Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Paragraph 1 seems to include verdicts that are other than not guilty. Such things as no crime was committed, or a crime was committed and the accused did commit the action but there was a defence such as self defence, or the accused is innocent beyond doubt (e.g. the wrong 'John Smith' being arrested). Paragraph 2 is the not guilty verdict that would normally be returned. My guess is that para 1 verdicts will be unusual only occurring in special circumstances.

No, it is not "normal". The Supreme Court never uses this, for it is a lower court jurisdiction.

530 para 2 was used by the Supreme Court for Andreotti (a mafia case), who had actually been initially found not guilty - unlike the kids - by a lower court (overturned on appeal).

The common link is Bongiorno, advocate in both cases, and nothing at all to do with correct due process.

 

[Vixen]

Hey what part of a grain of salt (sugar) would be equal to the DNA found on the knife and the bra?

Self defense is paragraph three acquittal. The wording for one is closest to " the accused did commit the action".

It could well be that para 1 verdicts are unusual but never the less there is a difference. Obviously, if there were lots of them it would be even more significant that this one is a two.

Para 1 verdicts are the usual, not the unusual.

 

[Vixen]

A better example might be justifiable homicide e.g. by a police officer

What?

 

[Welshman]

Dempsey wrote it like she hoped it would be, and to ingratiate herself. Pure screenplay fiction. Only problem is, she began to believe her own fantasies, of a poor Seattle girl being picked on by nasty bullies.

In view of the massive level of corruption and numerous abuses committed by the police and prosecution in this case how can the notion an innocent woman was victimised by vicious bullies not be true.

 

[Grinder]

Para 1 verdicts are the usual, not the unusual.

I doubt that very much. Are you after a trial has been taken to the first, second or third level the usual verdict is a Para 1? If so, on what do you base that?

I believe anyone reading the law (530) and t (MR), without a bias, could come anyway with anything but the investigation was so messed up no court will ever be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt even if there is evidence that points to some sort of involvement and there were clearly more than one attacker.

I'd say the verdict left more on the bone for the PIP and the MR took some of that away. The MR system sets them up for controversy. In every case with any doubt associated will end up with people disagreeing with the specifics of the MR. For example, I never bought Hellmann's "Rudi's shoe flew off during the attack". Obviously Massei and Nencini were just true crime novelists in the best tradition and made stuff up.

 

[Grinder]

In view of the massive level of corruption and numerous abuses committed by the police and prosecution in this case how can the notion an innocent woman was victimised by vicious bullies not be true.

She may well have been victimized but not because she was an American from Seattle. I doubt the levels of corruption (if that was what it was) or abuses exceeded the norm there.

If one believes there were multiple killers, is there anyone the PLE should have suspected over the kids? At least at first? I would say Koko but seem pretty much flying solo on that, even though he was there, most likely knew Rudi and had underworld connections.

 

[Vixen]

I doubt that very much. Are you after a trial has been taken to the first, second or third level the usual verdict is a Para 1? If so, on what do you base that?

I believe anyone reading the law (530) and t (MR), without a bias, could come anyway with anything but the investigation was so messed up no court will ever be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt even if there is evidence that points to some sort of involvement and there were clearly more than one attacker.

I'd say the verdict left more on the bone for the PIP and the MR took some of that away. The MR system sets them up for controversy. In every case with any doubt associated will end up with people disagreeing with the specifics of the MR. For example, I never bought Hellmann's "Rudi's shoe flew off during the attack". Obviously Massei and Nencini were just true crime novelists in the best tradition and made stuff up.

Bruno-Marasca did an almost 180 degree volte face. The reason the MR was delayed for such a long time was that it simply wasn't up to standard and couldn't be signed off. By the time it was signed off (hurriedly, IMV,in time for the next side show) the only way they could get round it was to claim that even though it's a fact found Amanda was there with Mez' blood on her hands and that she covered up for murderer Rudy there's no proof she helped Rudy murder (bearing in mind Micheli, Massei and Nencini ruled he did not wield the fatal wound).

So, from being innocent exonerated and acquitted, we have a rather malodourous whiff of, "the facts show they are almost certainly guilty, but we are determined to get'em outta jail, even if it means the stench continues to hang over them", like a festering canker that won't go away, but simply multiplies its cells uncontrollably.

Did "Lady Macbeth" Amanda put in a claim for compo, yet?

 

[Vixen]

She may well have been victimized but not because she was an American from Seattle. I doubt the levels of corruption (if that was what it was) or abuses exceeded the norm there.

If one believes there were multiple killers, is there anyone the PLE should have suspected over the kids? At least at first? I would say Koko but seem pretty much flying solo on that, even though he was there, most likely knew Rudi and had underworld connections.

Kokomani became Mingini's 'super witness' in that he saw Rudy, Amanda and Raff outside the cottage hiding behind the bins getting high, and Hicham was there at midnight. Sophie and Hicham had their phones tapped, were interrogated, and the police were happy they were not involved in any way. (After all, the police only had Sophie's word she left Mez at the corner.)

Kokomani fled because he was either spooked or warned off. Not sure what made him return to make a statement to the police, not being the type of chap one associates with high principles or cooperation with the police.

 

[Grinder]

Kokomani became Mingini's 'super witness' in that he saw Rudy, Amanda and Raff outside the cottage hiding behind the bins getting high, and Hicham was there at midnight. Sophie and Hicham had their phones tapped, were interrogated, and the police were happy they were not involved in any way. (After all, the police only had Sophie's word she left Mez at the corner.)

Kokomani fled because he was either spooked or warned off. Not sure what made him return to make a statement to the police, not being the type of chap one associates with high principles or cooperation with the police.

Right he saw them outside when the tow truck was there or was it after midnight or before 9. What fits your current screed?

He was there but didn't see anyone unless it was his accomplices Rudi and the third man. Even if Hicham was there at midnight Meredith was long dead.

Koko most likely was warned by the higher-ups in the Albanian gang to leave and see what developed. My guess is the third man did the killing and was the most important member of the gang. Rudi won't talk for fear of what the gang will do. Koko proved he was a made man and could be trusted.

 

[Vixen]

Right he saw them outside when the tow truck was there or was it after midnight or before 9. What fits your current screed?

He was there but didn't see anyone unless it was his accomplices Rudi and the third man. Even if Hicham was there at midnight Meredith was long dead.

Koko most likely was warned by the higher-ups in the Albanian gang to leave and see what developed. My guess is the third man did the killing and was the most important member of the gang. Rudi won't talk for fear of what the gang will do. Koko proved he was a made man and could be trusted.

I know you and query grinder are keen to establish "other parties" as the murderers, but not even the kids or Rudy are looking for anyone else. Raff was there as accurately described by Rudy, and Amanda, as confirmed by all three courts.

We could be searching for non-existant other assailants forever. (cf Maddie McCann: she was spotted in Uruguay t'other day; today, the sighting turns out to be 'mistaken').

 

[Grinder]

I know you and query grinder are keen to establish "other parties" as the murderers, but not even the kids or Rudy are looking for anyone else. Raff was there as accurately described by Rudy, and Amanda, as confirmed by all three courts.

We could be searching for non-existant other assailants forever. (cf Maddie McCann: she was spotted in Uruguay t'other day; today, the sighting turns out to be 'mistaken').

Ah Rudi was there by own admission. He is not going against the PLE or any other accomplices as explained above. The defense made their defense centered on the lone-wolf, which I think was an error, at least to make it their only alternative.

You forgot to mention when Koko saw them.

 

[Bill Williams]

For anyone wondering if there is any merit to the DNA evidence considered factual by the lower, convicting courts in this case. The challenge for anyone who contends that there is, is to find any peer-reviewed literature which sustains the "judicial truths" that are appealed to. It's the appeal to judicial truth rather than peer reviewed science which has been the problem all along, until March 2015 that is.

