Source: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3164&p=156605&sid=6e219e5245bf16b082ff161baea55687
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 20:30:02
Document Index: 745719846

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 1', 'arts 2', 'arts 9', 'art-9', 'art-10', 'arts 9', 'art 11', 'art-11', 'art 12', 'art-12', 'art 13', 'art-13', 'art 12', 'art 14', 'art-14', 'art 14', 'art-14', 'art-14']

Injustice Anywhere • View topic - The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher
This series has been written by UK Barrister Fred Davies on the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly website.
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher
Part 1 was posted in December 2014 and is free on their website. The other parts have been posted weekly since then and are behind a pay wall but you can get a free two week trial and read them. It looks like he's spent a lot of time reading all the primary sources and dissecting the case. He hasn't posted his conclusions yet but it'll clearly be they're innocent and he makes Massei out to be a dunce.
Re: The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher
by MichaelB » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:51 am
Re Rudy Guede in Part 4:
Analysis and Evaluation – the forbidden reasoning The holding of a separate fast-track trial for Guede was to facilitate precisely what the Micheli Sentencing Report alluded to during the Court’s written judgment. It provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher; loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito who, by this time were suspected to be the chief architects of the attack. It is submitted that the combined circumstances, including the illicit interviews of Knox and Sollecito by the State Police had already contributed to a conscious or unconscious bias against Knox and Sollecito, which blinded the public, press and organs of the State to potential shortcomings in the motivations for the crime and/or the prosecution evidence which for convenience has been dubbed “the forbidden reasoning”.
Was Guede acting alone? – the Lone Wolf theory Early on in the investigation, the prosecution rejected the notion that Guede was unaccompanied by others (described as the “Lone Wolf theory”). The Micheli Report also rejected the same theory overlooking that its primary function was to decide whether Guede was guilty or not guilty. Instead, the Court was sucked into the question of Guede’s participation and culpability thereby examining in detail the evidence levelled against Knox and Sollecito leading ultimately to a flawed hypothesis. This supports the writer’s contention made earlier, that the holding of separate trials for co-accused was wrong in principle and in law because the prosecution were alleging that all three defendants committed the crime acting in concert.
by MichaelB » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:52 am
Re Curatolo in Part 5:
At no stage after making a statement to the authorities was Curatolo asked to identify/recognize the accused by way of some form of identification parade. It is significant that the first time Curatolo was asked formally to pick-out the accused was in court. Dock identifications are notoriously unreliable per se and in the case of Knox and Sollecito it was a near certainty that Curatolo would point to the two accused – bearing in mind their pictures had featured in the local and national press for some considerable time. English law generally disapproves of dock identifications and the reader is referred to case law beginning with R. v. Cartwright (1914) 10 Cr App R 219.
Although Sollecito had resided in Perugia on and off for several years, Knox had only resided there for the best part of six to eight weeks and had only been going out with Sollecito for eight days. Curatolo’s claim that he had seen the two accused together previously appears suspect. He certainly could not have seen them frequently in each other’s company. As will be established later, they were not in the piazzetta the previous day ie, October 31. The evidence also disclosed that many students frequented Piazza Grimana in the relevant time period and the chances of a convincing witness such as Curatolo being mistaken were all too apparent. These dangers have been highlighted time and again by English jurisprudential practice culminating in R. v. Turnbull [1976] 3 All ER 549. This explains why in England and Wales, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 together with the Codes of Practice, place fairly strict obligations on the police regarding eg, the recognition and identification of suspects; even where some form of identification procedure, at first blush, appears to serve no useful purpose (such as where the witness declares he knows the person concerned): see R. v. Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473, HL. The trial Court also neglected to examine more closely the date on which Curatolo purported to see Knox and Sollecito in the piazzetta. It is significant that in his statement he said there were “…a lot of masks, young people that were joking about, it was a holiday period…” Even if Curatolo had become confused as to the date, with so many young people being present in that location the chances of a mistaken identification was high. It is also noteworthy that when asked to describe hat the two defendants were wearing the best description Curatolo could muster was that both were wearing “dark clothes”.
by MichaelB » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:21 am
Just in case anyones wondering who Fred Davies is:
New to the Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates' Court Guide 2013 edition:
http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/butter/butter2013.htm
http://lexisweb.co.uk/guides/sources/ju ... aw-reports
Contributors - F.G. Davies , BA, Barrister Specialist editor
by anonshy » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:50 am
MichaelB wrote: This series has been written by UK Barrister Fred Davies on the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly website.
