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

[Diocletus]

I am not sure, but there probably does not have to be a "presumption of innocence" during the ISC hearings. What the ISC is there for, is to make sure that the lower courts adopted that as their standard.

But I thought the "trial" wasn't over yet. Surely, they should be presumed innocent before they are convicted.

 

[Welshman]

The police and the prosecution committed numerous abuses during this case. They did not record the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele, they were denied access to lawyers, Amanda and Raffaele were not officially informed they were suspects, the prosecution told lies to the media and in court, they destroyed four computers, the refused to release the EDF files and CCTV footage which covered the route between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage, Amanda was lied to she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was released to the media and the prosecution did not follow forensic protocols. Do you feel that a danger for the Italian government is that if an extradiction request was made, the conduct of the prosecution would come under scrutiny and the Italian authorities would have to explain the misconduct which occurred in this case and answer difficult questions. It is important to bear in mind that the Italians will not be able to hide behind calunia laws and send thugs to imitate people if they argue their case in the United States.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, ok. Well, I'm talking about what you're talking about . . . So what is it exactly that you're trying to say?

Not 'trying' to say anything and certainly not what you said I was implying.

 

[Bill Williams]

The police and the prosecution committed numerous abuses during this case. They did not record the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele, they were denied access to lawyers, Amanda and Raffaele were not officially informed they were suspects, the prosecution told lies to the media and in court, they destroyed four computers, the refused to release the EDF files and CCTV footage which covered the route between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage, Amanda was lied to she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was released to the media and the prosecution did not follow forensic protocols. Do you feel that a danger for the Italian government is that if an extradiction request was made, the conduct of the prosecution would come under scrutiny and the Italian authorities would have to explain the misconduct which occurred in this case and answer difficult questions. It is important to bear in mind that the Italians will not be able to hide behind calunia laws and send thugs to imitate people if they argue their case in the United States.

This is something that was mentioned, almost hidden, in the First Penal Section of the ISC.....

12. - Genetic Investigations -

Also well founded is further criticism raised by the public plaintiff, according to which the signs of the experts were passively incorporated, as to the mere inadequacy of the investigations carried out by the Scientific Police, who were not renewed, the experts having considered inadequate the two samples in question ( 36 and 165 B) for the detection of the genetic profile and due to the fact that it could not be ruled out that the result was derived "from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of sampling and/or handling and/or analytical processes made” . From p. 75 p. 82 the Court adopted the arguments developed in the assesment that, indeed, had been the subject of severe disagreement with both Prof. Novelli that Prof. Torricelli, consultants of the Procurator General and the civil parties, whose authoritative voices were completely neglected. Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud. 6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.

It is clear that now that this case is completely out of the hands of the incompetent authorities in Perugia, that the ISC weighed what was at stake in this case.

To rule against Massei's refusal to allow independent testing, would mean that DNA-law would call into question cases for the last 26 years.

This is more, way-way more than simply having the ISC adopt a precedent that contamination must be proven. It is way-way more than simply protecting the up-country hillbillie prosecutors like Mignini. For some reason, Italian courts need to stand lock-step and uncritically beside the police DNA labs, like Stefanoni's.

In essence, the ISC accused Hellmann's court of subordinating its power to the Conti-Vecchiotti lab. And the ISC response is that now Italian courts like Massei's were right to subordinate its authority to police DNA labs. Or else all cases since 1986 will be in question.

 

[Grinder]

This is silly. Extradition requests from countries are routinely denied, and there's never been a case of that denial messing up some future request.

I doubt either of us knows this to be true. I didn't say anything about messing up a future request, what I said was that Italy might well keep US citizens incarcerated until they are found not guilty by final verdict given that the US won't extradite according to the treaty.

When Hellmann found them innocent, not just not-guilty but that the crimes did not exist so that there was (at that time) no legal reason to hold them.

I remember that being a contested point. Perhaps you could provide the section of Hellmann where he declares them innocent. I'm not saying one way or the other, but I do remember that he was quoted as saying he could only rule on what transpired in court settings.

Even Judge Nencini in Florence sustained this in reconvicting them, saying that Knox was legally abroad. The only precaution against Sollecito was ceasing his passport and travel documents. Even that is a lightweight precaution given that detention was also an option to Nencini.

Yes we all know that she was legally abroad but she could have kept as you pointed out because of flight risk as she has made clear she will not return. He also made comment about her not being there. Locking up Raf right now while she is free might have had political issues there.

