Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Annella » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:02 am

Great summary by Luca Cheli, and I have questions as Im sure others have.

So...

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/summa ... -florence/

Included in Appeal is a statement that the Florentine Court violated the rights of Defence when it refused written requests to admit new evidence. Does anybody know what that evidence was? Or am I suffering memory loss!

When you have time, can we have your thoughts on the Appeal Luca? And thanks so much for translating this.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby pmop57 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:04 am

Great work Luca!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby kermit the frog » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:49 am

Thanks again, Luca! So Amanda Knox actually requests another trial in Italy (again). Though it was clear I had to read it black on white to believe it I guess. It must be a strange feeling of horror and hope to sign this paper.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby diocletian » Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:41 am

Thank you, very nice summary.

Unfortunately, I believe that this part of the appeal is simply not true: "Stefanoni indeed did not proceed to test many samples that were quantified as “too low” as trace 36B did."

In fact, the records show that she tested all of the "too low" samples, but suppressed the records of those tests--except for 36b. Dellavadova simply cannot take at face value any testimony that comes from Stefanoni. She has been shown to have lied repeatedly, and when she says that she didn't test something, the opposite has to be considered. We have shown that she is hiding vast amounts of critical information about her lab testing. Experience tells us that when the prosecution is hiding information, the information is bad for the prosecution and good for the defense.
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby MichaelB » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:21 am

There's also a mistake about how long it took the heroin bum serial witness to come forward. No big deal.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Flipp » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:06 am

Annella wrote:Great summary by Luca Cheli, and I have questions as Im sure others have.

So...

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/summa ... -florence/

Included in Appeal is a statement that the Florentine Court violated the rights of Defence when it refused written requests to admit new evidence. Does anybody know what that evidence was? Or am I suffering memory loss!

When you have time, can we have your thoughts on the Appeal Luca? And thanks so much for translating this.


No memory loss there. I find it very odd that we know so little about the contents of the defense appeal documents filed to the Florence court.
Flipp
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:27 am

Annella wrote:Great summary by Luca Cheli, and I have questions as Im sure others have.

So...

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/summa ... -florence/

Included in Appeal is a statement that the Florentine Court violated the rights of Defence when it refused written requests to admit new evidence. Does anybody know what that evidence was? Or am I suffering memory loss!

When you have time, can we have your thoughts on the Appeal Luca? And thanks so much for translating this.

Annella - I thought it was the semen stain that was again refused by the judges to have tested.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby roteoctober » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:11 pm

It was a reference to all the requests for the acquisition of new evidence made by the defenses of both the defendants at hearing of September 30, 2013, and practically all rejected (except the one concerning Sollecito's fingernails, if you remember).
One example was audiometric testing to verify if Capezzali could have really heard what she said having heard.
There were others, the reasons for denial (when given) are in the first part of the Nencini Report.

All in all I'd have liked the appeal to dedicate more time and pages to point out the many mistakes and contradictions of the Nencini Report: constitutional issues are certainly ok, but stressing a bit more the unpalatability of the ruling would have been, in my opinion, better.

Nevertheless Bongiorno's appeal did it in a rather satisfying way, so I can say that we are "covered" on both sides.

Another thing I take a bit exception to is that Knox's lawyers needed almost seven years to finally say that during the night interrogation she was "close to inabilty to understand and take action". Indeed they don't use the standard Italian formula "incapacità di intendere e di volere", they say "incapacità di esprimere una libera e spontanea volontà", that is "inability to express free will", but I think the meaning is not very different: she was not responsible for her actions.

The appeal also uses rather strong (indeed very strong for the Italian context) words about what happened on the night of November 5-6: again, perhaps, it would have been better if the lawyers had been more outspoken at an earlier time.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Numbers » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:15 pm

diocletian wrote:Thank you, very nice summary.

Unfortunately, I believe that this part of the appeal is simply not true: "Stefanoni indeed did not proceed to test many samples that were quantified as “too low” as trace 36B did."

