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

[anglolawyer]

That's an interesting observation. That said, it's not the fast track trial that is the actual problem, but rather, the Italian courts' decision to use the fast track trial results (as moulded by the charging decisions of the prosecution) in the Knox/Sollecito trial. Indefensible, stupid and unnecessary in my opinion.

I think that we might see Nencini pretend to reject the direct use of the Guede trial, and instead he'll just repeat all of the same lame evidence from Rudy's trial, and then he'll lie and say that he is basing his decision on that evidence, and not the fact that the ISC has already decided that there were multiple attackers and they included Knox and Sollecito. And thus, happily, it will turn out that Nencini sees things just like the ISC did, thus proving the total logicality and compatibility of all things Italian, and even proving the absolute perfection of the police investigation and lab work, which also turn out to be logical and compatible with what the ISC said on the basis of what the prosecution told it to say.

I disagree. The fast track trial was a problem insofar as it was a separate from Amanda's and Raffaele's. That was prejudicial to the latter in preventing them confronting Rudy and having the jury/popular judges see the whole thing. I wonder whether it limited their access to disclosure of documents relating to his case. One thing I am sure of, or as sure as I can be without having concrete proof, is that this fast track crap was the product of a deal between Mig and Rudy. Mig got Rudy's case separated from theirs while getting the civil claims tried at the same time in front of the same people, resulting in the unusable confession being used (with all the nonsense, as Grinder pointed out, of Lumumba's lawyer questioning Nara).

It was also a problem in the way you suggest, of course. It worked out all according to plan.

 

[Grinder]

The question of smallest amount of DNA allowed without the suggested review panel is fair and interesting. The fundamental change from identifying visible substances even if only when discovered using luminol or another like substance is those samples are so small that they can be easily transferred secondarily and they don't necessarily have and direct connection to the crime.

AFAIK the first use of LCN DNA in the US was in a NY court after the judge made sure the technology was in place to do it right. That included a lab set up specifically to do LCN with positive pressure hoods and rest. The case had to do with a sample taken from a car seat IIRC.

Bruce Budowle, Arthur J. Eisenberg, and Angela van Daal write Because LCN analysis by its nature is not reproducible, it cannot be considered as robust as that associated with conventional DNA typing. The findings of the commission seem inconsistent with the nature of LCN typing. While LCN typing is appropriate for identification of missing persons and human remains and for developing investigative leads, caution should be taken with its use in other endeavors until developments
are made that overcome the vagaries of LCN typing.

Perhaps the line should be some combination of lack of obvious connection to the crime (blood on victim, sperm on victim, saliva on victim etc.) and the lack of repeatability. Any test conducted by the authorities that can't be repeated should be reviewed as well any sample that can't be necessarily connected to the crime and is small enough to be touch transferred. When in doubt expert review should be done and the court given a neutral as possible report.

I'm pretty sure Chris has linked this before:

Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to Forensic Science

 

[Grinder]

Here you go Randy -

A Queens Supreme Court Judge approved last week the use of a new type of DNA scan in a case involving a Guyanese man accused of killing a Jamaica woman who was set to testify against him in court.
Justice Robert Hanophy ruled Feb. 8 that the use of “Low Copy Number” DNA analysis was permissible in the government’s case against Hemant Megnath, who has been charged with first-degree murder.
Megnath, a Guyanese immigrant who lived in Brooklyn, was on trial in Brooklyn Supreme Court in 2007 for the alleged rape of Natasha Ramen, but he is accused of slashing the 20-year-old’s throat at her Jamaica home before she was going to take the stand against him, the Queens district attorney said.
The LCN DNA testing had been the subject of several pre-trial hearings since November 2008 because unlike normal DNA testing, LCN involves examining smaller amounts of DNA at higher magnifications under microscopes and crime scene tools, according to the judge.
Investigators were able to collect DNA evidence from Megnath’s car following a search warrant and prosecutors say the LCN testing was able to connect DNA from Ramen to the DNA inside the vehicle.​

I'm pretty sure this was one of the first cases of LCN used in the US. It definitely was one of the first to be challenged.

 

[Diocletus]

About the cat . . .

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/what-happened-downstairs/

 

[Diocletus]

I disagree. The fast track trial was a problem insofar as it was a separate from Amanda's and Raffaele's.

I mean, the fact that a fast track option is available in Italy is not really a problem for extradition analysis.

We agree that the administration of this particular fast track trial was deceitful and abusive, and it was subsequently used to deny a proper trial to Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Grinder]

Somehow I don't see the US getting into the details of the case, at least not publicly. If they went into trial details and reviewed the system it would set a precedent and every person being requested would point at this case and demand equal scrutiny for their case.

Behind closed doors the State Dept. might well have a write up and communicate with their equals in Italy. We know that the Berlusconi had no love loss with the judiciary. It may well be that the people of Italy's State Dept may also see their judiciary as fools.

