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

[Grinder]

For Anglo's ears only

 

[carbonjam72]

I'm too busy with work and travel to focus much over the past week or so, and I've only skimmed through the Nencini motivation and the discussion about it here. But.....

My quick reading of the Nencini "reasoning" speaks to something that I (and, IIRC, others here) discussed some while ago: Nencini's court was unequivocally guided by the prior verdict (with Supreme Court ratification) that Guede had committed the murder "with others". It appears abundantly clear to me that this was the starting point for Nencini's court's reasoning, and was taken as unchallenged (and unchallengeable) fact. Nencini's court therefore felt that all it had to decide was this: if these others were not Knox and Sollecito, then who could they have been?

At this point, the "Italian inquisitorial legacy disease" seems to have reared its ugly head as well. In this instance (as in Massei), it appears to have manifested itself in the court choosing to believe the police, prosecutors and prosecution expert witnesses almost by rote as figures of unimpeachable objectivity and neutrality (while at the same time marking down the defence and defence experts on credibility terms on account of a partisan bias!).

Put these two factors together, and it was virtually inevitable that the Nencini court would find for guilt. There is, however, absolutely no doubt in my mind that the adverse (and hugely unlawful) impact of the Guede verdict upon the Knox/Sollecito trial process will be an extremely strong point of application to the ECHR. I also think that an examination of the Nencini motivation will provide additional evidence to the ECHR that Knox and Sollecito were not given a fair trial on account of an obvious court bias towards the prosecution.

So, over to Strasbourg. In the meantime, it will be marginally interesting to see what the Italian Supreme Court has to say about this motivations document. I suspect they will sign off on it without batting an eyelid, if precedent is anything to go by. And then there's Knox's extradition (I pity Sollecito's position). I believe that this motivations document - together with the likelihood of a pending ECHR application - means that the US won't agree to the extradition of Knox (assuming it's requested by Italy).

Look: all countries' criminal justice systems have flaws - both with specific cases and institutionally/structurally. And it's fundamentally impossible to have a "perfect" system of criminal justice (i.e. one in which the factually-guilty are always convicted and the factually-innocent are always acquitted). But the various courts in Italy, up to and including the Supreme Court, have shown themselves to be unfit for purpose in the Knox/Sollecito trials. They have become a laughing stock on an international stage (although I am certain that Knox and Sollecito and their families and friends are not laughing). Furthermore, this is no good for the victim and her relatives/friends. It's a black comedy in which there are no winners.

I can agree with everything you say, except the part about there being no winners.

Maresca, the Kercher's civil attorney, is certainly likely to come out a winner, after having successfully fleeced Rafaele out of his rightful inheritance. Plus, look how much he gets to be on TV.

Patrick Lumumba, and to a lesser extent his civil attorney, seem to be coming out ahead. Patrick's failing bar was closed, and he's probably made more money yelling racism while selling his 'story' to tabloids, then he's ever made in his life.

And of course, there is Mignini himself. He managed to deflect the attention of the tabloids from himself onto Amanda, during the time he was being tried and convicted for abuse of office charges, and his unfounded cases with respect to the monster of florence, were collapsing in florence. Hasn't Mignini actually been recently promoted?

And also, didn't several of the police involved in the prosecution receive celebratory ribbons during ceremonies honoring their achievements and fine work in this case?

So black comedy? Absolutely. But no winners? Isn't that what this case has always been about; corrupt prosecutors using the lives of innocents to further their ambitions & career.

 

[Grinder]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but could somebody let me know why on earth they didn't test Meredith's phones for DNA? Weren't Knox and Sollecito convicted of stealing them? Wouldn't it be kind of important to try to discover who last handled them?

One problem would have been that Lana or kids handled them, the PP handled them and they may have let people at the cottage examine them for identification.

In fairness to the PLE, no one could anticipate that a found phone would turn into a murder investigation and it seems petty theft isn't pursued in Italy.

Where is the best read on the Nencini report?