In fact, the records show that she tested all of the "too low" samples, but suppressed the records of those tests--except for 36b. Dellavadova simply cannot take at face value any testimony that comes from Stefanoni. She has been shown to have lied repeatedly, and when she says that she didn't test something, the opposite has to be considered. We have shown that she is hiding vast amounts of critical information about her lab testing. Experience tells us that when the prosecution is hiding information, the information is bad for the prosecution and good for the defense.


First, I want to express my thanks to Luca for the superb and exceptionally clear summary of Amanda's appeal.

Then, I wish to agree that when the appeal states that Stefanoni did not test too low samples, that statement is apparently contrary to the actual events.
However, it may be that the court records - transcripts of testimony and records of evidence submitted - do not report the actual events, but rather whatever (false) statements were made by Stefanoni. Therefore, the appeal may be limited to attacking the fabricated or contaminated evidence of 36B on the basis of the erroneous court record containing only Stafanoni's false testimony. IIUC, this CSC appeal cannot introduce new evidence.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Numbers » Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:25 pm

roteoctober wrote:It was a reference to all the requests for the acquisition of new evidence made by the defenses of both the defendants at hearing of September 30, 2013, and practically all rejected (except the one concerning Sollecito's fingernails, if you remember).
One example was audiometric testing to verify if Capezzali could have really heard what she said having heard.
There were others, the reasons for denial (when given) are in the first part of the Nencini Report.

All in all I'd have liked the appeal to dedicate more time and pages to point out the many mistakes and contradictions of the Nencini Report: constitutional issues are certainly ok, but stressing a bit more the unpalatability of the ruling would have been, in my opinion, better.

Nevertheless Bongiorno's appeal did it in a rather satisfying way, so I can say that we are "covered" on both sides.

Another thing I take a bit exception to is that Knox's lawyers needed almost seven years to finally say that during the night interrogation she was "close to inabilty to understand and take action". Indeed they don't use the standard Italian formula "incapacità di intendere e di volere", they say "incapacità di esprimere una libera e spontanea volontà", that is "inability to express free will", but I think the meaning is not very different: she was not responsible for her actions.

The appeal also uses rather strong (indeed very strong for the Italian context) words about what happened on the night of November 5-6: again, perhaps, it would have been better if the lawyers had been more outspoken at an earlier time.
{emphasis added}

roteoctober,

Thanks for this additional clarification.
For the section I emphasized, could the two sets of lawyers have simply divided up the appeal objections to reduce repetition? Although perhaps some of the mistakes and contradictions may apply to only one defendant and not the other? (I hope there were no holes in the two appeals considered together.)
When you write "unpalatability" do you mean the mistakes and contradictions, or are there other issues with the Nencini motivation such as for example the lack of logic and incoherence?

ETA: Could you inform us on the next steps? IIUC the prosecutor files a response to the appeals, what is the timing for that? Does that response become public before the hearing? Do the civil plaintiffs (Kercher family) also respond, or does this CSC appeal only cover the criminal trial? I thank you in advance.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:17 pm

Annella wrote:Great summary by Luca Cheli, and I have questions as Im sure others have.

So...

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/summa ... -florence/

Included in Appeal is a statement that the Florentine Court violated the rights of Defence when it refused written requests to admit new evidence. Does anybody know what that evidence was? Or am I suffering memory loss!

When you have time, can we have your thoughts on the Appeal Luca? And thanks so much for translating this.

One which comes to mind is the testing of the presumed semen stain. Although this relates to Raffaele's case, it is an instance where Nencini just brushed away much of the defence case with a hand wave.

But kudos to Cheli for this!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:48 pm

Thanks from me to the invaluable Luca as well.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:46 pm

Apparently no reference to 1. the refusal of the court to allow a forensic examination of the fried computers, 2. the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with full data and data files in connection with the DNA testing, and 3. the decision of the prosecution not to tape the interrogations - all points on which I would have hammered away.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby roteoctober » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:47 am

@erasmus44
Point 2 is covered by Bongiorno's appeal, which also deals at length with evidence from the surviving PC and asserting it was improperly analyzed by the Postal PC.

About point 1 DV says that the missing evidence from the fried disks should be considered in favor of the defendants, i.e. there could have been further proof of their alibi in them.

