Headsup: Disney's Hulu - mafia tool?! First warning already sent to the Knox series production team about the hoaxes and mafia connections. The Daily Beast's badly duped Grace Harrington calls it "the true story of Knox’s wrongful conviction of the murder of her roommate". Harrington should google "rocco sollecito" for why Italians hesitate to talk freely.
Category: Trials 2008 & 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Trial: Defense Witnesses Testify On Cannabis Effects And Meredith’s Mobile Phone
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for Nick Pisa’s Sky News report.
1) On the effects the claimed smoking of a joint would have had
A toxicologist called by lawyers defending Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Meredith Kercher murder trial has told the court that smoking cannabis does not make you aggressive.
Dr Maurizio Taglialatela was asked to describe the effects of the drug after the jury heard how both Knox, 22, and Sollecito, 25, had ‘‘smoked a joint’’ the night Meredith was murdered…
Dr Taglialatela said: ‘‘Marijuana can have psychotropic effects for up to six hours from the initial consumption and it can affect the memory in particular, especially short term memory.
‘‘The user will remember clearly what happened before they took the drug and after but the period they were under the influence of it will be very vague.
‘‘Marijuana affects your reaction time and it can make you dream more, it leaves you relaxed but unlike other drugs, such as cocaine, it does not make you aggressive.”
Under cross examination, Dr Taglialatela did say that a violent reaction from the use of marijuana was possible if mixed with alcohol.
2) On a transmission to Meredith’s phone a long way away from the house
The court also heard from mobile telephone expert Bruno Pellero, who was called by Sollecito’s lawyers.
He described how records showed that Meredith’s mobile phone had received a picture message at 22.13 on November 1.
He said: ‘‘This message was received on Meredith’s mobile phone via a cell which does not cover her house and is nearer to the garden where the mobile was found.’‘
The trial has already heard how Meredith returned home at around 9pm and pathologist Luca Lalli told the court he estimates time of death at around 11pm but Mr Pellero’s evidence would suggest she was killed earlier.
Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said: ‘‘This is clearly in line with Raffaele’s alibi as he was at home the whole time.
‘‘It’s clear that if Meredith’s phone had a message at 22.13 via a cell nowhere near her house, then the accusation against Raffaele is crumbling.’‘
Trial: ABC News Has The Only End-Of-Day English Report
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for Ann Wise’s report. “Rejected offer to leave” seems rather misleading.
In some of the Italian reports it is observed that Knox was told very soon after the death of Meredith was discovered that she was not allowed to leave Perugia for the time being, so she really had no choice but to stay. Cousin Dorothy and Ann Wise seem not to have known this.
In fact all of the key witnesses including Meredith’s English friends were told to remain in Perugia until the investigations were further advanced. Although it was very tough on them all because of a voracious media, they had to remain there for some weeks.
Only two witnesses were heard today - the second was the mobile phone specialist that Ann Wise mentions - leaving half a dozen witnesses to testify tomorrow or after the summer break.
We are told that the uncertainty about whether Judge Massei would be recovered enough to preside this Friday and Saturday resulted in several scheduling problems and forced absences. This is a busy press corps and few of them actually live in Perugia.
Apparently Judge Massei looked well and very attentive today, and interrogated the mobile phone specialist on his contribution to the timeline for the morning after.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Trial: Seemingly A More Serious And Somber Defendant In Court Today
Posted by Peter Quennell
[click for larger images, courtesy AP]
Trial: Il Messagero Describes Testimony Of Knox Relative From Germany
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for the original report in Italian on the testimony of Aunt Dorothy.
The woman, who lives in Germany, said she listened to Knox on the phone after the murder, and found her “scared and confused.”
Dorothy claimed to have suggested to Amanda to come to Germany, but she said ‘no’ because she wanted to be of help to the police and answer questions.
The relative of Amanda also said that the young American, before being arrested, wanted to “meet the father of Meredith to console him and tell him what she knew.”
Other defense testimony today will focus on the mobile phones, the effects of smoking marijuana, and the nature of the knife Sollecito carried at all times.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Next Defence Witnesses If The Trial Resumes This Friday And Saturday
Posted by Peter Quennell
Judge Massei is still recuperating from pneumonia.
However he himself has indicated that it should be possible for the trial sessions for Friday and Saturday to happen on schedule.
A few days ago the Corriere website listed these witnesses as being those next on the defense agendas.
