Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

I will answer for Mach and Italy. There are a number of reasons, namely:

1 such a request is without precedent
2 it is also impertinent and insulting
3 it may very well necessitate a charge of slander if persisted in
4 the request is too late
5 alternatively, the request is too early as we have not yet got to the point where we can lawfully destroy the material - we agree to disclosure subsequent to destruction
6 the court file is too bulky already
7 the request has been complied with
8 compliance with the request (notwithstanding 7 above) would reveal the fraudulent nature of the material, rendering valueless a lot of hard work.

'mazin'

...as we say in the West.

 

[Strozzi]

I hope they keep an eagle eye on him because I would argue that I am afraid that he will do it again.

The Perugia Legal Authorities (PLE) will certainly keep an eye on him. Not just so that he does not commit another burglary or violent crime, but to also make sure Rudy not disclose what really occurred that evening at the cottage or between Mignini and Rudy's lawyer.

Think of the outcry and finger-pointing at the PLE if Rudy is ever brought in for a serious crime. Imagine if he is caught burglarizing a woman's flat. Suppose he uses a rock or climbs in a second-story window, or both. Suppose he is caught with a knife.

Once he is released, Rudy will almost have perverse leverage over the PLE. It will almost be like he has a "Get out of jail free card" for anything more serious than forgetting to flush. "You send me back to prison and I will tell what really happened that night."

 

[acbytesla]

I think you all forget Rudy Guede accused Amanda and Raffaele of murder, as a first hand witness. Previously he had accused a brown haired man as a first hand witness. We are still waiting for a case where this is possible without the accuser being cross examined in court by both the prosecution and the defence. In these circumstances the credibility of the witness, and the consistency of his story are examined by a jury. Of course he would be deemed not credible in spades as he would be tripped up in a thousand ways. But a mild quantum of humour was intended in the post.
I would add to the execution avoidance condition he must satisfy a panel from JREF and IIP he is telling it like it was.

I haven't forgot. Originally he said they had nothing to do with it. My point is that while I would believe him if he went back to his original claim that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it, the guilters however wouldn't. That there is little Rudy can do to become believable to the opposing side. That's my point. Do you really think that Ergon, PQ or Peggy could ever be convinced? How about Mignini...etc.? I don't.

 

[Samson]

I would like to see this taken a step further. There are 3 potential launch points for the rock: from the yard below, from the wall of the parking area and from the slope between those two. Physics may be able to deduce which position was used.


I don't believe that there can be a single locking piece that will resolve this case. There are already numerous examples of evidence showing innocence and in each case the prosecution simply injects a theory without evidence to hold onto their position of guilt. The breakin was staged, missing footprints were cleaned up, bleach didn't remove the DNA, the slipped away and murdered Meredith while Curatolo wasn't looking. This has gone far beyond absurdity and it is my belief that those still arguing for guilt are simply deluded and lack the mental capacity to see the truth or they are aware of the truth and are entrenched in the big lie rather than admit being wrong. They have long ago stopped arguing in good faith.

From my vantage point the case will be solved by the American public taking a genuine interest.
It is necessary for the prosecution that they are believed the break in was staged, and it should also be necessary that it was done clandestinely, not in a public display.
Massei gave a detailed description of an inside action, and convicted accordingly.
It is physically possible to pick glass up and rearrange it, but physically impossible to rearrange the location of the embedded shard, and the location and angle of the divot.
It is further impossible for these items to simultaneously present after one action inside the room, yet two actions are scientifically precluded by the evidence.
My suggestion is that this can only be achieved from the car park, that any alternative position will allow insufficient velocity at impact, although your alternate positions need consideration.
This is a possible key to the case, and has the great advantage of being easily understood by the man in the street, in contrast to the dna.
If all photographs that Hendry used, and all others besides are submitted for independent analysis to the highest ranking engineering institutions, the case may be solved by promoting this as new information.
I completely welcome this thesis be challenged here, because to me it seems way too easy.

If the exterior throw were to be accepted by the whole community by virtue of proof, what arguments stand up for a staging of the break in? What rationalisation will be employed? (as it surely will)

 

[Samson]

I haven't forgot. Originally he said they had nothing to do with it. My point is that while I would believe him if he went back to his original claim that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it, the guilters however wouldn't. That there is little Rudy can do to become believable to the opposing side. That's my point. Do you really think that Ergon, PQ or Peggy could ever be convinced? How about Mignini...etc.? I don't.

My post above on the window is my best idea for this, there are a few leaps of faith you would make to believe me on the shard and divot, but I wish it to be challenged for what I may have missed. Hendry did not go to the detail of suggesting only one exterior action alone could account for the concurrence of these items, he listed them separately.

 

[Grinder]

Hmm. I am not sure badly handled DNA evidence would be inadmissible in a common law trial. It would just be lousy evidence.

Not just badly handled but evidence of a certain type can be refused by the judge. I don't have a cite but if the prosecution wanted to bring Curatolo here I think the judge would rule "in camera" as to whether to allow his testimony.

As for Cristian T his information was allowed in Massei's trial but he didn't testify. IIRC it was because Massei didn't allow it.

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.

Another case where the judge didn't let the jury see evidence:

Renisha McBride’s text messages may offer insights into her past and her character, but a jury will not be allowed to see them as they decide the fate of McBride’s accused killer, a judge ruled today.

“They are just unfairly prejudicial,” Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway said of McBride’s texts, which the defense had hoped to use to bolster its claim that the defendant acted in self-defense when he shot and killed the unarmed woman on his porch last fall.

Specifically, the defense claims it has text messages and cell phone pictures that show the 19-year-old McBride was a marijuana dealer who had a knack for getting into trouble, not the “meek and mild” person the prosecution is trying to portray. On the night of her killing, the defense argued, text messages on McBride’s cell phone showed she was out dealing drugs when she showed up in the early hours of the morning on the front porch of Dearborn Heights resident Theodore Wafer.

So Anglo perhaps I'm once again misunderstanding a point.

ETA - From a british source

While the court also has the power to exclude evidence, the Divisional Court in R (on the application of Kelly) v Warley Magistrates' Court (The Law Society intervening) [2007] EWHC 1836 (Admin) emphasised the need for sanctions to be 'proportionate' and 'no more than might reasonably be required for the proper working of such a regulation.' Mitting J stated: - See more at: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice...al-procedure-rules-2011/#sthash.ouMzAiez.dpuf

 

[acbytesla]

My post above on the window is my best idea for this, there are a few leaps of faith you would make to believe me on the shard and divot, but I wish it to be challenged for what I may have missed. Hendry did not go to the detail of suggesting only one exterior action alone could account for the concurrence of these items, he listed them separately.

With all due respect Samson, the case is solved. Unless one is brainless. This is not just a case with an absence of evidence, there is significant evidence providing that shows they couldn't have been involved in the murder.

Rudy originally said that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder and this was not under interrogation. It was not until it benefited him personally did he change his story.

There is no new evidence and there is likely not to be new evidence.

Anything that might be new now is not likely to be trusted. Rudy's testimony or anyone else's.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Perugia Legal Authorities (PLE) will certainly keep an eye on him. Not just so that he does not commit another burglary or violent crime, but to also make sure Rudy not disclose what really occurred that evening at the cottage or between Mignini and Rudy's lawyer.

Think of the outcry and finger-pointing at the PLE if Rudy is ever brought in for a serious crime. Imagine if he is caught burglarizing a woman's flat. Suppose he uses a rock or climbs in a second-story window, or both. Suppose he is caught with a knife.

Once he is released, Rudy will almost have perverse leverage over the PLE. It will almost be like he has a "Get out of jail free card" for anything more serious than forgetting to flush. "You send me back to prison and I will tell what really happened that night."

Assuming they don't watch him like a hawk (They really cannot unless they assign somebody permanently to him), if he does anything remotely like what we think the actual crime is then I think that is the one thing that the pro guilt side will have a hard time swallowing. Maybe a few diehards may remain but most will desert the guilt side. Unfortunately, some woman may get badly hurt or killed.

 

[Samson]

With all due respect Samson, the case is solved. Unless one is brainless. This is not just a case with an absence of evidence, there is significant evidence providing that shows they couldn't have been involved in the murder.

Rudy originally said that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder and this was not under interrogation. It was not until it benefited him personally did he change his story.

There is no new evidence and there is likely not to be new evidence.

Anything that might be new now is not likely to be trusted. Rudy's testimony or anyone else's.

acbytesla, there are two versions of solved. One version is to the satisfaction of internet aficionados of the case, the other is the one that returns Amanda to normal life. I take it you are referring to the former. My proposition is about the latter, but by all means consider me naïve and sentimental.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla, there are two versions of solved. One version is to the satisfaction of internet aficionados of the case, the other is the one that returns Amanda to normal life. I take it you are referring to the former. My proposition is about the latter, but by all means consider me naïve and sentimental.

While I agree with your point Samson that there are two versions of solved, I'm flabbergasted that the courts can't see that they are innocent. I sit back and wonder what needs to happen for them to recognize this. It really isn't like the evidence hasn't been available.

I'm probably too cynical. I think you have to be logically impaired not to recognize that these two young people aren't innocent. Seriously, if the morons can't recognize it by now, I am left thinking that nothing will make these people engage their brains. Sadly I see the Italian courts caring too much about how stupid they will look if they acquit them....so I'm not sure where that leaves us. I admire that you remain hopeful. I wish I could be.

 

[Grinder]

I'm probably too cynical. I think you have to be logically impaired not to recognize that these two young people aren't innocent. Seriously, if the morons can't recognize it by now, I am left thinking that nothing will make these people engage their brains. Sadly I see the Italian courts caring too much about how stupid they will look if they acquit them....so I'm not sure where that leaves us. I admire that you remain hopeful. I wish I could be.

I'm sure Mach agrees.

How's Bertha?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

confirmatory testing; substrate controls

"When collecting samples it is also a good idea to collect one or more unstained samples from an area adjacent to the bloodstain; this is to determine what was on the substrate before the evidence was deposited and serves as a substrate control [2]."

"A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood." link
Review: Biological Evidence Collection and Forensic Blood Identification; Diana M. Castro, M.S. and Heather Miller Coyle, Ph.D.

 

[Samson]

While I agree with your point Samson that there are two versions of solved, I'm flabbergasted that the courts can't see that they are innocent. I sit back and wonder what needs to happen for them to recognize this. It really isn't like the evidence hasn't been available.

I'm probably too cynical. I think you have to be logically impaired not to recognize that these two young people aren't innocent. Seriously, if the morons can't recognize it by now, I am left thinking that nothing will make these people engage their brains. Sadly I see the Italian courts caring too much about how stupid they will look if they acquit them....so I'm not sure where that leaves us. I admire that you remain hopeful. I wish I could be.

For the meantime I read all the sites and the "enemy" is terrifying. I hope that comment wouldn't encourage an orgy of smilies from them, but frankly they are winning. The state department is seriously underweight on what should have been done already, as clearly Amanda's conviction can only be justified on the innocent man accusation, and that was disallowed by the supreme court. I am sorry to go on about the break in, but this can be proved now by more forceful analysis.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure Mach agrees.

How's Bertha?

Bertha is in the same condition she has been in since December and probably will be in this condition for another 6 months.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not just badly handled but evidence of a certain type can be refused by the judge. I don't have a cite but if the prosecution wanted to bring Curatolo here I think the judge would rule "in camera" as to whether to allow his testimony.

As for Cristian T his information was allowed in Massei's trial but he didn't testify. IIRC it was because Massei didn't allow it.

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.

Another case where the judge didn't let the jury see evidence:

Renisha McBride’s text messages may offer insights into her past and her character, but a jury will not be allowed to see them as they decide the fate of McBride’s accused killer, a judge ruled today.

“They are just unfairly prejudicial,” Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway said of McBride’s texts, which the defense had hoped to use to bolster its claim that the defendant acted in self-defense when he shot and killed the unarmed woman on his porch last fall.

Specifically, the defense claims it has text messages and cell phone pictures that show the 19-year-old McBride was a marijuana dealer who had a knack for getting into trouble, not the “meek and mild” person the prosecution is trying to portray. On the night of her killing, the defense argued, text messages on McBride’s cell phone showed she was out dealing drugs when she showed up in the early hours of the morning on the front porch of Dearborn Heights resident Theodore Wafer.

So Anglo perhaps I'm once again misunderstanding a point.

ETA - From a british source

While the court also has the power to exclude evidence, the Divisional Court in R (on the application of Kelly) v Warley Magistrates' Court (The Law Society intervening) [2007] EWHC 1836 (Admin) emphasised the need for sanctions to be 'proportionate' and 'no more than might reasonably be required for the proper working of such a regulation.' Mitting J stated: - See more at: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice...al-procedure-rules-2011/#sthash.ouMzAiez.dpuf

Rules on admissibility can be insanely complicated and the question of admissibility is one for the judge, true. I may be wrong here, but a defendant who wants to argue that fingerprints were taken in the wrong way, or blood spatter has been misinterpreted etc does so in front of the jury. Your LCN DNA ruling probably followed a defence objection that the technique was insufficiently robust or well-developed as to make it a thing. Like lie detector tests which AFAIK know are not admissible in the US (they aren't used here) because nobody has yet demonstrated their reliability. If somebody wanted to introduce lie detector evidence and the defence's only objection was that the test had not been correctly performed, that would be for the jury, but if the objection were that the results, whatever they were, could not be relied upon due to the fragility of the science, that would be for the judge to determine.

Your text message example concerns the questions of relevance complicated by the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect. That is also a matter for the judge. You can't introduce irrelevant evidence, obviously. It's an oxymoron for one thing. Thus you cannot gratuitously smear witnesses, victims or parties. But you can if it's relevant. But you can't if the prejudicial element is to great blah, blah. The classic one is the rape victim's sexual history. Can the defence lead evidence of promiscuity? That is a question of principle for the judge. Can a confession extracted under duress be admitted? Likewise.

I stand corrected on Tramontano. He could be called by the defence without any judicial filtering in an English or American trial, I believe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Bertha is in the same condition she has been in since December and probably will be in this condition for another 6 months.

I have inside dope on Bertha.

 

[Grinder]

I have inside dope on Bertha.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have inside dope on Bertha.

Who is Bertha? She's into dope?

 

[Grinder]

Rules on admissibility can be insanely complicated and the question of admissibility is one for the judge, true. I may be wrong here, but a defendant who wants to argue that fingerprints were taken in the wrong way, or blood spatter has been misinterpreted etc does so in front of the jury. Your LCN DNA ruling probably followed a defence objection that the technique was insufficiently robust or well-developed as to make it a thing. Like lie detector tests which AFAIK know are not admissible in the US (they aren't used here) because nobody has yet demonstrated their reliability. If somebody wanted to introduce lie detector evidence and the defence's only objection was that the test had not been correctly performed, that would be for the jury, but if the objection were that the results, whatever they were, could not be relied upon due to the fragility of the science, that would be for the judge to determine.

Your text message example concerns the questions of relevance complicated by the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect. That is also a matter for the judge. You can't introduce irrelevant evidence, obviously. It's an oxymoron for one thing. Thus you cannot gratuitously smear witnesses, victims or parties. But you can if it's relevant. But you can't if the prejudicial element is to great blah, blah. The classic one is the rape victim's sexual history. Can the defence lead evidence of promiscuity? That is a question of principle for the judge. Can a confession extracted under duress be admitted? Likewise.

I stand corrected on Tramontano. He could be called by the defence without any judicial filtering in an English or American trial, I believe.

The first LCN DNA in the US was allowed in a NY court IIRC. The judge insisted on approving the lab set-up or in some way the lab had to prove that all safeguards were in place.

I would expect that a judge might rule that Stefanoni's DNA would not be allowed because her lab and the rest were not up to LCN standards. The judge would rule this way because he would understand that people, think PGP, once told the DNA was on the knife would not let it go no matter what the defense says. In our case a Dr. (real) insists that contamination must be proven or at least that it be probable.

If a fingerprint only has 3 points would a british or american judge allow it in?

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy's limited horizons

The Perugia Legal Authorities (PLE) will certainly keep an eye on him. Not just so that he does not commit another burglary or violent crime, but to also make sure Rudy not disclose what really occurred that evening at the cottage or between Mignini and Rudy's lawyer.

Think of the outcry and finger-pointing at the PLE if Rudy is ever brought in for a serious crime. Imagine if he is caught burglarizing a woman's flat. Suppose he uses a rock or climbs in a second-story window, or both. Suppose he is caught with a knife.

Once he is released, Rudy will almost have perverse leverage over the PLE. It will almost be like he has a "Get out of jail free card" for anything more serious than forgetting to flush. "You send me back to prison and I will tell what really happened that night."

I believe Rudy Guede will meet an unfortunate end sometime after he is released, courtesy of the Italian police. Not right away, but maybe a year later. He's too much of a loose canon. They'll give him a chance to keep up his end, but when he starts to wobble, first sign of trouble, I think they'll give him a 'curatolo' send off.

There's no way they are letting Rudy Guede hang around to implicate the prosecution and police. Which he will have to offer to do the next time he's caught with a dead girl. He has black outs and wanders away at night miles from his home. He pleasured himself over a dying woman he had mortally wounded moments earlier. He has serious mental issues, he can't control himself. They are nuts to let him out of an institution to roam free.

But one way or another, Rudy Guede will never be on trial for murder/rape again, no matter who he kills or rapes - imo -