The Italian government pulled back the extradition request for the CIA guys or the pilots.

 

[Bill Williams]

Somehow I don't see the US getting into the details of the case, at least not publicly. If they went into trial details and reviewed the system it would set a precedent and every person being requested would point at this case and demand equal scrutiny for their case.

Behind closed doors the State Dept. might well have a write up and communicate with their equals in Italy. We know that the Berlusconi had no love loss with the judiciary. It may well be that the people of Italy's State Dept may also see their judiciary as fools.

The Italian government pulled back the extradition request for the CIA guys or the pilots.

Everybody DOES get equal scrutiny for their cases. Some are open and shut... others require detailed scrutiny, and obviously the State Department is not going to do detailed scrutiny for a case which does not involve it.

I am obviously beating a dead horse here, but when Laurie Bembenek escaped jail and fled unlawfully to Canada, Canada did due diligence in the extradition request from Wisconsin. What "sets the precedence" is the commitment to due diligence. And in the Bembenek case there were some very well targetted conditions set and attached to the extradition, which embarrassed Wisconsin considerably, all for the sake of an escaped con.

..... except when one did the least bit of scrutiny, one found that Wisconsin did not act like angels, and perhaps railroaded Bembenek. The outcome of the process did not concern Canada, but Canada was not going to send someone back to a tainted process....

 

[anglolawyer]

I mean, the fact that a fast track option is available in Italy is not really a problem for extradition analysis.

We agree that the administration of this particular fast track trial was deceitful and abusive, and it was subsequently used to deny a proper trial to Knox and Sollecito.

I dunno Diocletus. In the Torreggiano case the state of Italy's prisons prevented extradition as contrary to human rights. Why, in principle, can't Italy's use of fast track trials capable of resulting in adverse collateral findings not do likewise? Didn't you point out that the fast track option post-dates the US - Italy treaty? What's the difference? Don't you guys have a handy amendment somewhere against collateral estoppel?

And yes, we do agree as stated in your second paragraph.

 

[Grinder]

Everybody DOES get equal scrutiny for their cases. Some are open and shut... others require detailed scrutiny, and obviously the State Department is not going to do detailed scrutiny for a case which does not involve it.

I am obviously beating a dead horse here, but when Laurie Bembenek escaped jail and fled unlawfully to Canada, Canada did due diligence in the extradition request from Wisconsin. What "sets the precedence" is the commitment to due diligence. And in the Bembenek case there were some very well targetted conditions set and attached to the extradition, which embarrassed Wisconsin considerably, all for the sake of an escaped con.

..... except when one did the least bit of scrutiny, one found that Wisconsin did not act like angels, and perhaps railroaded Bembenek. The outcome of the process did not concern Canada, but Canada was not going to send someone back to a tainted process....

First of all it wasn't the US that did what you call due diligence.

Every extradition request to the US does not get a full review of the trial in which the requestee was convicted.

Of course, normally extradition is requested before the trial and all the requesting state need show is probable cause. In those cases one can see an additional need for checking facts but after conviction, not so much.

Normal extradition is the court reviewing the papers and saying to state that the papers are in order to meet the requirements of the treaty.

 

[Diocletus]

I dunno Diocletus. In the Torreggiano case the state of Italy's prisons prevented extradition as contrary to human rights. Why, in principle, can't Italy's use of fast track trials capable of resulting in adverse collateral findings not do likewise? Didn't you point out that the fast track option post-dates the US - Italy treaty? What's the difference?

Because, as I understand, fast track is a voluntary process. If you tried to subject somebody to a summary, nonpublic trial without their consent, then you would have a huge problem. Extradition would never be an issue because the ECtHR would give you a spanking before you got to first base.

That's why the ECtHR is going to give Italy a spanking on this one, i.e., Knox and Sollecito didn't agree to be tried in Rudy's fast-track trial.

Don't you guys have a handy amendment somewhere against collateral estoppel?

Yeah, we do. Lots of them.

 

[Diocletus]

Somehow I don't see the US getting into the details of the case, at least not publicly. If they went into trial details and reviewed the system it would set a precedent and every person being requested would point at this case and demand equal scrutiny for their case.

I agree. But what is to be done with the very small group of people who have a meritorious claim that they were railroaded in a foreign judicial process? Is the US government supposed to snatch them out of their living rooms and send them away to spend the rest of their lives in a foreign jail, simply because someone decided to make an extradition agreement with the foreign country, on the premise that the foreign government would behave to a basic level of fairness, propriety and intelligence?

 

[anglolawyer]

Because, as I understand, fast track is a voluntary process. If you tried to subject somebody to a summary, nonpublic trial without their consent, then you would have a huge problem. Extradition would never be an issue because the ECtHR would give you a spanking before you got to first base.

That's why the ECtHR is going to give Italy a spanking on this one, i.e., Knox and Sollecito didn't agree to be tried in Rudy's fast-track trial.