 

[Bill Williams]

I doubt either of us knows this to be true. I didn't say anything about messing up a future request, what I said was that Italy might well keep US citizens incarcerated until they are found not guilty by final verdict given that the US won't extradite according to the treaty.



I remember that being a contested point. Perhaps you could provide the section of Hellmann where he declares them innocent. I'm not saying one way or the other, but I do remember that he was quoted as saying he could only rule on what transpired in court settings.



Yes we all know that she was legally abroad but she could have kept as you pointed out because of flight risk as she has made clear she will not return. He also made comment about her not being there. Locking up Raf right now while she is free might have had political issues there.

This is equally silly. What do you thing the verdict of, "the crime did not exist" means?

Also, Nencini said she was legally abroad. He did not order anything else. If she'd been at liberty in Italy like Raffaele, Nencini might have ordered her passport seized, and her option would have been to hole up at the US Embassy. None of that kind of rhetoric was remotely entertained by Nencini.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes we all know that she was legally abroad but she could have kept as you pointed out because of flight risk as she has made clear she will not return. He also made comment about her not being there. Locking up Raf right now while she is free might have had political issues there.

What's the flight risk? There's an extradition treaty. Anyway, Italian law doesn't even require the defendant to be at the trial. So WTF was matteini talking about?

 

[Grinder]

Article VI says that if the person has been acquitted or convicted and served their time in the requested country (in this case the US) for the same act as the requesting country (Italy) is now asking for then the extradition shall be denied.

Amanda has not been tried in the US for this act therefore the article doesn't apply.

Strange how different minds work. Some people can understand the most complex DNA issues but not a simple legal issue.

 

[Grinder]

del

 

[Bill Williams]

Article VI says that if the person has been acquitted or convicted and served their time in the requested country (in this case the US) for the same act as the requesting country (Italy) is now asking for then the extradition shall be denied.

Amanda has not been tried in the US for this act therefore the article doesn't apply.

Nice catch. So double jeopardy DOES apply.... although might not be relevant to Art. VI.

 

[Grinder]

The prison condition issue is interesting. I would say that the US will use it as an easy out but does that mean she would have to serve the sentence here. Is that what is happening to the Italian Mafia guy?

 

[Diocletus]

Article VI says that if the person has been acquitted or convicted and served their time in the requested country (in this case the US) for the same act as the requesting country (Italy) is now asking for then the extradition shall be denied.

Amanda has not been tried in the US for this act therefore the article doesn't apply.

Strange how different minds work. Some people can understand the most complex DNA issues but not a simple legal issue.

I don't know if your guy Chefi knows anything about DNA. He definitely knows extradition law, though.

 

[Grinder]

Nice catch. So double jeopardy DOES apply.... although might not be relevant to Art. VI.

In the past the courts here have ruled that in a system like Italy's being found not guilty along the way doesn't constitute double jeopardy. The courts change their minds over time.

Does a US citizen have all of his constitutional rights no matter where he is? I don't believe he does. In England, as we have discussed, libel/slander lawsuits are an industry and people from the US can sue someone from the US there. Anglo, please correct me if needed.

Now if that same person couldn't be sued in the US because of the 1st Amendment would the US court system refuse to accept the judgment against the losing side?

IIRC my passports have always indicated that I needed to aware of the laws of the country I was in and I needed to obey them and that I didn't have the same rights there as here.

Certainly we expect people to obey our laws and we afford them the same rights as we afford our own citizens.

 

[analemma]

This is something that was mentioned, almost hidden, in the First Penal Section of the ISC.....

​

It is clear that now that this case is completely out of the hands of the incompetent authorities in Perugia, that the ISC weighed what was at stake in this case.

To rule against Massei's refusal to allow independent testing, would mean that DNA-law would call into question cases for the last 26 years.

This is more, way-way more than simply having the ISC adopt a precedent that contamination must be proven. It is way-way more than simply protecting the up-country hillbillie prosecutors like Mignini. For some reason, Italian courts need to stand lock-step and uncritically beside the police DNA labs, like Stefanoni's.

In essence, the ISC accused Hellmann's court of subordinating its power to the Conti-Vecchiotti lab. And the ISC response is that now Italian courts like Massei's were right to subordinate its authority to police DNA labs. Or else all cases since 1986 will be in question.