- Professor Adriano Tagliabracci (defence for Sollecito) on the forensics
- Professor Francesco Vinci (defence for Sollecito) on the forensics
- Professor Carlo Caltagirone (defence for Knox) on the forensics
- Mr Walter Patumi (defence for Knox) on the forensics
- Knox’s Aunt Dorothy from Germany (defence for Knox, a character witness)
- Francesco De Robertis (defence for Sollecito, a character witness)
- Karen Green ( from Meredith’s UK bank from which someone withdrew 20 Euros)
- Juba Louerguioui (we believe he may be a North African resident of Perugia)
Monday, July 13, 2009
Trial: Nick Pisa Reports Knox Sisters’ Macabre Posing Where Meredith Was Killed
Posted by Peter Quennell
Deanne, left, and Ashley Knox at the cottage in Perugia where Meredith Kercher was killed
From Nick Pisa’s report in the Daily Mail today.
The sisters of murder suspect Amanda Knox have posed for photographs outside the cottage where British student Meredith Kercher was brutally killed.
Americans Deanne and Ashley Knox were taking part in a photoshoot for an Italian magazine.,,,
Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing Meredith’s family, said: “˜Amanda Knox’s sisters posing for photographs outside the house where the murder took place is macabre.
“˜I accept that the Knox family has a right to give interviews. But there are other places where they could have been photographed. Outside the prison where Amanda Knox is being held would have been better.’
The behaviour of Knox’s sisters was criticised earlier in the case when they attended court wearing shorts and “˜revealing’ tops.
One observer in court at the time said: “˜It’s not what I would choose to wear if my sister was in court accused of a sex murder. It was very revealing.’
Saturday, July 11, 2009
It Is The Jury That Ultimately Matters: How They May Be Seeing The DNA Here
Posted by Fiori
Example of well-equipped Italian DNA lab
Ciao! Posting again from Florence.
Nicki and Kermit have already done amazing work here and here in explaining the hard facts of the DNA evidence.
This post is about perceptions and about what the judges and jury might - might - now be thinking, now that those facts are presented and some of them contested.
DNA evidence is notoriously hard to present and argue before a jury. It is not only in the trial against Amanda and Rafaelle that one finds problems, ambiguities and different interpretations of the validity and reliability of DNA, this is the same in many criminal trials.
Standardization of DNA testing procedures got an enormous boost by the unforeseen “accident” in the OJ Simpson’s trial, where the jury, according to all scientific authorities, failed to recognize the DNA evidence properly. Since than the overall public understanding of DNA has been increasing, and jurors and others agents have earned a familiarity with handling DNA in criminal trials. All this suggests that it is generally getting easier for jurors to understand when and how DNA is significant in a trial.
It is of great importance to underline that the jury is the crux of every case: No matter what Dr. Stefanoni knows and how she may have handled the DNA samples, it is the jury, this particular selection of individuals, which has to make sense of the testimonies, and form an understanding of what the DNA samples tells about the murder of Meredith and the possibly involvement of Amanda and Rafaelle (and Rudy). I emphasize this:
- Jurors are not a scientific committee, and the way which a jury understands DNA differs considerably from a professional, scientific understanding of DNA
- Jurors’ understanding of DNA is highly situational; i.e. it is heavily influenced by how, when and by whom DNA material is presented during the trial
- Jurors build their comprehension from context, meaning that a jury does not base their understanding upon systematically selected information about DNA, but forms an opinion based upon an interrelation of scientifically based information and the circumstances of the present case
Findings from the US and UK system of justice
What characterizes jurors’ judgments of DNA material in criminal trials? It is usual to expect that the more scientifically complex a piece of evidence is, the more difficult is it for a jury to comprehend, but from studies in UK, US and Australia several other things are known:
- Among jurors who were aware of DNA profiling evidence before their participation in the researched trials, expectations for the evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused were high, and these expectations were largely confirmed by the jury members experiences of the trial itself.
- Juror comprehension of DNA evidence is not solely dependent on the scientific complexity of the evidence. If the evidence is presented clearly in court, if the expert testimony is consistent, if the defences do not present contrary interpretations of the DNA evidence, and the case is otherwise circumstantial, then jurors seem to manage a fair understanding of the science and weight it significantly in case material.
- The strength of the defence challenge may depend on the coherence and grounding of an alternative explanation or conclusion drawn from the DNA. Meaning: it is NOT generally so, that IF a piece of DNA evidence is NOT contradicted by the defence, then it is easier for a jury to comprehend DNA evidence. HOW a jury interprets DNA evidence depends upon the context of the PRESENTATION of the evidence.
Research into US trials reports that jurors mostly are much more skeptical toward DNA evidence than statistics gives reason for. The jurors often “incorrectly aggregate separately presented probabilities and afford probabilistic evidence less weight than would be expected [by experts]” and “their background beliefs about the possibility of laboratory errors and intentional tampering affects the weight participants afford a DNA match report.”
A juror’s interpretation of expert testimonies is highly influenced by the credibility they assign to the legal and scientific system; i.e. all the institutions involved in a trial: the police, the legal system, the forensic police, and scientific institutions in general.
The point made here is that jurors and legal systems have “historical memory” so the result of one trial influences the outcome of another: Thus, it is possibly that the OJ Simpson case and the many faulty convictions based upon DNA “˜evidence’ has produced a overt negative attitude towards DNA in the US, which is not to be expected to be the same in Italy.
Another conclusion, also from research within the US: Cognitive errors favoring the defence were more prevalent than errors ones favoring the prosecution. This piece of research examines how jurors’ evaluates that part of the DNA testimony which involves probabilities and statistics. And as this touches upon core questions brought up in the case against Amanda and Rafaelle, I will quote in length from the paper.
- The paper, which studies the outcome of several (murder) trials - concludes that “some jurors showed susceptibility to classic (defence) fallacies in interpreting conditional probabilities, and the jurors as a group were not overwhelmed by testimony from a prosecution expert that “˜more than 99.98% of all Caucasians would be excluded’ by the DNA match.
Most jurors accepted a defence criticism of this computation. Moreover, it appears that many jurors were inclined to agree with the defendant’s overstated argument that because dozens of men in the area might have DNA types consistent with those of the robber, the match with the defendant’s DNA was worthless. A smaller number seemed to commit what has been called the “˜prosecutor’s fallacy.’ These jurors did muddle up the proportion of the general population that would be excluded by a DNA test, and the probability that the defendant was the source of the crime-scene DNA.
On balance, these findings do not indicate that jurors generally were unduly impressed by the prosecution’s DNA evidence. Consequently, our results challenge the legal argument that DNA evidence should be excluded because jurors are prone to overvalue such evidence.”
So, measured in relation to the expert testimony actually given in court, this research found that jurors made misunderstandings and misinterpretations biased BOTH ways. The research did not find jurors to be “˜unduly impressed’ by prosecutions experts testimony, but instead being “˜susceptible’ in favour of the defence.
But other research indicates that some jurors are being too impressed by the DNA evidence or mislead by the statistics presented in court.
Research from UK and US, states that “a number of convictions which have relied on DNA evidence have been overturned on appeal on the basis of misdirection of the jury regarding the statistical basis of the test and its results. In particular, juries are often awe-struck by the enormous values of random occurrence ratio with which they are presented by the prosecution experts. The factual significance of these large numbers is often misunderstood and misrepresented by barristers and judges, leading to unsafe convictions.”
Then, not only the jurors, but the legal actors more widely have problems with understanding how the statistical dimensions of DNA evidence works. The point of the statistics is, that identifying the DNA markers can be misleading if identification of the suspect occurs on behalf of “˜random occurrence ratios’ ““ i.e. the suspect is identified in random by her DNA (similar to how fingerprint identification works).
Identification on behalf of DNA must relate to the demography of the area where the crime took place, as well as the family background of the suspect. Meaning that statistics can be misleading if identification is not supported by additional information (where much exists in the trial against Amanda and Rafaelle). Dr. Stefanoni has repeatedly argued this point in court, explaining why Amanda’s DNA is Amanda’s, and Rafaelle’s DNA is Rafaelle’s, and not a “˜random’ person, like an unknown friend of Rudy’s.
From research into the working of the US and the UK legal systems, it must be clear that most of the news-reports from the US about the murder of Meredith Kercher tend to reinforce a common deficit in knowledge on how to interpret DNA evidence. A shame that.
Also worth mentioning is that the OJ Simpson trial is not the only one where “˜scientifically’ obvious DNA evidence have been disregarded by a jury; this also seen in cases where there presented a lot of other circumstantial evidence supporting the DNA material.
And that different interpretation (prosecution and defence) of DNA material does not in itself blur jurors comprehension and prevent an unanimous understanding of the significance. Contrary, controversies over DNA can serve to clarify a juror’s understanding of DNA.
Example of well-equipped Italian DNA lab
Likely differences under the Italian system of justice
These results from research into the US/UK type of legal system should be discussed in relation to the working of the Italian system. And there are, in this perspective, significant differences.
In Italy, a jury consists of 6 lay persons and 2 professional judges. It is highly likely that the participation of 2 professional judges influences how the jury perceives and discusses DNA and other complex scientific matters. The above quoted research into fallacies of comprehending DNA evidence can only support the view that it is a strength of the Italian system that professional judges are represented in the jury.