Part 1 was posted in December 2014. The other parts have been posted weekly since then. It looks like he's spent a lot of time reading all the primary sources and dissecting the case. He hasn't posted his conclusions yet but it'll clearly be they're innocent and he makes Massei out to be a dunce.
by Numbers » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:15 am
I haven't yet read all of these articles. They have some good analyses. I am troubled by the occasional important technical error in the write-up, some of which may be attributable to lack of review by a forensic expert. One striking error is the statement in part 8, as I read it, that "blood" was present on the blade of the kitchen knife either by 1) innocent contamination or 2) intentional contamination.
The error is that no blood was detected on the knife. The knife blade was tested 3 times for blood in 4 places, and the knife handle was tested 3 times for blood in 3 places. The junction was tested 1 time for blood in 2 places. This assumes Stefanoni indeed did test for blood 2 times at 7 places. We can be confident that Conti and Vecchiotti tested 1 time for blood in 9 places. IIUC, the knife blade was never tested for blood.
There is an allegation that a tiny amount (apparently about the amount in the volume of 1 or 2 cells) of Meredith Kercher's DNA was on the knife blade. [IIRC, the lab technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, did not claim that the alleged DNA came from blood, but asserted it was from solid tissue, and resided in a groove on the knife blade that she was unable to photograph and which, apparently, other persons have not been able to detect.] This tiny amount of DNA was quantified by a non-measurement using a Qubit fluorometer, which was not suited for the task: the actual reading was "too low" meaning no quantitative result was possible. A rough analogy would be to attempt to measure the size of an atom or molecule using a meter stick or desk ruler. {That is, trying to measure dimension of a millionth of a meter with an instrument only suitable for measuring a thousandth of a meter.} Thus, based upon an objective consideration, there may have been no DNA on the knife blade at all in this instance, and the DNA recorded later, after PCR amplification, may have resulted from laboratory contamination. The denial to the defense by the prosecution of the automatically-generated best evidence of the DNA profiles, the electronic data files, is consistent with the possibility that contamination was present in a number of DNA samples. DNA contamination was observed, contrary to the testimony of Stefanoni, in other quantification results which were obtained by RTqPCR.
ETA: Note editing to the text above to correct an error.
by Numbers » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:02 am
The error is that no blood was detected on the knife. IIUC, the knife blade was never tested for blood. There is an allegation that a tiny amount (apparently about the amount in the volume of 1 or 2 cells) of Meredith Kercher's DNA was on the knife blade. [IIRC, the lab technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, did not claim that the alleged DNA came from blood, but asserted it was from solid tissue, and resided in a groove on the knife blade that she was unable to photograph and which, apparently, other persons have not been able to detect.] This tiny amount of DNA was quantified by a non-measurement using a Qubit fluorometer, which was not suited for the task: the actual reading was "too low" meaning no quantitative result was possible. A rough analogy would be to attempt to measure the size of an atom or molecule using a meter stick or desk ruler. {That is, trying to measure dimension of a millionth of a meter with an instrument only suitable for measuring a thousandth of a meter.} Thus, based upon an objective consideration, there may have been no DNA on the knife blade at all in this instance, and the DNA recorded later, after PCR amplification, may have resulted from laboratory contamination. The denial to the defense by the prosecution of the automatically-generated best evidence of the DNA profiles, the electronic data files, is consistent with the possibility that contamination was present in a number of DNA samples. DNA contamination was observed, contrary to the testimony of Stefanoni, in other quantification results which were obtained by RTqPCR.
A correction supplied by Chris_Halkides on ISF:
To the best of my knowledge the knife was tested three times for blood, twice by Mrs. Stefanoni and once by Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti. In all cases it was negative. This is one of the strongest reasons for believing that the DNA that was observed was not actually present on the blade itself. How could one clean a knife of blood but not of DNA.
I just did a quick read of part 8 this morning. He does not discuss the additional alleles found on the clasp, unless I missed it.