We are talking passed each other methinks. As against A & R it was unfair that Rudy was tried separately and that findings in his case bound the court in A & R's case. It doesn't matter whether it was fast track so much as that it was separate but it was only separate, as I understand it, because Rudy had the fast track option (which post-dates the treaty). There should be an override where the court says 'tough - you can't have a fast track this time because there are others involved. We'll take account of your request if and when sentencing you for murder.'

 

[Bill Williams]

We are talking passed each other methinks. As against A & R it was unfair that Rudy was tried separately and that findings in his case bound the court in A & R's case. It doesn't matter whether it was fast track so much as that it was separate but it was only separate, as I understand it, because Rudy had the fast track option (which post-dates the treaty). There should be an override where the court says 'tough - you can't have a fast track this time because there are others involved. We'll take account of your request if and when sentencing you for murder.'

Isn't there a legal opinion out there that either all take the fast-track option, or none of them - precisely to avoid this sort of mess?

And correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an Italian lawyer, not even an anglo-lawyer....

.... but is not a fast-track simply a series of stipulations? I mean, there's no examination of evidence, really, not like at a trial?

If this is at all correct, for the ISC to hold as factual stuff found at Rudy's trial to be relevant to AK and RS's various trials.... it would be stuff they had not stipulated to? Correct?

Which part of "wrongful" applies to this wrongful conviction?

 

[Diocletus]

We are talking passed each other methinks. As against A & R it was unfair that Rudy was tried separately and that findings in his case bound the court in A & R's case. It doesn't matter whether it was fast track so much as that it was separate but it was only separate, as I understand it, because Rudy had the fast track option (which post-dates the treaty). There should be an override where the court says 'tough - you can't have a fast track this time because there are others involved. We'll take account of your request if and when sentencing you for murder.'

I guess they could do that; they could say that you can't get a fast track if it would materially prejudice other people.

Or, they could just allow the fast track, and forebear from expressing opinions that are prejudicial to other people.

It doesn't seem that difficult. They basically chose the most prejudicial procedure possible, though.

 

[acbytesla]

Somehow I don't see the US getting into the details of the case, at least not publicly. If they went into trial details and reviewed the system it would set a precedent and every person being requested would point at this case and demand equal scrutiny for their case.

Behind closed doors the State Dept. might well have a write up and communicate with their equals in Italy. We know that the Berlusconi had no love loss with the judiciary. It may well be that the people of Italy's State Dept may also see their judiciary as fools.

The Italian government pulled back the extradition request for the CIA guys or the pilots.

That undoubtedly was just a matter of saving face. They knew from day one the US wasn't going to extradite any of them, but the Italians asked and then pulled it back. Makes sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is for all the guilters and haters out there who say it's hard to believe that a police force would manufacture evidence against a suspect.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/gerry-barton-wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-testifies-in-civil-lawsuit-1.2600749​

Wrongfully convicted, exonerated by DNA, victim recants accusation, but after 40 years the Nova Scotia (Canada) government will not apologize.

His lawyer asked him why he did not fight the conviction. "I never had any money, never had anyone who would listen," Barton responded.

He said he never went to the RCMP detachment and the RCMP never took a statement from him. A typed statement supposedly given by Barton was presented at his preliminary hearing. Not only a false, but a phantom confession.....

 

[codyjuneau]

Sure I would like to see those links requiring the threshold of DNA quantification to be "visibility to the naked eye"...according to Halkides and DanO as you claim.

I can see the semen stain. Does that count?

.
Diocletus, the alleged semen stain does not count now because Crini has explained that there are no signs of a sexual assault. Crini sniffed out the real reason for the murder, which is Rudy's turd, and that has been tested for DNA so all is well.

The reason that for six years the other prosecuting teams thought there was a sexual assault, but refused to test the alleged semen stain found on the pillow under Meredith's naked body is because .... I have no idea actually.

The reason that there is an untested alleged semen stain on the pillow found under Meredith's naked body, and Crini does not think there was a sexual assault is because ... I have no idea actually.

The reason Nencini will give for the murder is ... I have no idea actualy.

Platonov, you're logical, can you help me out please?
.

 

[Desert Fox]

That undoubtedly was just a matter of saving face. They knew from day one the US wasn't going to extradite any of them, but the Italians asked and then pulled it back. Makes sense.

Look at the case of Mario Lozano
They did try to extradite him (which went against international opinion) and then when refused, started to try him in absentia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Lozano_(soldier)

 

[acbytesla]

Look at the case of Mario Lozano
They did try to extradite him (which went against international opinion) and then when refused, started to try him in absentia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Lozano_(soldier)

The US still denied the request as they told the Italians that they would.

 

[Desert Fox]

The US still denied the request as they told the Italians that they would.

Just arguing that Italy often does not do what the rest of the world expects them to do. I think the US is more predictable by international observers.