Bill
You may have something important here, but does it apply to all police evidence?
Can it be possible that this is the first time that any judge has hired an independent DNA expert that ruled that the police DNA work was contaminated in 26 YEARS. I do not know the answer to this question.
Is hiring an independent DNA expert to evaluate the police DNA work unconstitutional, or just forbidden by the ISC, which does not seem to be bound by the constitution.
Hellmann seemed to think that he had the authority to hire an independent DNA expert to look at the police work: was he wrong?
Can judges hire experts to evaluate the police work in other scientific areas(?) and what happens if the police work is judged wrong or incorrect(?).
Is evaluating, or even questioning the police work, illegal?
I do not pretend to know how this independent expert thing works, but it seems to me that the ISC argument about endangering all the cases to 1986 if any police conclusion is wrong would apply to every other facet of forensic science and mean that no expert may ever question the basis or procedures of any evidence produced by the police.
Is this right or am I missing something?
I would appreciate any feedback.
Analemma

 

[Diocletus]

Article VI says that if the person has been acquitted or convicted and served their time in the requested country (in this case the US) for the same act as the requesting country (Italy) is now asking for then the extradition shall be denied.

Amanda has not been tried in the US for this act therefore the article doesn't apply.

What you say it says isn't actually what it does say, although it might be what was intended . . . which might or might not be Constitutional.

 

[Diocletus]

In the past the courts here have ruled that in a system like Italy's being found not guilty along the way doesn't constitute double jeopardy. The courts change their minds over time.

Does a US citizen have all of his constitutional rights no matter where he is? I don't believe he does. In England, as we have discussed, libel/slander lawsuits are an industry and people from the US can sue someone from the US there. Anglo, please correct me if needed.

Now if that same person couldn't be sued in the US because of the 1st Amendment would the US court system refuse to accept the judgment against the losing side?

IIRC my passports have always indicated that I needed to aware of the laws of the country I was in and I needed to obey them and that I didn't have the same rights there as here.

Certainly we expect people to obey our laws and we afford them the same rights as we afford our own citizens.

This thing about not having your US Constitutional right when traveling abroad is a red herring.

You DO have you Us Constitutional rights when you are sitting in your living room in Paducah and the US Government stops by and wants to deliver you to some other government.

 

[Welshman]

Bill
You may have something important here, but does it apply to all police evidence?
Can it be possible that this is the first time that any judge has hired an independent DNA expert that ruled that the police DNA work was contaminated in 26 YEARS. I do not know the answer to this question.
Is hiring an independent DNA expert to evaluate the police DNA work unconstitutional, or just forbidden by the ISC, which does not seem to be bound by the constitution.
Hellmann seemed to think that he had the authority to hire an independent DNA expert to look at the police work: was he wrong?
Can judges hire experts to evaluate the police work in other scientific areas(?) and what happens if the police work is judged wrong or incorrect(?).
Is evaluating, or even questioning the police work, illegal?
I do not pretend to know how this independent expert thing works, but it seems to me that the ISC argument about endangering all the cases to 1986 if any police conclusion is wrong would apply to every other facet of forensic science and mean that no expert may ever question the basis or procedures of any evidence produced by the police.
Is this right or am I missing something?
I would appreciate any feedback.
Analemma

Would judge Hellman have hired independent experts if it was illegal to do so? If hiring independent experts was illegal, why did the prosecution not raise hell over this during the second trial?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independent forensic experts have been used in other cases

IIRC independent forensic experts have been sought out in other cases (Perugia-Shock, circa 2009 might have something on this point). My reading of the CSC's motivations document is that they did not think that Hellman was acting beyond his authority to seek them out.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill
You may have something important here, but does it apply to all police evidence?
Can it be possible that this is the first time that any judge has hired an independent DNA expert that ruled that the police DNA work was contaminated in 26 YEARS. I do not know the answer to this question.
Is hiring an independent DNA expert to evaluate the police DNA work unconstitutional, or just forbidden by the ISC, which does not seem to be bound by the constitution.
Hellmann seemed to think that he had the authority to hire an independent DNA expert to look at the police work: was he wrong?
Can judges hire experts to evaluate the police work in other scientific areas(?) and what happens if the police work is judged wrong or incorrect(?).
Is evaluating, or even questioning the police work, illegal?
I do not pretend to know how this independent expert thing works, but it seems to me that the ISC argument about endangering all the cases to 1986 if any police conclusion is wrong would apply to every other facet of forensic science and mean that no expert may ever question the basis or procedures of any evidence produced by the police.
Is this right or am I missing something?
I would appreciate any feedback.
Analemma

I don't think the ISC is saying that it is unconstitutional for Hellmann to have done what he did, it's saying that Hellmann shouldn't have subordinated the authority of the court to the analysis.

Maybe I am wrong on that. Others can weigh in if I am.

The ISC makes a weird sort of internal sense... because this business of a court "subordinating its authority" to some outside group does not seem to matter if that "outside group" is itself somehow tied to the court, as the Scientific Police (Stefanoni's lab) is to the public ministers (the prosecutor's, who hold similar rank to judges).

The bias of the ISC seems to be that if some group independent to the court (like Conti-Vecchiotti) is going to challenge the work of (not just a court appointed, but) a court affiliated group like the S.P., then the burden of proof is reversed, that this outside group needs to show the method of contamination, not just offer an opinion on the integrity of contamination/testing protocols of the court-affiliated group.

The other thing I have been missing is that the ISC did not invalidate the work of Conti-Vecchiotti, per se. In fact the whole reason for the testing of Sample 36I starts with the ISC, who in March blames Conti-Vecchiotti as well as the Hellmann court for not testing it.

This was, allegedly, one of the "lapses of logic" that Hellmann committed in the eyes of the First Penal Panel of the ISC.

2.2.4 Lack of reasoning in the decree of 7.9.2011 rejecting new appraisal
requested by the prosecutor, contradictory and manifestly lack of logic of
the judgment on this point: the Court denied the testing of the new trace
found on the knife by the experts Vecchiotti and Conti, on the basis of a
scientific judgment (smallness of the specimen) in stark contrast to the
initial theme of investigation and especially disconnected from the
evolution of the instrumentation used for this purpose.

In the course of their investigations, the appointed experts found a third
trace on the blade of the knife that had been seized in Sollecito's house
(Exhibit 36), in addition to the one attributed to Knox and one which was
attributed under strong objections to the victim, very close to the trace of
DNA extracted and attributed to the latter. This trace was not subjected to
genetic analysis – through a decision made by one of the experts, Professor
Vecchiotti, alone, without documented prior authorization to that effect by
the Court, who had also given a mandate to attribute the DNA on the
present findings on the knife and on the bra hook- because the amount was
not sufficient to provide a reliable result, amounting to Law (sic) Copy
Number. This choice, however, met the subsequent sharing of the group, on
the assumption that such a small sample would not have allowed two
amplifications necessary for a reliable result (p. 84 of sentence).

The ISC's objection, part of the quashing of acquittals, was that the prosecution at the Hellmann trial demanded testing of 36I and were (illogically acc. to the ISC) denied.

Ok. It's now been tested. It went the defence's way. Nencini STILL convicted.

It must be concluded that the decision is flawed to reject the request of
the Prosecutor General and the defenses of the civil parties, to complete
expert examination, with subjection to analysis of the new trace detected on
the blade of the knife found in Sollecito's house,.......

On this point, the complaints are well founded, since the survey once
prepared, must be complete and must therefore, without fear and without a
priori closures, bring to analysis also the newly sampled trace, according to
the most accurate and modern “experimental” analytical techniques, under
pain of violation of the law for not making a decisive test and the fallout in
terms of manifest illogical reasoning (again for obvious incompleteness of
the inferential platform, to have overlooked data that is not only important,
but crucial), as was correctly pointed out by the public plaintiff

Ok, it's done. The illogic of Hellmann is now logic. The trace belongs to Knox. No trace of Meredith is on that knife; at least no trace that can be attributed to murder.

The ISC is trying to uphold, though, that the Courts are the interpretors of DNA evidence, not the experts, and particularly if the court is going to subordinate it's authority to an independent expert, then that independent expert has to go the extra mile and.....

- prove contamination
- rather than simply demonstrate that proper anti-contaminations protocols were not followed, and that testing methods were substandard.​

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Bill Williams]

IIRC independent forensic experts have been sought out in other cases (Perugia-Shock, circa 2009 might have something on this point). My reading of the CSC's motivations document is that they did not think that Hellman was acting beyond his authority to seek them out.

That is my reading of it as well. It's not that he was acting beyond his authority, but the ISC seems to be saying that he acted "illogically" by subordinating the court to the experts. (Ie. not that he appointed them.)

The irony is that the ISC is silent on the fact that essentially the Massei court did the same thing in subordinating it's authority to the Scientific Police's lab under Stefanoni. Massei rules, basically, that if Stefanoni said it, he has no reason not to believe it.