Also, the Italian trial system, where parts of evidence are presented and assessed by multiple judges in many pre-trial hearings, also marks a difference vis a vis the US system. Every (pre-) trial adds to jurors possibility to comprehend DNA material correct (”˜correct’ in relation to understanding what is actually testified in court, not “˜correct’ in relation to assessing the significance of the DNA material as evidence).
As referred to above, pre-trial experiences also influences how jurors interpret DNA testimony.
Then education, schools and general cultural education (”˜bildung’ in German), cultural habits (for example if criminal trials are broadcast or not, and if they are watched widely or not) will without doubt influence how jurors comprehend DNA evidence. And of course so will criteria used by the court for selecting the actual jury influence the outcome; for example if it was considered important that jury members demonstrated ability to understand complex scientific arguments.
Generally, European comparative test shows that primary education in Italy are in the upper middle, and Italy has very good universities and strong academic traditions, and ““ not the least - a long and proud tradition in science from Leonardo da Vinci and onwards.
These conditions will influence the jury’s assessment of DNA evidence presented in the trial against Amanda and Rafaelle, and we can expect that the jury will demonstrate a fairly accurate understanding of the different testimonies from (a.o.) Dr.Stefanoni and Dr.Torre, and a fairly accurate understanding of DNA technology. Though, how the jury will make sense of the scientific facts in the actual circumstances (what it tells about who murdered Meredith) are not obvious.
Scientific references to the quoted papers are listed in my comment below.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei Is Reported To Be Unwell
Posted by Peter Quennell
The kindly but very sharp Judge Massei apparently has contracted pneumonia.
We wish him well. He is winning high praise for conducting a fair and very careful trial.
Court sessions are canceled for the rest of this week, and possibly for next week as well, which would mean the next trial session would be on September 14.
Below: Judge Massei and the jury at Meredith’s house 18 April. And Italy-based Andrea Vogt has a good overview of where things stand in the case right now.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Defense Experts Testimony: Daily Beast Posts The Most Detailed Report In English
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for the report by Barbie Nadeau on the disputatious knife and DNA-handling evidence..
[Coroner Torre and genetic expert Gino] testified that “Exhibit 36,” a knife found in Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade, cannot be the murder weapon. Torre showed pictures of Kercher’s wounds to the jury, then used a mannequin to demonstrate that this knife was too big to make two of the wounds in Kercher’s neck. He conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife….
Although Torre and Gino, who did not examine Kercher’s body, both testified that they saw no evidence that more than one person was involved in her murder, countless prosecution witnesses, including two coroners who did examine Kercher’s body, testified that the 47 cuts and bruises indicated that “more than two hands” were at work.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Trial: Italian Reporting On Autopsy Consultant Seems Brief And Unswayed
Posted by Peter Quennell
We had long been led to believe the testimony of Carlos Torre might be a blockbuster which could energize a lackluster defense.
Click above for the longest report of the day that we can find in Italian. Even ASCA’s report seems relatively brief and restrained. No sense of a breakthrough there.
ASCA reports that Mr Torre interpreted the wound pattern on Meredith to mean that a smaller knife was used for the final blow “with a blade of 8 cm which was partially extracted and plunged in at least 3 times”.
As the size of the wound is large, he claimed a repeated partial in-out action of the small knife, rather than blows from the larger kitchen knife with a blade of 16 cm found in the kitchen of Sollecito, on which traces of the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda Knox were found.
Also that the final blow occurred while Meredith was lying on her back, that there were no signs of three aggressors, that Meredith could not have cried out after the stab wounds, and that bloody footprints revealed under luminol were not the shape of Knox’s foot.
Mr Torre conceded under cross-examination that a wound of the size of the larger knife was also present, and he left the DNA evidence of Knox and Meredith on that larger knife unchallenged, thus undercutting his claim of a single perpetrator.
The prosecution team had presented extensive evidence that the bruise patterns and cut marks indicated that Meredith was kneeling face-down at the time. And that they all pointed to three attackers, rather than a single attacker wielding two knives with only one hand free both to hold her and to inflict bruises all over her body.
Judge Micheli in seeing most of the same evidence concluded in his report convicting Guede and sending the two to trial that a scream heard by witnesses in the houses above was probably Meredith’s last act before she was stabbed, not right after.
And last month, Sollecito’s defense team essentially went along with the prosecution experts’ claims for the autopsy and attack scenario, so for the first time the defense teams significantly differ.
Thankfully, besides being terse, the reporting was not very graphic, in this the most painful of all areas for those who mourn Meredith the most.