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/pdf

The case of the ‘murder of Meredith Kercher’ has been the subject of intense media scrutiny since
2007 when the offence was committed. Three individuals were arrested and accused of the crime.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were exonerated in March 2015. Another defendant, Rudy Guede,
remains convicted as the sole perpetrator. He was implicated by multiple DNA profiles recovered from
the murder room and the bathroom. However, the evidence against Guede contrasted strongly with the
limited evidence against two co-defendants, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There were no DNA
profiles pertaining to Amanda Knox in the murder room itself. She was separately implicated by a knife
recovered remote from the crime scene (discovered in a cutlery drawer at Sollecito’s apartment), along
with DNA profiles in a bathroom that she had shared with the victim. Upon analysis a low level trace of
DNA attributed to the murder victim was found on the blade of a knife, along with DNA profiles attributed
to Amanda Knox from the handle. However, there was no evidence of blood on the knife blade itself. A
separate key piece of evidence was a DNA profile attributed to Raffaele Sollecito recovered from a forcibly
removed bra-clasp found in the murder room. There followed an extraordinary series of trials and retrials
where the pair were convicted, exonerated, re-convicted and finally, in March 2015 they were finally
exonerated (no further appeal is possible). Since Knox and Sollecito have been found innocent it is
opportune to carry out an extensive review of the case to discover the errors that led to conviction so that
similar mistakes do not occur in the future. It is accepted that the DNA profiles attributed to them were
transferred by methods unrelated to the crime event itself. There is a wealth of material available from
the judgements and other reports which can be analysed in order to show the errors of thinking. The final
judgement of the case–the Marasca-Bruno motivation report–exposes the illogicality of much of the
previous court proceedings that led to the convictions and provides useful guidance for judges to follow.​

 

[Bill Williams]

In Peter Gill's summary, he lists 8 critical errors which were made both in the DNA interpretation and the way those errors were handled by the convicting courts:

10. Summary of the critical errors that ultimately led to the
wrongful convictions of Knox and Sollecito

1) Failure to utilize methods/procedures designed to mimimise
risks of contamination, thereby irreversibly compromising the
probative value of the evidence.

2) Inferring ‘activity’ directly from DNA profiles found on the
evidence (the CSI effect). For example the proposition that the
DNA profile from Knox found on the handle of the knife
confirmed the activity of stabbing rather than the activity of
cutting food.

3) The assumption that DNA mixtures of Knox/Kercher identified
as ‘bloody footprints’ using luminol was confirmatory evidence.

4) Applying illogical hypotheses in order to ‘explain away’ findings
that were inconvenient to the prosecution including: a) the
selective cleaning hypothesis b) the bleach cleaning hypothesis.

5) Lack of repeatability of the key DNA findings (the DNA
attributed to bra-clasp and the DNA attributed to Kercher on
the knife).

6) The mistaken belief by the trial judges that negative controls
somehow provided a guarantee that contamination had not
occurred and the application of the reverse burden of proof.

7) The assumption that the DNA mixtures of Knox/Kercher in the
bathroom, was evidence that she had washed blood from her
hands directly after the murder.

8) Finally, the distributions of DNA profiles were a critical feature.
Contrast the widespread presence of Rudy Guede’s DNA in the
murder room, bearing in mind he had no legitimate access to
the premises. In stark contrast, the DNA of both Knox and
Sollecito was absent from the murder room (apart from the
discredited bra-clasp DNA profile that matched Sollecito). This
contrast is even more poignant given that Knox lived in the
apartment with Kercher, and Sollecito had legitimate access.
There is an a priori expectation that their DNA should be present
at the crime scene.​

Note #7, a point particularly close to any remaining question about whether or not Amanda Knox washed blood from her hands, and that evidence of this was found in the shared bathroom.

Acc. to Gill, that is simply bad science to assume that. There are many, many other more probable reasons why their respective DNA would be found in a bathroom they shared. And that is before considering the collection techniques of broad swaths of a collection swab.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Hard to accept that the top forensic science journal on the planet publishes such drivel. I mean, it appears this Peter Gill guy is confirming everything the pro-innocence posters have been saying for the past 8 years. This PR campaign runs deeper than we thought. No way the guilters are simply just wrong about everything. We must double down on our campaign of lies and misinformation... [Vixen dawns her superhero costume] To the PMF-mobile!

 

[Vixen]

Ah Rudi was there by own admission. He is not going against the PLE or any other accomplices as explained above. The defense made their defense centered on the lone-wolf, which I think was an error, at least to make it their only alternative.

You forgot to mention when Koko saw them.