 

[LondonJohn]

I would, but it's apparently written with crayons and finger paint.

The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.

That's essential information.

Ah, but the police's forensic "scientist" said it was found on the blade of the knife! And that's enough for the Nencini court: the police and prosecution are scrupulously honest, fair, disinterested, well-qualified and perfect at their jobs.

Never mind that the defence could show that practically every other forensic expert in the world (most of whom have no skin whatsoever in this game) believes that the "finding" of the victim's DNA on the knife blade is fundamentally unreliable and inadmissible, for multiple reasons relating to the handling of the knife, the way in which the testing was conducted and interpreted, and the massive improbability of there being the victim's DNA present on the blade in the total absence of any of the other elements of the victim's blood. Never mind that the police's forensic "scientist" drove a coach and horses through the critical protocols that are absolutely necessary for the handling and testing of low-template level DNA samples. Never mind, for that matter, that the more senior police body in Italy - the Carabinieri - testified in court to the effect that the Kercher DNA finding on the knife was inadmissible owing to a absence of a repeat amplification. Oh, and never mind that the police's forensic "scientist" (and/or the prosecutors themselves) willfully withheld vitally important testing source data from the defence, then lied and obfuscated about it, and then tried to claim that the defence requests for the data were spurious and unnecessary.

Never mind all that, eh? The police's "expert" said that to her (and her boss's!) satisfaction, the victim's DNA was reliably found on the blade of the kitchen knife. That's good enough for Nencini's (and Massei's) court, it would appear

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh and by the way: there appear to be a number of significant errors in the Nencini Report (probably the most serious of which is the false assertion that Sollecito's DNA was found on the kitchen knife). Now, I realise that all (or at least most) of these are almost certainly mistakes within the document rather than errors of judgement/factfinding by the court itself, but nonetheless this report is a legal document.

In my line of work, if a legal document is submitted, it had better be right. It doesn't cut much ice to claim "Oh yeah, we meant to say that the price we are going to pay to acquire your business is £1 billion, rather than the £1 million we mistakenly put in the purchase documentation." I suspect that the court bodies in the Knox/Sollecito case will afford Nencini's court considerably more latitude in correcting its own documentation mistakes. But regardless of that, it's indicative of shocking ineptitude and sloppiness from an appeal court judging a murder case.

But I'm afraid it's in line with what we've come to expect from the broken Italian criminal justice system......

There are quite serious disputes over judgments emerging with errors here in E & W. A common (not invariable) practise in civil cases is for the judgment to be circulated in draft to counsel and for mistakes to be picked up before the judgment is 'handed down'. Once 'handed down' the scope for rectification of errors is limited. There comes a point when they can only be corrected on appeal (otherwise litigation would lack finality). Italy (like all legal systems) is likely to have some set of rules for dealing with such things but, equally, there must come a point at which the motivation is final and only reparable on appeal and then subject to the applicable rules.

It seems to me at the very least the defence has some ammo for attacking the competence of the judges (and their book ends) because this is not their only error. They also have the length of the knife wrong, for example, and there are bound to be other boo-boos.

As Grinder said, the worse the better since the ISC will look even more foolish when refusing to overturn it (which, breaking all my own rules, I am predicting is what will happen - when the system is this far invested there can be no turning back) and the ECHR will be more likely to pounce and tear the whole darn mess to shreds.

 

[Diocletus]

One problem would have been that Lana or kids handled them, the PP handled them and they may have let people at the cottage examine them for identification.

In fairness to the PLE, no one could anticipate that a found phone would turn into a murder investigation and it seems petty theft isn't pursued in Italy.

So what? They had the phones at the DNA lab and marked them as exhibits. Why wouldn't they swab them to see if they could match the perps?

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah, but the police's forensic "scientist" said it was found on the blade of the knife! And that's enough for the Nencini court: the police and prosecution are scrupulously honest, fair, disinterested, well-qualified and perfect at their jobs.