Thank you for your correction: not only was the blade tested for blood, it was tested 3 times. It was tested 2 times by Patrizia Stefanoni, and 1 time by Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti. {If I write this enough times, I may be able to remember it!}
by Numbers » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:40 pm
I reread relevant sections of the C-V report. They performed a colorimetric presumptive test for blood using a TMB kit with test strips (Combur Test E). They tested all the locations identified by Stefanoni (locations A - G; A, D, and F on handle, B, C, E, and G on blade) and two additional ones. The additional locations H and I were on the line of contact between the blade and handle, on either side of the knife. The TMB test was negative for all locations. That is, there was no indication of any blood (human or non-human) on the knife. Furthermore, a cytological analysis was done for all locations, and there were no cells identified by cytocentrifugation of sample swatches followed by microscopy; plant starch granules and inorganic deposits were observed. (The starch granules are consistent with use in a kitchen for preparation of fruits and vegetables.)
by Numbers » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:50 pm
I have some additional concerns with Mr. Davies' write-up, besides the forensic details being mangled in places. There is at the beginning in Part 1 an issue of tone, IMO.
Amanda Marie Knox was born in Seattle, Washington State, USA, on July 9, 1987. She did well at school and won a partial scholarship to Seattle Preparatory High School, a fee-paying Jesuit school. She was keen on sport, particularly soccer, and her parents have always insisted that it was from her skills on the soccer field that she acquired the nickname “Foxy Knoxy”. What is certain is that she was using the Foxy Knoxy moniker on MySpace in 2007, by which time, she must have been well aware of its connotations, other than soccer skill.
In 2005, she was enrolled at the University of Washington, studying German, Italian and creative writing. While there, Knox had her only other brush with the law when, in June 2007, the Seattle Police issued her with a citation for hosting a party, at which the attendees were causing excessive noise and throwing rocks at passing cars. She incurred a $269 fine.
{Highlighting added to quote.}
I find the "Foxy Knoxy" reference puzzling as worded; perhaps I am naive as to the meanings of "foxy", so I looked it up online. Here are some results:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foxy
adjective, foxier, foxiest.
foxlike; cunning or crafty; slyly clever.
sexually appealing; attractive.
stylish; modish:
a foxy outfit.
discolored or foxed:
pages of a book that had become foxy.
(especially of a painting) having excessively warm tones; containing too much red.
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meanin ... on-of/foxy
attractive. Usually used only to describe females.
So the connotation of attractive, or sexually attractive, seems hinted at by Mr. Davies as if this were a negative indication of personality. This seems IMO to be taking the online use of a rhyming nickname way too seriously.
My second issue is the repetition of the claim that, in addition to noise, there was rock-throwing at cars at the June, 2007 party. IIUC, there was only a noise violation indicated on the ticket, and the rock-throwing was a fabrication or myth. The ticket issue to Amanda states "Res Noise" which I interpret to mean residential noise violation; the violation code is SMC 25.08.505. There is no mention of rock-throwing. I suspect that rock-throwing at cars would be a possible criminal offense, not to be addressed by the equivalent of a traffic ticket.
It is not clear to me that Mr. Davies has used citations to document his write-up.
by Annella » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:30 pm
Rock throwing did happen as mentioned in a letter read to the Court from the issuing officer. But as you say, there was no fine involved.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/20 ... nox-trial/
by Numbers » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:57 pm
Annella wrote: Rock throwing did happen as mentioned in a letter read to the Court from the issuing officer. But as you say, there was no fine involved.
Annella, thanks. Was Amanda involved in the rock throwing?
by Annella » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:39 am
Nope. She knew nothing about it.
by MichaelB » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:04 am
If you try and access parts 2-8 through the website it wants you to subscribe but if you click through google anyone can read.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-GB& ... 20&bih=933
by MichaelB » Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:00 pm
Parts 9 and 10 from his series have been posted.
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-%E2%80%93-Part-9
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-%E2%80%93-Part-10
by Strozzi » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:21 pm
I read the police report. Police received a call from a neighbor regarding loud music and rocks being thrown. Officer went to location. Officer arrived and heard loud music. Because complainant said people were throwing rocks, officer specifically looked for and observed several rocks in the street. No indication that participants at the party were themselves through rocks, or even that the several rocks in the street had gotten there that evening or by being thrown. Officer ticketed house occupant holding the party. The complainant informed police when he/she made call that he/she did not want to be contacted, so officer was not able to confirm claim that it was participants at this house who were throwing rocks, or that rocks were in fact thrown that night.