The court established he was in the cottage region from 20:30 or 21:30 onwards.

Kokomnai saw the same dark car as the car mechanic Giancarlo, saw the car with a family and also the tow truck, which places him there circa 22:30. He claimed to have heard screams and shouting in a language other than Italian or Albanian, together with the sound of something like a table being banged and rattling.

Rudy told him what he heard was music and there was a party.

As Amanda herself heard a scream and some thuds, I'm inclined to believe Kokomani.

 

[Vixen]

For anyone wondering if there is any merit to the DNA evidence considered factual by the lower, convicting courts in this case. The challenge for anyone who contends that there is, is to find any peer-reviewed literature which sustains the "judicial truths" that are appealed to. It's the appeal to judicial truth rather than peer reviewed science which has been the problem all along, until March 2015 that is.

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/pdf

​

Whoever wrote it is a liar. There were not "multiple traces of Rudy DNA". In fact, the bathroom and faked burglary room are conspicuous by its absence. In all there was only about three of Rudy's DNA samples found. The sweater which had his DNA on the cuff, was collected the same time as the bra clasp.

Presumably Peter Gill is claiming all of that comes from the door knob, too.

Has anyone peer reviewed Gill's bogus claims on behalf of the defense?

It's rather illogical he should brag that none of Amanda's DNA was found in the murder room, when the bloody woman lived there and must have been in Mez' room on numerous occasions! Der_!

 

[Grinder]

Bill do you believe O.J. was exonerated?

While Gill is an expert on DNA, I don't believe he is an expert in law or specifically Italian law. I don't agree that M&B pointed out illogical thinking as much as they pointed out bad procedures and protocol, though it has been a while since I read it.

I'm sure you have some examples at hand. I hope one isn't that while it is certain she was there at the time of the murder that doesn't mean she participated in the murder. If M&B just wanted to accept a previous ruling they didn't need to call out the good judgment by the lower court regarding her presence.

 

[Grinder]

The court established he was in the cottage region from 20:30 or 21:30 onwards.

Kokomnai saw the same dark car as the car mechanic Giancarlo, saw the car with a family and also the tow truck, which places him there circa 22:30. He claimed to have heard screams and shouting in a language other than Italian or Albanian, together with the sound of something like a table being banged and rattling.

Rudy told him what he heard was music and there was a party.

As Amanda herself heard a scream and some thuds, I'm inclined to believe Kokomani.

So when was he there? When did he testify about a dark car? So the kids and Rudi were behind a garbage bin taking drugs when Koko drove up and jumped out with knives and at the same time he heard banging? Did the tow truck driver see Koko or the three perps p)?

I thought the kids were in the plaza at those times. Timelines are so unfair.

 

[Vixen]

In Peter Gill's summary, he lists 8 critical errors which were made both in the DNA interpretation and the way those errors were handled by the convicting courts:

​

Note #7, a point particularly close to any remaining question about whether or not Amanda Knox washed blood from her hands, and that evidence of this was found in the shared bathroom.

Acc. to Gill, that is simply bad science to assume that. There are many, many other more probable reasons why their respective DNA would be found in a bathroom they shared. And that is before considering the collection techniques of broad swaths of a collection swab.

Gill's list is complete rubbish. The forensics team made no such assumptions. They are not idiots! He is a disgusting liar when he claims Rudy's DNA was all over the room, when (a) it was not, and that Rudy had no business to be there when (b) all four courts - Micheli, Massei and Mignini, and even Marasca - ruled Rudy had been invited in by Amanda.

Acbytesla expressed the opinion that one of the judges in the Chieffi court was senile as he was about 75. Perhaps Gill is in a similar category, on this criterion. A last ditch attempt to shore up a healthy pension fund.

 

[Vixen]

So when was he there? When did he testify about a dark car? So the kids and Rudi were behind a garbage bin taking drugs when Koko drove up and jumped out with knives and at the same time he heard banging? Did the tow truck driver see Koko or the three perps p)?

I thought the kids were in the plaza at those times. Timelines are so unfair.

The problem with career criminals involved in serious organised crime, is they know how to cover their tracks! They try not to leave a paper trail nor leave voicemail messages about where to find the 5KG packet of crack cocaine.