Never mind that the defence could show that practically every other forensic expert in the world (most of whom have no skin whatsoever in this game) believes that the "finding" of the victim's DNA on the knife blade is fundamentally unreliable and inadmissible, for multiple reasons relating to the handling of the knife, the way in which the testing was conducted and interpreted, and the massive improbability of there being the victim's DNA present on the blade in the total absence of any of the other elements of the victim's blood. Never mind that the police's forensic "scientist" drove a coach and horses through the critical protocols that are absolutely necessary for the handling and testing of low-template level DNA samples. Never mind, for that matter, that the more senior police body in Italy - the Carabinieri - testified in court to the effect that the Kercher DNA finding on the knife was inadmissible owing to a absence of a repeat amplification. Oh, and never mind that the police's forensic "scientist" (and/or the prosecutors themselves) willfully withheld vitally important testing source data from the defence, then lied and obfuscated about it, and then tried to claim that the defence requests for the data were spurious and unnecessary.

Never mind all that, eh? The police's "expert" said that to her (and her boss's!) satisfaction, the victim's DNA was reliably found on the blade of the kitchen knife. That's good enough for Nencini's (and Massei's) court, it would appear

Someone upthread asked, "What is a 'procedural' fact?"

Here we have it, ladies and gentleman - procedural fact regarding Meredith's pseudo-presence on that knife.

LondonJohn wrongly assumes that this is about the experts. Please remember, LJ, that one of the articulated reasons for the ISC in March 2013 overturning Hellmann's acquittals is that Hellmann delegated his authority wrongly to Vecchiotti in allowing her to, in effect, make the decision on the worth of testing 36i.

This, perhaps, is one point of law the ISC got right, yet truly kiddies.... was it enough to overturn acquittals? Esp. when Nencini did the right thing and ordered the RIS Carabinieri to test 36i, and keep hold of his judicial authority over the police experts?

And using 20-20 hindsight, the outcome is no different than what Vecchiotti said....I mean the outcome could have been different, 36i could have been Meredith's and then I would be a guilter.

But with all this water under the bridge, with Nencini at his court hearing not one scintilla of evidence against Knox and Sollecito.....

..... if it were not for "procedural facts" then Nencini would have had nothing.

What's truly amazing, though, is that Nencini has also departed from other procedural facts, facts found at Rudy's trials - from Borsini to be specific.

Nencini has managed the impossible, to create a conviction fiction from procedural facts found at other trials, while at the same time ignoring other procedural facts.

Cassazione is now doing a face-palm. They needed a better stooge to foment this conspiracy. They got Nencini. He almost gave the game away immediately following the verdict saying that if only Sollecito had allowed himself to be cross examined, it would have gone better for him.

Lessee.... what is it that a prosecutor would ask Sollecito to spare Sollecito jail time? Let's think on that.

 

[proudfootz]

Because haemoglobin is far more resistant to cleaning than DNA. Because there are far more haemoglobin molecules in blood than DNA; one red blood cell contains about 270,000,000 haemoglobin molecules there are roughly a thousand red blood cells to one white blood cell containing a single copy of DNA. So you are 270 billion times more likely to have a haemoglobin molecule than a DNA profile. The tests for haemoglobin are of a similar order of sensitivity as tests for DNA. No haemoglobin (blood) was found anywhere on the knife. This makes it excessively unlikely any DNA found on the knife would relate to the murder even if it was used in the murder.

???

If the knife was used in the murder it shouldn't have the victim's DNA on it

The knife has the victim's DNA on it

Therefore it is not the murder weapon.

Got it!

Certainly the large amount of DNA of Knox on the handle must be unrelated to the murder even if the knife was used in the murder.

So basically DNA is useless in crime investigation? Because victims' DNA or perpetrator's DNA cannot in principle be detected on murder weapons? Any DNA found must be unrelated to crimes?

I think that there is no evidence that the knife was used in the murder. Even accepting the alternate view, one can make no conclusions about who used it. Accepting it was used in the murder, the knife was Sollecito's and in his possession, that is it.