Complainants calling police on minor issues may feel police will not take the complaint seriously enough and/or may not respond quickly enough. So complaints occasionally exaggerate the activity to get a quicker or more serious police response. Bothered by teenahpgers making noise in a backyard pool at 10 pm? Tell the cops that they are making noise and that the house's occupants are out of town, implying that whoever is in the pool may be tresspassers. That will get a faster police car response.
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:34 am
by Numbers » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:26 pm
MichaelB wrote: Parts 9 and 10 from his series have been posted.
These links lead to a paywall or 404 page not found.
by Numbers » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:28 pm
Strozzi wrote:
I read the police report. Officer responded to a complaint made by a neighbor. Officer heard loud music. Because complainant said people were throwing rocks, officer specifically looked for and observed several rocks in the street. No indication that participants at the party were themselves through rocks, or even that the several rocks in the street had gotten there that evening or by being thrown. Officer ticketed house occupant holding the party.
Complainants calling police on minor issues may feel police will not take the complaint seriously enough and/or may not respond quickly enough. So complaints occasionally exaggerate the activity to get a quicker or more serious police response. Teenagers making noise in a backyard pool at 10 pm? Tell the cops that they are making noise and that the house's occupants are out of town, implying that whoever is in the pool may be tresspassers. That will get a faster police car response.
There was no actual evidence that anyone from the party was throwing rocks or that Amanda had any knowledge of any rock throwing. If the alleged rock-throwing was real and a concern, one would suppose the neighbor or the police would have documented this more thoroughly, perhaps with photographs. Where would the rocks have come from? Some times pavement or curb crumbles due to weather and fragments can be observed in the street; no one has thrown these "rocks".
by Kaosium » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:37 pm
This is a great series Michael, thanks for posting it.
by Hans » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:42 pm
site:criminallawandjustice.co.uk "The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher"
by MichaelB » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:15 am
Part 11 is out.
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-%E2%80%93-Part-11
https://www.google.com/search?q=amanda+ ... rt=30&sa=N
The finding against Sollecito that it was he who inflicted two of the three wounds to Meredith Kercher using a pocket knife which was in his possession at the material time is deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law. It could not have been part of the prosecution case that Sollecito used a pocket knife to subdue and stab Meredith Kercher. If it had, why was Sollecito and/or Knox not charged with carrying the said pocket knife without justified reason? To recapitulate, the charge alleged that the killing was achieved by means of strangulation with consequent fracture of the hyoid bone, and deep lesions to the left anterior-lateral and right-lateral regions of the neck, caused by a bladed weapon (Exhibit 36) (my emphasis). The reader is referred to Section 5 supra. The Massei Court’s finding strikes against basic principles of fairness which applies to all criminal proceedings. Put another way, a criminal court is not generally entitled to bring in a verdict which differs markedly from the basis on which the prosecution puts its case. This is because the defence would not be able to adequately prepare and meet such an unexpected contingency. In plain English, the defence would be ambushed or taken by surprise. In this case, the defence were ambushed and the defendants’ rights (Knox and Sollecito) were fundamentally infringed.
To infer that Sollecito had a pocket knife at Via della Pergola 7 on the fateful evening of November 1-2, based on the character evidence of four witnesses called for the defence, was to say the least highly unusual. Their descriptions as to the make and dimensions of the knife varied. Even if Sollecito was present at the scene of the crime (as distinct from being complicit), the Court could not have been sure that any pocket knife in his possession, which incidentally was never recovered, had inflicted all or some of the injuries, the most cogent rationale being: (1) The prosecution could not prove the dimensions and character of the knife were consistent with the injuries inflicted upon Meredith Kercher. (2) The Court paid scant regard to the totality of expert opinion as to the type of bladed weapon (or weapons) which had been used to stab the victim. (3) The Court paid scant regard to the dimensions of the bloody outline of a knife found on Meredith’s pillow. (4) Consequently, the Court could not have been sure that any pocket knife and, a fortiori, Exhibit 36 (the Double DNA Knife) had been used to stab Meredith that fateful night.