IIRC some partial recovery was indeed done on Sollecito's second computer and on Kercher's MAC, while nothing was recovered from Amanda's PC.

@numbers
Every party involved (Prosecution and civil parties) will file their memorandums containing counterarguments and also the defense will be able to file further integration to the appeals until 15 days before the hearing.

The next first step should deciding if the hearing will be in front of the United Sections or not.

I don't know when the decision will be taken ...maybe in September, maybe in October: my guess is as good as anyone's.

After having ruled on the aforementioned point, an hearing will be scheduled, again it's difficult to say when (late 2014 or early 2015?).
What can be said is that if request for a United Sections hearing will be accepted, the hearing will most probably scheduled later than an ordinary hearing, maybe even spring 2015, but these are just guesses.

ETA

numbers wrote:When you write "unpalatability" do you mean the mistakes and contradictions, or are there other issues with the Nencini motivation such as for example the lack of logic and incoherence?


Both and indeed incoeherence and contradictions are basically the same thing: the ruling is incoherent because contradicts itself.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby sept79 » Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:06 am

roteoctober wrote:@erasmus44
Point 2 is covered by Bongiorno's appeal, which also deals at length with evidence from the surviving PC and asserting it was improperly analyzed by the Postal PC.

About point 1 DV says that the missing evidence from the fried disks should be considered in favor of the defendants, i.e. there could have been further proof of their alibi in them.

IIRC some partial recovery was indeed done on Sollecito's second computer and on Kercher's MAC, while nothing was recovered from Amanda's PC.

@numbers
Every party involved (Prosecution and civil parties) will file their memorandums containing counterarguments and also the defense will be able to file further integration to the appeals until 15 days before the hearing.

The next first step should deciding if the hearing will be in front of the United Sections or not.

I don't know when the decision will be taken ...maybe in September, maybe in October: my guess is as good as anyone's.

After having ruled on the aforementioned point, an hearing will be scheduled, again it's difficult to say when (late 2014 or early 2015?).
What can be said is that if request for a United Sections hearing will be accepted, the hearing will most probably scheduled later than an ordinary hearing, maybe even spring 2015, but these are just guesses.

ETA

numbers wrote:When you write "unpalatability" do you mean the mistakes and contradictions, or are there other issues with the Nencini motivation such as for example the lack of logic and incoherence?


Both and indeed incoeherence and contradictions are basically the same thing: the ruling is incoherent because contradicts itself.


So Bongiorno covers 'the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with full data and data files in connection with the DNA testing.' Good. Actually, great!

Thanks for the info Rote.
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:35 am

I have said this elsewhere but I see a few areas where the Italian court could dismiss the case on a technicality.
I suspect, so that they can make the Italian court system look like it is not incompetent, they may very well take one of the technicalities.
That way they can claim that Amanda is guilty (Raff is still the poor invisible man here)
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby lonepinealex » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:40 am

Desert Fox wrote:I have said this elsewhere but I see a few areas where the Italian court could dismiss the case on a technicality.
I suspect, so that they can make the Italian court system look like it is not incompetent, they may very well take one of the technicalities.
That way they can claim that Amanda is guilty (Raff is still the poor invisible man here)



I agree - I've been wondering for a while if the Nencini ruling and motivation isn't just a big get-out clause. But that's largely because I can't make sense of it any other way. Maybe it makes perfect sense inside the world of Italian justice.
lonepinealex
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: UK

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby kermit the frog » Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:33 am

Yep, it's like printing the word IDIOT in large letters on the back side of your own T-shirt and behave accordingly. Really hard to understand what plan the italian judiciary is pursuing by this. :rolleyes:
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Summary of Amanda Knox Appeal to Supreme Court 2014

Postby pmop57 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:16 am

There are many points why a Supreme Court worth this name should dismiss the case because of judicial technicalities and legal errors by the Supreme Court itself as well as facts of ignoring international legal standards. The problem is that there are as many points why a Supreme Court could be tempted not to address at all, for internal political and self preservation reasons.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)


Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron