justice the killer(s). And it's enormously apparent to any objective watcher of the case - and to Surrey police, who have had a minor role to play in the investigation - that the French authorities are completely out of their depth in trying to investigate this crime. And the reason for that is almost certainly because - as in Italy - they are functionally incapable of running a proper, evidence-led inquiry.

It likewise took French police years and years - and a huge stroke of luck that involved a US law enforcement official seizing the initiative - to find the killer of British student Caroline Dickinson (she was raped and killed in a student hostel in France while on a school trip). She was killed by a Spanish drifter who was well-known to the police. But the police obtained a false confession from another man - who already had a previous conviction for rape - and became instantly convinced that they had "got their man" (does this ring any bells.....?). Once again, the flawed French investigative approach (they relied far too strongly on "confessions" which turned out to be false, they abjectly failed to conduct proper forensic analysis, and failed to employ proper methods to throw up potential suspects) meant that they botched the case entirely.

 

[katy_did]

This goes back to an issue that I have seen recently. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," then the whole concept of acquitting someone and declaring them actually innocent, and then have a second trial and convicting them (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt) is absurd.

In fact, one of the benefits of a true double jeopardy rule is that it protects the system from such embarrassment--there is no possibility of a conviction after a jury has already acquitted.

I think you're right about a system which only has one level of judgment being protected from the "embarrassment" of the reasonable doubt standard obviously being violated. The problem is that I think in some ways this just hides a problem which exists in those systems too but is a lot more visible in systems like Italy's - that there's a certain amount of subjectivity in the way the reasonable doubt standard is applied.

If the U.S. system allowed three different levels of judgment, in each of which the defendant was presumed innocent, it's very likely there would be people who were convicted in the first trial only to be acquitted in the second, as happened in this case. It's only the fact that the second trial never takes place in the U.S. system which means that this arbitrariness is never exposed. Instead, we pretend the first jury decision is virtually infallible. It's almost as if protecting the authority of the system is more important than the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant.

It's a troublesome thought, and I'm not entirely sure what the solution is...