Consistent with English law, the Massei Court’s findings should be struck down as Wednesbury unreasonable. Where there is no evidence to support a finding of a court or the court has reached a conclusion which is irrational or perverse, in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, a conviction based on that part of the evidence cannot be sustained: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] I KB 223. The Massei Court also appears to have violated article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial).
Turning to the “Double DNA Knife”, eight of the experts agreed that the wounds caused to the right side of Meredith’s neck could not have been caused by the sequestered knife for a multitude of reasons. This conclusion left only one of two hypotheses: Either there was only one knife or there were at least two different knives used to subdue and kill Meredith. The other expert, Professor Vinci focused his attention on the bloody outline left on Meredith’s bedsheet. What we know is that the bloody outline was left by a knife with a blade 11.3cm long or a knife with a blade 9.6cm long and a handle 1.7cm long. These measurements were incompatible therefore with either Exhibit 36 or the pocket knife length which supposedly inflicted the wounds as the Massei Report maintained. Contrary to the Massei Court hypothesis therefore we are left with three knives! The latent contradiction here is that if all three accused were present (as alleged) Guede must have been armed as well, but that is not what the Micheli Court found. One can deduce that the totality of the expert evidence is more consistent with one knife being used to subdue and stab the victim (see Professor Vinci’s hypothesis supra).
And if that were not enough, of the eight experts who gave evidence on the point, two (Dr Liviero and Professor Bacci) opined that Exhibit 36 could have caused the fatal wound to Meredith’s left side; Professor Norelli could not rule out exhibit 36 caused the fatal wound; Professor Ronchi’s opinion is not clear due to the use of the “double negative” (non-incompatibility) – it will be assumed he supported the prosecution contention; but in any event all the remaining four experts (Professors Introna, Torre, Cingolani and Dr Patumi) opined that Exhibit 36 could be ruled out as the weapon that caused the fatal wound to the left side of Meredith’s neck.
Bearing in mind the burden and standard of proof one is left wondering how the Massei Court reached the conclusion that it did? The problem was, aside from the unconscious bias syndrome (the forbidden reasoning), Massei was looking at the case through rose-tinted glasses. By a flawed process of deduction it had erroneously found that the case against Knox and Sollecito was cogent. The reality was that nothing could be further from the truth. On this aspect of the case one can speculate as to whether the prosecution had actually been able to satisfy the civil standard (proof on a balance of probabilities) never mind the criminal standard (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). As the writer has already demonstrated, therefore, Exhibit 36 was not the weapon or one of the weapons used to subdue and murder Meredith Kercher.
And one final thought. If the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) were sufficiently compos mentis to dispose of the pocket knife (as well as the mobile phones), why did they not dispose of Exhibit 36? By a process of deduction and logical synthesis, the answer is plain of all to see: Exhibit 36 never left Corso Garibaldi and was not the murder weapon.
That concludes the author’s detailed examination of the trial of Knox and Sollecito. A summary of the author’s conclusions regarding all three accused, together with the outcome of their appeal hearings is to be found towards the end of this work (Summation and Conclusions).
by MichaelB » Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:12 am
Part 12: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Brutal-Killing-of-Meredith-Kercher-Part-12.docx
Part 13: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Brutal-Killing-of-Meredith-Kercher-Part-13.docx
End of Part 12: "The concession made by Meredith’s lawyers regarding his assistance to Meredith in her last moments (given the barbaric attack and the absence of human compassion) ought not to have been made."
"The author’s overriding impression is that far too much weight was attached to Guede’s version of events; those pre-trial declarations did not constitute evidence which was admissible against Knox and Sollecito. As indicated previously, to constitute probative testimony, Guede had to give evidence on oath, both at his own trial (Micheli) and that of Knox and Sollecito (Massei), to guard against fabrication and to ensure that his account was properly tested."
by MichaelB » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:47 am
Part 14: http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-%E2%80%93-Part-14
by LondonSupporter » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:02 am
MichaelB wrote: Part 14: http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-%E2%80%93-Part-14
by MichaelB » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:18 am
Sure thing. If the link doesn't work try this: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Brutal-Killing-of-Meredith-Kercher-Part-14.docx