So if this is the murder weapon, the real killers could have planted the knife in Sollecito's apartment? Unless Sollecito did the crime using this knife instead of one of his own tactical knives. But the only real link between Sollecito's apartment and the murder victim is Knox. Apparently Sollecito and Knox cannot agree upon how to provide alibis for one another.

I think that the standards and problems around LCN DNA are well defined. The test on the blade of the knife met none of the standards. It was due to contamination.

It seems like an hypothesis, but if the forensic lab was prone to contamination, it is certainly an interesting coincidence that this victim's DNA only contaminated the blade of this weapon. If the lab was a hotbed of contamination we'd expect to see all kinds of random results, technicians' DNA found here, DNA from a different crime scene found over there, etc.

As there is absolutely zero evidence indicating contamination, I find it reasonable to concur with the expert testimony.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are quite serious disputes over judgments emerging with errors here in E & W. A common (not invariable) practise in civil cases is for the judgment to be circulated in draft to counsel and for mistakes to be picked up before the judgment is 'handed down'. Once 'handed down' the scope for rectification of errors is limited. There comes a point when they can only be corrected on appeal (otherwise litigation would lack finality). Italy (like all legal systems) is likely to have some set of rules for dealing with such things but, equally, there must come a point at which the motivation is final and only reparable on appeal and then subject to the applicable rules.

It seems to me at the very least the defence has some ammo for attacking the competence of the judges (and their book ends) because this is not their only error. They also have the length of the knife wrong, for example, and there are bound to be other boo-boos.

As Grinder said, the worse the better since the ISC will look even more foolish when refusing to overturn it (which, breaking all my own rules, I am predicting is what will happen - when the system is this far invested there can be no turning back) and the ECHR will be more likely to pounce and tear the whole darn mess to shreds.

You are now an honourary Canadian.

I'm willing to put a few 'bob on this. How much? Please remember exchange rates.

 

[Grinder]

So what? They had the phones at the DNA lab and marked them as exhibits. Why wouldn't they swab them to see if they could match the perps?

They probably should have. I have no idea how many tests they allocated to the case or if there are any limits. If they still have them, perhaps the defense should ask to test them. The only DNA that would mean anything would be Rudi's or Koko's .

 

[moodstream]

I have a simple question that I am sure has been answered.

According to Nencini An argument characteristically objective that emerged procedurally was evidence that, after the murder of Meredith Kercher, selective or not, there was a clean-up of the traces of the murder, ... , at the end of the aggressive phase. Someone spent much time within the cottage on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces.

Did Knox know with certainty that none of the other residents of the cottage, downstairs as well as her flatmates, would not return that evening or even in the morning? If not, speaking of big risks, taking all that time to clean up / stage the scene is a mighty big risk indeed!

 

[Bill Williams]

As there is absolutely zero evidence indicating contamination, I find it reasonable to concur with the expert testimony.

You have this backwards. There is zero evidence that Stefanoni's lab conformed to any standards. And until she releases the raw data files (as demanded by the courts) there is no real way to assess "expert" testimony.

As for you, you prefer a picture on Mad Pete's website of the kitchen knife to the preliminary judge's own expert who said he did not see striations on the knife.

You also believe that blood can shield other DNA from a scrubbing. I think this alone enables reasonable people to discern your opinions on who you believe is or isn't an expert.

 

[proudfootz]

The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.

You're never going to make progress in understanding the case if you don't master that basic fact.

Unfortunately for the perpetrators, professional forensic investigators concluded otherwise.

Unless you're trying to say Meredith Kercher had a clone whose DNA profile was found on the blade of the knife in Sollecito's possession...?

This would be an interesting new twist on the increasingly bizarre CT scenario!

 

[Bill Williams]

So, over to Strasbourg. In the meantime, it will be marginally interesting to see what the Italian Supreme Court has to say about this motivations document. I suspect they will sign off on it without batting an eyelid, if precedent is anything to go by. And then there's Knox's extradition (I pity Sollecito's position). I believe that this motivations document - together with the likelihood of a pending ECHR application - means that the US won't agree to the extradition of Knox (assuming it's requested by Italy).

Since extradition is essentially a political exercise, not a legal one, I am of the opinion that Italy will never in a million years request extradition.

The only thing worse for Italy politically and for its reputation than the US fighting extradition, would be if the US granted it.

As mentioned before, the US always has the option of attaching demands to an agreement to extradite. If you've been reading the commentary in the last day in the US, almost 99% with the opinion "What the hell is wrong with Italy?", one demand might be for a third-country review of the police and court actions in this 6 1/2 year saga.

Italian jurists might be stupid and slaves to "procedural facts", but politicians make their money being able to see four or five moves down the chessboard.

Would Italy want the US demanding this, while Sollecito, an Italian national, is wasting away in prison - for a process that even La Stampa is now calling suspect?

There's got to be one Italian politician who can see down the chessboard on this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Unfortunately for the perpetrators, professional forensic investigators concluded otherwise.

Unless you're trying to say Meredith Kercher had a clone whose DNA profile was found on the blade of the knife in Sollecito's possession...?

This would be an interesting new twist on the increasingly bizarre CT scenario!

I beg you to read the Massei report. The Massei report, even in convicting the pair and siding with Stefanoni on everything, at least discusses the issues.

What do you make of the RIS Carabinieiri essentially telling the Nencini court that the "forensic investigators" that you trust so much, did not prove anything?

What I am trying to protect you from is your misguided rhetoric of claiming this as a "new twist". Massei wrote his report in 2010 and was fully aware of the issues.

 

[GWCarver]

Unfortunately for the perpetrators, professional forensic investigators concluded otherwise.

By using "professional" instead of "competent", this statement actually passes muster.

 

[Grinder]

A knife is used in a murder. The knife was a kitchen knife that had been used by the tenant for a few months and his girlfriend for ten days. After the murder the knife is cleaned to the point of being noticeably cleaner than the other knives in the drawer.

One would assume that the knife had been covered with blood. A substance that is very hard to completely remove hence why CSIs use luminol to find it even though there is no evidence visible.

The knife tests negative for blood. The knife test negative for the tenants DNA. Yet it tests positive for an amount of DNA that the machine rejects and for the DNA of the girlfriend that has only been using the knife for ten days.

The victim's DNA had been found on numerous items in the lab that now "found" it on the cleaned blade. At these low levels of DNA it is almost inconceivable that Raf's DNA wasn't on it.

Now "luminol" prints that tested negative for blood with a TMB test also test negative for DNA yet are considered bloody footprints by the PLE.

Did the defendants use the bleach that was only a few feet from where the knife was found? Did the ICSI find any of the victims DNA or blood in the apartment where the bloody knife was allegedly cleaned? Was any blood or DNA found on their shoes or clothing?

 

[Grinder]

By using "professional" instead of "competent", this statement actually passes muster.

There is no doubt that those with the most education and the highest standing disagreed with a mere technician.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

expert views

As there is absolutely zero evidence indicating contamination, I find it reasonable to concur with the expert testimony.

proudfootz,

Professor Bruce Budowle was formerly the director of a research lab at the FBI and is the author of numerous scientific papers on the use of DNA. In a letter accepted by the Hellmann court he wrote, "Caution shouldbe taken regarding placing significance on the DNA found on the knife (item 28669-01-036) and suggestions that this is indicative of Knox’s committing a murder. First, sample B from the handle of the knife yielded a negative result for the presumptive test for human blood known as tetramethyl benzidine (TMB). This test is extremely sensitive. Reports in the scientific literature show that blood can be diluted 1,000,000 times and the test can still detect the presence of blood. Given the peak heights in the electropherogram for sample B, I estimate that if the sample did derive from blood (and assuming no degradation occurred and all the sample was consumed for DNA analysis) approximately one hundredth to two hundredth of a microliter of blood could have yielded the DNA from sample B...However, it would seem extremely unlikely to have been able to wash away all traces of hemoglobin and preferentially left behind solely DNA. An alternate explanation is that DNA from sample B does not derive from blood. It is to be expected that people who frequent or habitate in areas will leave their DNA on items in that environment. A person’s DNA will be found on his/her items in his/her home, place of work, and other places. That DNA also can be picked up by others and passed on to other items. This process is known as secondary and tertiary transfer and is well-established in the scientific literature." Nor is he the only expert to make this point; Professor Hampikian and Dr. Johnson have also made it. I don't have Sarah Gino's words in front of me, but she also gave a cogent discussion of contamination. And it is worth recalling that Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts, and they made it a point to discuss the lack of blood.

Mrs. Stefanoni is not an expert; she is a technician, nothing more. Nor is it true that there is zero evidence of contamination with respect to the DNA forensics in this case; for example, the existence of several male DNA profiles on the bra clasp is by definition contamination.

 

[carbonjam72]

I'll have a Wrongful Conviction, but hold the framing?

Can I interject a minute here on the subject of conspiracies. Contrary to the opinion of a new poster on the board, most of us think that there was no conspiracy to frame AK & RS. Many posters here have a pretty in-depth grasp of wrongful convictions more generally, and understand that the commonalities of these miscarriages of justice are also evident in this case (tunnel vision in the investigation, rush to judgement, false confession, sloppy forensic work, prosecution withholding evidence, dodgy eyewitnesses etc). None of this neccesitates a conscious conspiracy to frame - although it is possible that dubious methods were used to prop up the later investigation and prosecution. Once more with feeling: it is the prosecution and convicting judges' thinking that shares all the common elements with conspiracy thinking, NOT those who argue for innocence (with a few exceptions only).

See my comment #4735, for my reasons for believing that a frame-up was in place from DAY 1, before Dr Mignini even arrived at the crime scene. Instead of a lengthy response, since I can see you favor brevity, I'll ask you one question only.

On Nov 4th, the police brought the three flatmates back to the cottage and asked Amanda to open a lower draw in the kitchen, filled with rarely used kitchen utensils. The incident is described in Amanda's book, WTBH, see page 100;

"I knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon - that they were asking me to pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith's throat. Panic engulfed me. I don't know how long I stood there, arms limp at my sides. I started crying. Someone led me to a couch. "Do you need a doctor?" the interpreter asked.
"No", I whimpered, my chest heaving. I couldn't speak coherently enough between the sobs to explain. I could only think, I need to get away from here. " (Italics from WTBH, my highlite).

This incident occurred on Nov 4, 2007, in the afternoon. There is also mention in WTBH (see page 97) of an article in the Daily Mail on Sunday, that same morning;

"The article said the Italian poilce were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman - someone whom Meredith had known well. 'We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends', a senior police detective said."

Now BRI1; Given that the police were able to pull a knife at random from Rafaele's kitchen drawer, with the senior officer on site saying, "It will do" (from Raf's book), and that Stefanoni was able to find a match to Meredith's DAN on the blade, despite the fact that there was no DNA on the blade.

Do you have an innocent explanation, for the police asking Amanda to 'pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith's throat'? An explanation that does not involve a deliberate conscious effort to frame Amanda on Nov 4, by getting her to put her hands on a potential murder weapon, upon which Stafanoni could apparently find Meredith's DNA, even where none existed?

Do you find that incident to be an indication of consciously framing Amanda by the Perugian Police on Nov 4, 2007?

As another poster, I think Anglo has asked yet another poster, maybe we're not using the word "framing" in the same definition. From your comment, I would absolutely consider; prosecution withholding evidence, dodgy eyewitnesses etc), to be examples of conscious framing.

Knowingly withholding or suppressing exculpatory evidence that proves actual innocence is "framing" in my book, as is the use of tramp serial "super-witnesses" like curatolo, whom Mignini had used as such in two other cases.